From carodave92 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 00:02:57 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:02:57 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157697 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > Eddie: > In PoA, Chapter "Marauder's Map", Hagrid says that Sirius Black > lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and said he (Sirius) wouldn't need any > anymore. > > Why? > > Eddie > Carodave: Sirius gave Hagrid his motorbike at Godric's HOllow after discovering the bodies of James and Lily (and baby Harry). Sirius knew that Peter had betrayed the Potters and he was going to find Peter and probably kill him to avenge them. He probably expected to be either dead or in Azkaban at the end of the night. WHich turned out to be accurate, but not for the reason expected... Carodave From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 1 00:26:55 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:26:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? References: Message-ID: <004901c6cd5d$551dd970$d298400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157698 > Alla: > I am just not understanding how Draco wanting to be a man dissappears > from "cabinet came first" addition to the story. It is not like we > can say for sure what **exactly** Draco views as being a man, no? Magpie: It's not up to us to say what Draco views as being a man. The story has set up the situation to which Draco is reacting--so it's telling us what it means. Sure you can still do a "Draco wants to be a man" story if he goes to Voldmort first, but you have to write that story and that's going to define the context in which he's becoming a man, and give him the situation he's reacting to. That's what happens the way it's written now and why you can't just stick that onto this story, because you start one story and then suddenly, because Voldemort throws Draco for a loop, he changes and starts this other story. Also, as an aside, the Cabinet First story has Draco *beginning* the story by committing the act that now is the big climax--and it gives it a different kind of weight as well. If Draco goes to Voldemort and gives him the secret way into Hogwarts, it's done. His personal fixing of the cabinet and being the one to do it is redundant. In this story it's fine, because the Cabinet plot is simply Draco's way of doing the job that Voldemort gave him to do any way he could. If the doorway into Hogwarts is so valuable to LV himself because it gives him a strategic evil victory, then Draco's already handed it to him by telling him about it. Just as Snape's telling LV about the prophecy is enough to implicate him in LV's plot to kill Harry. So in the Cabinet First plot we've got two transformation stories, one entirely off-page. You've got the one where Draco starts out with all the motivation that gets him to Voldemort--an incredibly huge thing for this character to do--this isn't going to Filch to snitch. That's a lot of steam to get him in front of the guy. But then Voldemort says "Great plan--you fix it, and kill DD too!" (This is somehow supposed to be more rational for Voldemort because it's all about the great strategic goal of getting into the school, though it's completely undercut by then actually counting on Draco to make it work as opposed to just trying to kill him, and ultimately it's done in a totally half-arsed way on LV's part.) If Draco was never expecting he'd have to fix the cabinet or kill anyone, then there was a bit of an "Oh s*** moment for him when Voldmort said "You do it and kill DD." It suggests this is not something Draco wanted. By the beginning of the book that we get, he's convinced himself this task is a good thing, a way to prove himself. So we're not just talking about some practical details taking place off stage to explain whether Draco took the bus to see LV or LV came over for dinner, we're talking about a transformation beat or sequence where Draco goes from "Ha ha, I'll show that Harry Potter. I'll give Voldemort this plan and he'll use it against Harry without my having to do anything!" to "I've been given a dangerous murder mission and it is a chance for glory that Voldemort has given me." So Draco has now either decided it is a good thing he was given this task when he originally didn't want it, or he considers it a good thing from the moment LV tells it to him. That fits more what we see. The task from Voldemort seems to always be presented as a good thing from Draco's pov for the first few chapters of the book. If being given this task is an honor, something we hear Draco thinks it is and something Draco says it is himself, there's really no reason for Draco to change motivations at all yet in the Cabinet First Plot. His going to LV was a success--LV loved the plan. And then he even made it Draco's plan and rewarded him with the chance to do something else. It's even more of a success than Draco expected. In terms of character logic, Draco should begin the book already having had a triumph with his motivation intact and visible--frankly, I'm surprised Spinner's End isn't abuzz that Draco's even done this audacious thing of going to LV and getting some assignement (even if they don't know what he went to LV with)--this would not only be a hard thing to keep secret, but something LV probably wouldn't keep secret. Competition amongst DEs is a good thing (another reason Draco would reference it to Snape in their argument). But even skipping Spinner's End it would have a major affect on Draco in the train car. Why talk about proving himself to LV and being given something he can do? He's already impressed LV with his clever plan. He should already have a little glory, some hints that he's proven himself invaluable to LV. Also his plan (for this is all Draco's plan now--Draco's plan is getting revenge on Harry by helping LV) is working. If revenge against Harry was enough to get him to Voldemort, it shouldn't just evaporate because the plan actually looks like it might work. The nose-stomping is just a taste of things to come. Desire for revenge has served Draco well so far. Yet one of the unique things about this book is that this year--the year that allegedly Draco is working on a huge revenge plot against Harry--he doesn't care about Harry. Harry gets no vibes of this major burn Draco is planning in response to Harry throwing his Dad in prison. Once things go sour, that motivation has to go sour with it. "If I don't do it, he'll kill me" can still be there, of course. But how do you forget to write that this is a hunter turning out to be hunted story? As written the story is strong and consistent. We know from the beginning, from Narcissa, that Draco is being set up. We know from Bellatrix that Draco sees this set up as a chance to prove himself. We do need, imo, to ultimately know whether Draco knows he's been tricked, and we do. In the Tower scene Draco reveals that he does know by that point that he was expected to die. JKR is hitting all the bullet points in that Tower. So you've got a character with a strong motivation--the motivation the Cabinet First theory concentrates on for Draco is all OotP (Voldmort's motivations are more often discussed). To me it seems clear as day that Draco's OotP motivations are dealt with by the author on their own, first with the slug-hexing and then with the nose stomp. She hasn't forgotten them. She's just given them their own closure and then channelled everything about the character into this new situation. So there's the practical difficulties relating to basic storytelling, that if this is part of the set up of Draco's situation it'd be in there. Then there's the basic storytelling skill of knowing that you start with your problem and have to deal with that naturally-that's going to dictate the story and the character's behavior. It's not just making it fit with timelines, it's making it a coherent story as well. Voldemort's turnaround on Draco should be all through the text. Ironically, also, a lot of the reasons why the Cabinet First theory is supposed to make more sense is that Draco is so unimportant a person Voldemort shouldn't be wasting time on him. (I refrain from opening that out onto a meta argument.) It makes no sense that LV would ever seek him out, that he'd waste even the time it takes to kill him. Yet canon itself has already anticipated that and answered it with the Malfoy Revenge plot. Draco isn't being counted on by LV, LV didn't have to go looking for him, he is unimportant to LV--these are all reasons why this is happening, not reasons it shouldn't. The theme of Draco's life for Book VI is how truly expendable he is while he's fighting to prove he isn't--and he actually does prove it, not just to DEs by getting them into the castle, but to himself, which is why he's finally able to listen to Dumbledore's wisdom and offer. > Steve: >> My theory brings Voldemort and Draco together. I suspect >> Draco thought he would pass the Cabinet information to >> Voldemort and gain the bragging rights of having personally >> helped the Dark Lord. But Voldemort has deeper, darker, and >> more desperate ideas, and so begins the start of the printed >> page. Magpie: And that's the problem. The basic logic of storytelling says this stuff goes on the printed page. Even the way you've written it here it's obviously narration, as juicy as any other story dropped into canon. It should be all over canon, but it's nowhere to be found. Though I'm happy to say there is this other story in canon that's all on the page and that I actually think is better.:-) -m From juli17 at aol.com Fri Sep 1 01:23:39 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:23:39 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157699 > > Anna: > I'm not sure if I should really jump in on this runaway train but if > I recall, on the tower Draco tells Dumbledore that he came up with > the cabinet idea by himself and that no one knew what he was doing? > He resorted to using the necklace and wine because he did not > believe he could fix the cabinet and was getting desperate. Don't > you think that if Voldemort knew he was trying to fix the cabinet > and failing at it...holding up the task..he would have contacted him > in some way, punished him in some way? > > I think JKR made it fairly obvious that Voldemort gave Draco this > task as revenge on Lucius for failing him because he did not intend > him to succeed-we know he is evil and would see Lucius losing his > son as just punishment for losing him the prophecy. I don't think > Draco told anyone about the cabinet until it was fixed and he knew > he could use it for sure. So therefore, the cabinet could not have > come first. This argument could go on for an eternity...which came > first "the chicken or the egg"......or at least until book 7 comes > out. > Julie: Great points, Anna. This is my first foray into the What Came First: Task or Cabinet?" debate also, and I do agree with you. I don't see any evidence that Voldemort is aware of or behind fixing the cabinet. If he knew of its existence, you'd think he would have assigned someone a lot more reliable than Draco to work on it! And what about Draco's first two attempts on Dumbledore's life? If it is all about the cabinet, and getting the DEs in as his "back up", then why is Draco bothering to make these attempts on Dumbledore's life, and on his own no less. Wouldn't the ineptness of it all annoy Voldemort a great deal? And we know Voldemort isn't very nice when he's annoyed (you know, as opposed to when he's not annoyed...erm, yeah...) Anyway, if Voldemort knew about the cabinet all along, it seems to me he'd have additional priorities besides killing Dumbledore, as this is his chance to get in and take over Hogwarts. (Which begs the question why he sent a band of second-stringers through cabinet with Draco, when he could have sent a truly powerful force--in fact he could have gone himself--and actually taken over the school. Just another unanswerable question, I suppose ;-) The faith version it seems to me is that Draco is making legitimate attempts on Dumbledore's life the first two times, albeit inept and half-hearted attempts. Clearly his main goal is to kill Dumbledore, which relegates the cabinet to second priority. *If* he can get it working, so much the better. If not, well, he still has to complete his real task and kill Dumbledore. Hence the sleeplessness, the tears to Myrtle, etc. Not because he can't get the cabinet fixed, but because he is steadily realizing he can't kill Dumbledore, and even getting the cabinet fixed is not going to change that fact. It's simply going to force him finally into the face-to-face situation against Dumbledore that he desperately tried to avoid in his previous and deliberately distanced attempts. (If he can't even make a decent go at it from an anonymous distance, how will he ever succeed when he has to look the man in the face? He won't, he knows it, and he's steadily falling apart because of it.) IMO, Julie From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 01:26:57 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:26:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157700 > > Renee: > > > > Lupin's still on JKR's list of favourite characters on her website. > > What seems to have disappeared from the site (unless I did a really > > bad search) is the question who she'd like to have dinner with, to > > which the answer was Lupin. But AFAIK this was never a list. > >Pippin: >JKR, Edinburgh Book Festival 2004 >"If I could meet anyone, I might choose Lupin. I really like him. " > >JKR, An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp 2006 >(asked which five characters she would invite to dinner) > >"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. " > >So there is an A-list, so to speak, (an A-list is Hollywood slang >for a group of the most desirable people to invite) and Lupin's not on it. >I thought there was a quote where JKR said she'd like to have Lupin >to dinner but I can't find it either. > >I can't access the video of New York events-- can anyone tell if Lupin >is one of the characters the crowd suggested? wynnleaf I just watched it the other day. Try msn. Anyway, my impression was that she first said Harry, Ron and Hermione and then commented, after it was taking her some time to think of the rest, that she was the one who knew who lived and who died -- as though she was trying to pick characters still "alive." Another writer said she could list dead characters, too. After that she mentioned Dumbledore -- I think primarily because she had just said he was dead a few minutes earlier, and because she was trying to use a known dead character. Then she thought a moment and added Hagrid. But I think primarily she was trying to think of a "save" character to choose and she'd earlier that evening said if she could bring any character to life it would be Hagrid. So the fact that she didn't mention Lupin doesn't mean much. However, remember that she's said several times that Snape was her favorite character to write and she once called him -- I think the words were, "a gift of a character." Yet her liking him as a character didn't get in the way of her making him mean. So I think she can "like" Lupin and still make him weak and possibly weak enough to betray people. After all, as far as Lupin knew, he *was* betraying Dumbledore, the Hogwarts staff, and the students by allowing a supposed known murderer and spy of Voldemort's to gain access to the castle and threaten lives, without telling anyone how he was doing it. Just remember, her liking Lupin didn't stop her from having him betray the trust of Dumbledore, the staff and the students. If she did it once, she could do it again. wynnleaf >Pippin > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 01:55:47 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:55:47 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157701 Magpie: I'm relating the events of the book. You claimed that when Draco made the attempts to kill DD with the necklace and poison it was half-hearted because he was "more interested in the cabinets." You then said that this was because he had yet to actually be informed of his actual mission, that mission being to kill DD. Which unravels the plot, because that's the mission Snape has agreed to do if Draco fails at it--and it's also what Draco is trying to do with the poison and the necklace. If he hasn't been informed of his real mission of killing DD and is just fixing the cabinet, he wouldn't be trying to kill DD in alternate ways. It also veers away from the central act of the story, which is committing murder and splitting the soul. It replaces the character's emotional arc, which is what it leads to in the book (ending with the choice) and which is talked about and dramatized in the book with a series of complications external both to Draco and to the text. The whole conversation at the end with Dumbledore is about exactly how Draco's heart wasn't in it and why. He's not a killer. Snow: Ok I see where you are going. You defiantly are a person who believes what Faith has to say, the problem is sometimes Faith can be a bit tricky and make a person believe something as confirmed, when it really hasn't been. You see, at Spinner's End, Snape never agreed to killing Dumbledore if Draco failed to, Snape agreed to "carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform". Wording is everything with JKR. We will naturally assume that what was meant by this particular wording was to kill Dumbledore since that is what inevitably happened but you can never be totally certain because this is where the author can make her twist. (Leading you to the obvious conclusion is Faith's diversion) To truly understand what I'm attempting to get across to you, you would have to open your mind and allow suspicion to enter. Be suspicious of Faith and question wording that could also be interpreted with another suggestion, a twisty outcome, like what we have been proposing (although this suggestion isn't all conclusive, there are others). Some of the unanswered questions in HBP, for instance are, why Snape not only voluntarily took the vow but actually initiated it; why was Snape asleep when the castle is in an uproar and Dumbledore is out leaving The Order in charge in his stead? Snape is part of the Order, why was he sleeping or feigning sleep another good unanswered question that was not satisfied. Ok, try this on for a possible substitute for the `plan' Narcissa speaks of; Draco is to find a way in which to penetrate the castle so that his deatheaters can dispose of Dumbledore. This actually fits because Narcissa would still be concerned for her baby if he failed this plan; Snape could honestly take the vow without hesitation, because Dumbledore could allow the castle protected entry; and it would be the answer as to why Snape was sleeping instead of on watch like the rest of the Order Was he expecting company? This would also fit with Draco's secret obsession with the cabinets and why Draco's attempt at killing Dumbledore with the necklace or mead was a bust or as Dumbledore put it, "your heart wasn't in it". You see Faith can be as wrong as Sirius being the bad guy or Mad Eye Moody being good in GOF and yet most of us fell for the trap. There is entrapment in the books, which is why they are so damned good but it is, more often than naught, Faith who leads us into the trap. I finally learned with OOP, after several attempts of throwing the book against the wall and refusing to read further (for several minutes) to simply accept that JKR has her answer and I have to be open to it. You know this thread has made me recall a likewise thread before HBP when people were totally debating Dumbledore's possible abusive behavior by leaving Harry with the Dursley's. So many were quite sure that Dumbledore had actions he could have taken other than leave him with the Dursley's and yet no matter how many of us proposed what became the eventual outcome that it was Dumbledore's only and best choice, Faith intervened in her magical way and convinced so many that Dumbledore was cruel to leave Harry with them. As this thread is similar to what I've just spoke of, I might agree that its outcome will be similar and that no matter how hard any of us may try only Faith will be able to enlighten you in the end. Snow From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 01:59:02 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:59:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Emtional satisfaction and traitors was Re: ACID POPS and Tee In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157702 > > > Sydney: > > > > > > Actually, I do think Pippin is wasting her time with ESE Lupin, > > > because I think there's a reason so few people hold that theory. > > > Because it's not emotionally satisfying. If it WAS emotionally > > > satisfying, there would be a lot more people on that bandwagon. > > > wynnleaf What exactly do you mean by emotionally satisfying? My impression, having read people's thoughts here and also introduced the theory on the Lexicon Forum, is that people like Lupin so much that the reaction is basically, "oh no! It *can't* be!" JKR's big challenge, if she were to make Lupin a traitor, would be to make the readers satisfied with discovering his treachery and not feel betrayed. But let's not pretend that's totally impossible. After all, I think most readers liked the fake/Moody of GOF, up until we suddenly discovered he was evil. But once we knew he was evil, we could see how his actions toward Harry -- as supportive and mentoring as they had appeared at first -- were really for ulterior nasty motives. All of the sudden, we readers were perfectly okay with Crouch/Moody as the villian. If JKR has Lupin as a villian, she'd probably show us ways in which his nice and supportive demeanor was a sham. Or she'd show us perhaps that in spite of truly caring for members of the Order, he was conflicted with an equal loyalty to friends among the werewolves. Don't forget, she showed us Lupin effectively betraying the trust of Dumbledore, the staff, and the students already. He was sorry and we forgave him. But suppose she showed us Lupin once again betraying the trust given him -- only this time he wasn't fortunate enough to discover that the evil one who he betrayed trust in order to help was really a good guy, but was evil after all. In other words, regardless how much we liked Lupin in POA, what would we have thought of him if he'd been protecting Pettigrew instead? See what I mean? JKR *can* change the reader's viewpoint. It might be difficult, especially after the POA film. She kept Lupin somewhat in the forefront in OOTP and HBP, but he doesn't have a great deal of time in either, nor does the character go through much development. He remains much the same, other than the addition of the Tonks relationship which has not yet been fleshed out. So while the idea of Lupin as traitor may seem unsatisfying prior to Book 7, it's entirely possible that JKR could turn that around in the last book, prior to making any big revelations. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Get the new Windows Live Messenger! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 02:55:20 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:55:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608311955q46e8091dk1b2a990086f35869@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157703 > Betsy Hp: > The canon version has a good reason for Voldemort to seek out Draco, > and his plan is incredibly coherent with a high amusement value. > (Which is all the plan is supposed to have as per canon.) Random832: Stop calling it "the canon version" - that's incredibly arrogant of you. All we have from canon is that Narcissa believes it to be the case. Snape doesn't even confirm it. And knowing JKR, we know that doesn't mean it's true. -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 03:09:22 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:09:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608311955q46e8091dk1b2a990086f35869@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50608311955q46e8091dk1b2a990086f35869@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608312009hc901c8es7085093f575d9210@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157704 > > Betsy Hp: > > The canon version has a good reason for Voldemort to seek out Draco, > > and his plan is incredibly coherent with a high amusement value. > > (Which is all the plan is supposed to have as per canon.) > > Random832: > Stop calling it "the canon version" - that's incredibly arrogant of > you. All we have from canon is that Narcissa believes it to be the > case. Snape doesn't even confirm it. And knowing JKR, we know that > doesn't mean it's true. I was annoyed and tired, so I didn't word this response as well as I might have - but the point remains that there are a lot of things that aren't actually canon, that one or more characters _in_ canon may believe to be the case, and accepting these at face value is tempting. But the fact is, we're _not_ told who went to who, we're not told why Voldemort is doing this, and, most of all (I'm not sure if anyone has picked up on this) We're not told what task Voldemort ordered Draco to complete. As far as I know, it's never actually stated "Voldemort ordered Draco to kill Dumbledore" or "Voldemort ordered Draco to fix the vanishing cabinet to infiltrate the school" or "Voldemort ordered Draco to wear pink underwear every day for the whole term". Even those of us who were aware of all the misdirection that JKR engages in regularly didn't pick up on this - I didn't pick up on it myself until my mind wandered to the subject in the course of reading this thread in a sleep-deprived state. All the little bits of misdirection, even though some of us saw through them (and not necessarily saying what's implied to be true is false, just that it's not known to be true), were themselves a distraction from the big one - our belief that we know that Draco was ordered to kill Dumbledore. -- Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 03:22:14 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:22:14 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157705 > > Alla: > > > I am just not understanding how Draco wanting to be a man dissappears > > from "cabinet came first" addition to the story. It is not like we > > can say for sure what **exactly** Draco views as being a man, no? > > Magpie: > It's not up to us to say what Draco views as being a man. The story has set > up the situation to which Draco is reacting--so it's telling us what it > means. Sure you can still do a "Draco wants to be a man" story if he goes > to Voldmort first, but you have to write that story and that's going to > define the context in which he's becoming a man, and give him the situation > he's reacting to. Alla: Mmmm, I was responding to your statement ( or the way I understood it) that if Draco went to Voldemort that means that he was being a child asking grown ups to do a job for him and what I am saying is that we do not know what is in Draco's head and maybe he was viewing offering such smart plan to Voldemort as being a man. Magpie: > Also, as an aside, the Cabinet First story has Draco *beginning* the story > by committing the act that now is the big climax--and it gives it a > different kind of weight as well. If Draco goes to Voldemort and gives him > the secret way into Hogwarts, it's done. His personal fixing of the cabinet > and being the one to do it is redundant. Alla: Aha. **Now** we are talking. Finally I am beginning to understand how "cabinet comes first" indeed interferes with the heart of the story which I am indeed buying. See, for the longest time I could not comprehend what profound effect the addition of the cabinet comes first does and thank you for finally pointing that. Indeed it does seem more than technical addition. Magpie: In this story it's fine, because > the Cabinet plot is simply Draco's way of doing the job that Voldemort gave > him to do any way he could. If the doorway into Hogwarts is so valuable to > LV himself because it gives him a strategic evil victory, then Draco's > already handed it to him by telling him about it. Just as Snape's telling > LV about the prophecy is enough to implicate him in LV's plot to kill Harry. Alla: Sorry, lost me again, especially lost me with the analogy to Snape. Yeah, telling LV about prophecy to me is more than enough to implicate Snape in Potters murders, without Snape that would not have ever started. Draco telling LV about entrance to Hogwarts **would be** enough to me to implicate him, yes. But I see how that would be anticlimatic story wise, heeee. Magpie: > So in the Cabinet First plot we've got two transformation stories, one > entirely off-page. You've got the one where Draco starts out with all the > motivation that gets him to Voldemort--an incredibly huge thing for this > character to do--this isn't going to Filch to snitch. Alla: Nah, sorry not buying. Draco is supposedly growing up with those guys, they are his dad's palls and why is it supposed to be a huge thing for his character to do? I mean, sure, Voldemort is sort of one step up, but DE circles is Draco's circles IMO. And Greyback is family friend or as Betsy said we are now doubting this piece of canon? If I may ask why? Because Draco cannot really be friends with this erm... person? Just joking, but do want to know if you also think that this is untrue. Magpie: That's a lot of steam > to get him in front of the guy. Alla: As I said I don't think so - just to go and approach his daddy's boss, that's all. :) Magpie: But then Voldemort says "Great plan--you > fix it, and kill DD too!" Alla: Heeee. Magpie: > If Draco was never expecting he'd have to fix the cabinet or kill anyone, > then there was a bit of an "Oh s*** moment for him when Voldmort said "You > do it and kill DD." It suggests this is not something Draco wanted. By the > beginning of the book that we get, he's convinced himself this task is a > good thing, a way to prove himself. Alla: Wait, wait you are contradicting yourself, I think. In your story if Draco was never expecting that he'd have to to kill anybody or fix cabinet, he would have been surprised to find out that this is not what he wanted, correct? But in canon, just as you said Draco is bragging about the task, he is happy, so doesn't it suggest that *Oh sh*t moment* had not happened yet ,meaning that it is likely that Draco approached Voldemort? MY head sooooo hurts again :) Magpie: So we're not just talking about some > practical details taking place off stage to explain whether Draco took the > bus to see LV or LV came over for dinner, we're talking about a > transformation beat or sequence where Draco goes from "Ha ha, I'll show that > Harry Potter. I'll give Voldemort this plan and he'll use it against Harry > without my having to do anything!" to "I've been given a dangerous murder > mission and it is a chance for glory that Voldemort has given me." Alla: And why this transformation could not have happened? Say Draco brought that plan, Voldemort gives him this mission and Draco evaluated his glory and got more happier in progress? Magpie: > So Draco has now either decided it is a good thing he was given this task > when he originally didn't want it, or he considers it a good thing from the > moment LV tells it to him. That fits more what we see. The task from > Voldemort seems to always be presented as a good thing from Draco's pov for > the first few chapters of the book. Alla: Erm... if Draco brings plan to Voldemort that does not mean necessarily that Draco does not want to kill DD, IMO. That means that Draco did not **think** about killing DD, and if he did he may have embraced that right away, so voldemort puts this thought in Draco's head and Draco indeed thinks it is a very good thing. Where is contradiction of this speculation with canon? Magpie: > In terms of character logic, Draco should > begin the book already having had a triumph with his motivation intact Alla: Yeah, and he does sort of has this triumph on the train, no? > Betsy Hp: > Actually, I'd say it's very much *not* in character for Draco to > seek out Voldemort. He's never taken such an active role in the > past. Never. He prefers to make up clever songs, or create silly > buttons than get actively involved. Alla: He also rather actively seeks Buckbeak death and Hagrid being fired, but of course the stakes are raising with every book and Draco did not have a chance to seek anything of that caliber, there is always a first time. I just don't see the passivity as his character trait, IMO. >> Betsy Hp: > But the entire theme of Draco's story in HBP is that he feels he > *has no choice*. Draco says this time and again. Alla: I don't seem to remember that he says that on the train at all. Seems perfectly happy to me with the choice to enter LV service, IMHO. Yes, that becomes his theme, or I would rephrase it as "took in his mouth more than he could chew" theme. Betsy Hp: > The canon has this rather elegant story where a naive child is > chosen by Evil to do an evil deed. The child did not choose to > become evil, but Evil has selected him and the child cannot choose > differently. Or at least, so Evil would have the child believe. Alla: Does Draco mindset on the train not counts **at all*? Yes, he just does not know that he never had the way out, but as far as I am concerned whether he approached Voldemort or Voldemort approached him ( and yes, I am much in favor of Voldemort choosing him), Draco made a choice of evil by himself, hopefully he saw where it leads, hopefully. Betsy Hp: > Steve's version has it that the child has *already chosen*. So > Dumbledore's offer, Good's offer, is empty. Draco cannot choose > *against* Evil because he's already chosen *for* it. Alla: He sounded as if he already chosen on the train to me. That is another thing where I don't see much difference - in both stories Draco's mindset has to change IMO. > Betsy Hp (who really does find that the "cabinet first" people are > pretty down on Draco on a whole and is suspicious that this is big > motivation behind the theory) > Alla: Mmmmm, as long as theory is convincing, does it really matter what the motivation behind it? As long as canon or canon based speculation to spin the theory is there? Would the theory become less valid if this **is** indeed the motivation behind it? I am not sure I follow. But look, here you have me, who um... as you know very harsh on Draco, who in fact SO harsh on Draco that I had not an **ounce** of sympathy for his situation in HBP? As far as I was concerned all that Draco got he deserved - maybe, just maybe that would teach him to stop giving death threats, stopped campaining to get innocent animals killed, stop participating in assasinations where he almost killed two people. Hopefully, he saw what does it mean to kill person face to face, hopefully it taught him something. What am I getting it? As I said, I don't have tender feelings towards Draco, **but** for various reasons I am much more in Magpie's camp than Steve's. I want to say that I am in your camp too, but you sress the victim aspect of Draco's situation way too much for my agreement, while Magpie acknowledged Draco's arrogance and happiness on the train, so um... yeah, I will call it **Magpie camp**, sorry Betsy :) What I am saying is that your **suspicion** may not turn out to be true, since Carol and Steve seem to go much easier on Draco than me, you know? :) What I am saying is two things - I find the theory plausible and not always see dramatic difference on the outcome, although from Magpie's latest post I may have started too. JMO, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 03:36:17 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: An Apology and an Explanation Message-ID: <20060901033617.97704.qmail@web53010.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157706 I want to apologize for my last few posts on the Bigotry issue. I got overly emotional and it fostered a strident tone that I am embarrassed to have taken. I also let my emotion get in the way of a more reasoned argument, which results in a double negative in regards to my position on the subject. I did read other responses on the issue with the intent of not revisiting it myself. However, several people have directed questions to me. Since I have cooled off and out of courtesy to those people, I would like to answer. First, I am half Italian and half Polish. I call myself a "Wopollock" (actually my brother came up with the term). Now if someone were to call me a "greasy wop" or a "stupid pollock", if I got offended at all it would be at the adjective not the noun. I say "if" because I'm afraid I would be mostly bemused that this was the best insult that this person could think up. (and if it was Hagrid that used it, I think I would be correct in my bemusement). In my irrational state, I think I argued counter to my purpose. As Jaime pointed out (and Alla, I think), Jewish people don't have a problem using the term "Jew" as long as there isn't a nasty modifier put in front of it. So, I accept that depending on your tolerance and your experience, one could either shrug off or be offended when their religion, ethnicity, etc. is used as the object of a derogatory (or attempted derogatory) comment. I am also not sure if we can necessarily conclude that the person that called me a "stupid pollock" is bigoted. They may or may not be, in my estimation. I guess, since I would invest no time in arguing with a bigot (or against this fictional pathetic insulter), I will never be bothered to ascertain their motivation. If you understand the subtext of this statement, then you understand my feelings with regards to those that I *did* argue with on this subject. Even when I disagreed, I found your motivations to be admirable. Now, onto a more overall or in general perspective. As much as anyone would like to see racism, bigotry and the like be wiped out, most would not see that as a very likely to happen. I am happy to note the difference in sensitivity to bigotry that has occurred in my lifetime. Comments, phrases and words that that were once used with no thought as to their effect on others are heard much less often today. And society in general, if not in specific, is less tolerant of those phrases, at least many more are willing to call the perpetrator to task. Where I think care should be taken on this front is to be too strident as to where we draw the line of tolerance. This is not a statement on being PC or anti-PC. (Honestly, I couldn't tell you which way JKR leans, or if she has any opinion on PC at all. Her subtext is so subtle (at least for me) that I can get no reading.) But rather what I refer to is the need to point out everything that hints at bigotry, racism, etc. You see, it is too easy to create a backlash. Some that may harbor minor or no feelings of bigotry could too easily decide that everything is being made "illegal", for the lack of a better term. If that becomes a pervasive feeling or even a minority viewpoint then we are doing our cause a disservice. If people, in really any significant amount, begin to feel like anything they say is going to be criticized, they *might* decide "why bother?". Driving people to the point of indifference helps not. Driving people to start using terminology that they may otherwise would not have used, is the reverse of where we should aim. Besides, with regards to the true bigots, "Better to let minor infractions slide by unnoticed than to shine a spotlight and thereby add ammunition to the feeble minded." Mike --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 1 04:41:50 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 00:41:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? References: Message-ID: <007901c6cd80$f39a4700$d298400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157709 Snow: Ok I see where you are going. You defiantly are a person who believes what Faith has to say, the problem is sometimes Faith can be a bit tricky and make a person believe something as confirmed, when it really hasn't been. Magpie: I admit I don't get the whole "Faith" schtick. Don't know what it means, never have. So I may be misunderstanding things later in the post--sorry if I do. Snow: You see, at Spinner's End, Snape never agreed to killing Dumbledore if Draco failed to, Snape agreed to "carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform". Wording is everything with JKR. We will naturally assume that what was meant by this particular wording was to kill Dumbledore since that is what inevitably happened Magpie: Yes, and that's not a bad thing at all. It's how books are read. Many people didn't get that Draco's task was to kill DD early on. They thought he was supposed to kill Harry or do something else. So they got more of an answer at the end when everything led to Draco trying to do what Voldemort told him to do in killing DD. If you don't accept this, the story is just a pile of random events. The end has nothing to do with the beginning, it's all just ever more complicated with little meaning at all. Snow: but you can never be totally certain because this is where the author can make her twist. (Leading you to the obvious conclusion is Faith's diversion) Magpie: I think the word choice in this case was to keep the reader from hearing flat-out that his mission was to kill Dumbledore, though it was fairly easy to guess, especially when the attempted murder attempts start happening. As to the author making her twist, if JKR wants to put information in the next book that totally deletes or changes the plot that played out in HBP, that's her right. I'll face that when I come to it. I'm open to any new information the author gives me in later books and will retroactively apply it to what I've already read--I'm already preparing to do that with the obvious questions still hanging open. However, I'm not open to entertaining any AU version or fanfic premise anybody comes up with in the meantime as equal canon. Or turning the story into an incoherent mess just in case the author decides to do that later. One of the many problems with these theories is that they are all unfalsified premises. There's nothing actually there. Whenever somebody points out a flaw in it given the story in canon--a story that has a structure and so has limitations and shape--it can be explained away with new inventions. And maybe that sounds exciting when you're coming up with the answers, but as its own entity it just reads like working your way around canon that wasn't written to support what's being said. Snow: To truly understand what I'm attempting to get across to you, you would have to open your mind and allow suspicion to enter. Be suspicious of Faith and question wording that could also be interpreted with another suggestion, a twisty outcome, like what we have been proposing (although this suggestion isn't all conclusive, there are others). Magpie: So it's basically what I've already allowed, that yes, this is the plot of the book but if the author still has the power to announce in the next book that the plot of this one was totally fake? Yes, if the next book takes time to explain that Draco was not given the task of killing DD early in the year, but instead was given the task of fixing the cabinet, and that's what Snape agreed to do, and then Draco committed some near-murders for some odd reason, and then Voldemort surprised him with telling him to kill DD late in the year, I will certainly revise my thinking on HBP (perhaps for the worse). As of now I just read the books using the normal comprehension skills I apply to any book and assume, until further notice, that this was the plot--just as I assume Barty Crouch Jr. polyjuiced himself into Moody and put Harry's name in the Goblet to get him to the Portkey, and Kreacher went to Narcissa with info about Sirius and Harry, and Quirrel had Voldemort on the back of his head, and Lucius slipped Ginny the diary and it possessed her. It's worked fine so far. Snow: Some of the unanswered questions in HBP, for instance are, why Snape not only voluntarily took the vow but actually initiated it; why was Snape asleep when the castle is in an uproar and Dumbledore is out leaving The Order in charge in his stead? Magpie: Why Snape took the Vow is a big question I am waiting to have answered. It becomes less of a question if the Vow isn't to kill Dumbledore. Because who the heck cares if Snape took a Vow to make a secret entrance into the castle? As to why he's asleep, that didn't seem like much of a question. He may be part of the Order, but he's at Hogwarts as a teacher, he's not on guard duty. He's got classes to teach the next day. Snow: Ok, try this on for a possible substitute for the `plan' Narcissa speaks of; Draco is to find a way in which to penetrate the castle so that his deatheaters can dispose of Dumbledore. This actually fits because Narcissa would still be concerned for her baby if he failed this plan; Snape could honestly take the vow without hesitation, because Dumbledore could allow the castle protected entry; and it would be the answer as to why Snape was sleeping instead of on watch like the rest of the Order.Was he expecting company? Magpie: If the DEs are disposing of DD there goes that whole important "you are/are not a killer" part of the must-not-call-it-canon-version which is rather focused on committing murder or not, sticking it in only at the last minute when you can't avoid it instead of letting it be central. And making the Vow something that mundane drains the scene of drama. And why would I be looking for substitute plans? I'm not in the market of an alternate version of HBP--if I was it would be the one that changed the H/G storyline, not the one trashing the storyline I enjoyed. Snow: This would also fit with Draco's secret obsession with the cabinets and why Draco's attempt at killing Dumbledore with the necklace or mead was a bust or as Dumbledore put it, "your heart wasn't in it". Magpie: So the task being to create a secret way into Hogwarts fits with Draco's attempts at killing Dumbledore with the neckalce or the mead being a bust because...he's not actually got any reason to be doing these things at all. Why on earth is he sending him poisoned mead and cursed necklaces then? Dumbledore's line about Draco's heart not being in it doesn't come in a vacuum. He's making the point Draco is not a killer, not that Draco was ordered to fix the Cabinet instead. He doesn't seem to be aware he's supposed to be validating alternate storylines. Snow: You see Faith can be as wrong as Sirius being the bad guy or Mad Eye Moody being good in GOF and yet most of us fell for the trap. Magpie: Sirius was revealed as the good guy at the end of PoA. The guy who we thought was Mad Eye Moody was revealed to be DE Barty Crouch Jr. at the end of GoF. Draco was revealed to be the would-be murderer of Dumbledore at the end of HBP. Do you have alternate theories for PoA and GoF too? Snow: There is entrapment in the books, which is why they are so damned good but it is, more often than naught, Faith who leads us into the trap. I finally learned with OOP, after several attempts of throwing the book against the wall and refusing to read further (for several minutes) to simply accept that JKR has her answer and I have to be open to it. Magpie: I don't understand your point. JKR has her answer and we have to be open to it, yet you reject the answers given in HBP. Snow: You know this thread has made me recall a likewise thread before HBP when people were totally debating Dumbledore's possible abusive behavior by leaving Harry with the Dursley's. So many were quite sure that Dumbledore had actions he could have taken other than leave him with the Dursley's and yet no matter how many of us proposed what became the eventual outcome that it was Dumbledore's only and best choice, Faith intervened in her magical way and convinced so many that Dumbledore was cruel to leave Harry with them. Magpie: Err...not understanding what this has to do with chucking out a plotline in a novel and writing a new one and shoving it in its place. Do you mean that you had things you didn't like but then later you got information that made it better? Because that's great and I am open for new information in the new book, understanding she might decide to rewrite the plot of Book VI with different answers. If she rewrites it I'll be taking it as canon. I'm not interested in anybody else taking a stab at it. Snow: As this thread is similar to what I've just spoke of, I might agree that its outcome will be similar and that no matter how hard any of us may try only Faith will be able to enlighten you in the end. Magpie: This is more like: "Here's an alternate theory for the plan in CoS: Ginny faked the whole diary possession to get Harry to notice her." I still don't understand the Faith thing, but she sounds rather twee. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 05:30:10 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:30:10 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157710 Julie: > Great points, Anna. This is my first foray into the What Came First: > Task or Cabinet?" debate also, and I do agree with you. I don't see > any evidence that Voldemort is aware of or behind fixing the cabinet. > If he knew of its existence, you'd think he would have assigned > someone a lot more reliable than Draco to work on it! > > And what about Draco's first two attempts on Dumbledore's life? If > it is all about the cabinet, and getting the DEs in as his "back up", > then why is Draco bothering to make these attempts on Dumbledore's > life, and on his own no less. Wouldn't the ineptness of it all > annoy Voldemort a great deal? And we know Voldemort isn't very nice > when he's annoyed (you know, as opposed to when he's not > annoyed...erm, yeah...) > > Anyway, if Voldemort knew about the cabinet all along, it seems > to me he'd have additional priorities besides killing Dumbledore, > as this is his chance to get in and take over Hogwarts. (Which > begs the question why he sent a band of second-stringers through > cabinet with Draco, when he could have sent a truly powerful > force--in fact he could have gone himself--and actually taken over > the school. Just another unanswerable question, I suppose ;-) > > The faith version it seems to me is that Draco is making legitimate > attempts on Dumbledore's life the first two times, albeit inept and > half-hearted attempts. Clearly his main goal is to kill Dumbledore, > which relegates the cabinet to second priority. *If* he can get it > working, so much the better. If not, well, he still has to complete > his real task and kill Dumbledore. Hence the sleeplessness, the > tears to Myrtle, etc. Not because he can't get the cabinet fixed, > but because he is steadily realizing he can't kill Dumbledore, and > even getting the cabinet fixed is not going to change that fact. > It's simply going to force him finally into the face-to-face > situation against Dumbledore that he desperately tried to avoid > in his previous and deliberately distanced attempts. (If he can't > even make a decent go at it from an anonymous distance, how will > he ever succeed when he has to look the man in the face? He won't, > he knows it, and he's steadily falling apart because of it.) Carol responds: I hate to disagree with you, Julie, but it's clearly his plan to fix the cabinet that's holding up matters and causing him to lose sleep, not to mention wandering the hall at all hours (and provoking snape's wrath), spending all the time in the RoR, having Polyjiced!Goyle warn him when people are coming, etc. It's also fixing the cabinet that causes him to whoop with joy and triumph when Trelawney accidentally intrudes on him. The necklace and the mead were desperation efforts when the cabinet fails to work, but from at least the confrontation with Borkin in "Draco's Detour" (and probably before) through the confrontation with Snape, the "plan" he's working on is clearly the cabinet. It's just taking longer than he thought, as he tells Snape, one of the few instances in which he levels with him. And he's still working on it up to that last minute just before Harry and Dumbledore leave. Snape and Dumbledore know that Draco is planning to kill Dumbledore. What they don't know is the crucial information that Draco knows a way to get his DE back up into Hogwarts. And even as he stands facing Dumbledore, he keeps repeating that he's going to kill Dumbledore. It isn't fear of committing murder that's upsetting him. It's fear of failure and being murdered, along with his family. Only when he stands there on the tower talking to Dumbledore does he finally realize that he doesn't want to kill the "stupid old man." If it weren't for Draco's plan, of which he is so proud, the DEs would never have gotten into Hogwarts, Draco would never have faced Dumbledore, and Snape's UV would never have kicked in. Carol, believing that it's all about the cabinet From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 05:31:00 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:31:00 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157711 Before HBP some here criticized DD for only playing a defensive game. When he had the chance to kill LV he didn't. Now we see the reason why. The horcruxes. LV can not be killed until the horcruxes are destroyed. So here is a question. If the horcruxes had been destroyed before the MoM battle would DD have killed LV? I know people will say, no, because it is Harry's job. But put that aside. Would DD actually take someone's life? I think he would not. At one point DD tells LV that "we both know that there are other ways to destroy a man, Tom". Would DD use one of those methods himself? I get the sense that the "other methods" are worse than murder. Like the Dementor's kiss for example. Does anyone wonder why LV hasn't attempted to use one of these "other methods" on Harry? What are these "other methods" that both DD and LV know about? Thoughts?? Tonks_op From sarah at eskimo.com Fri Sep 1 05:41:34 2006 From: sarah at eskimo.com (Sarah Schreffler) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:41:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Waking up from the dead in HP /some Buffy spoilers WAS: Re: prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6cd89$4df67950$6401a8c0@Princess> No: HPFGUIDX 157712 maria8162001: >Yes, JKR made that clear, but what I mean is, Buffy wasn't at all >dead, all the slaying stuff was just in her mind. she's a schizo >patient and the doctor and her parents were trying to make her choose >or stick to getting better but she chose to being a slayer and be with >her friends, hence the vampire slaying stuff continue and it became >her reality.I do not know if anybody from this list watched that >eppisode of Buffy. So it's more like waking up and it's all just a bad >dream. SarahS: The thing is -- Buffy DID die saving the world, etc. This was just one episode. Where a demon tries to convince Buffy that the dreamworld is true And the true world is a dream. The demons would HAVE loved for Buffy to think this was real, but Buffy saw the true reality, not the fake one they tried to make for her. It would be as if a deatheater tried to defeat Harry by casting a spell on him where he was living with his parents, going to Hogwarts, Didn't know who the Dursleys were (Or they were just his Aunt, Uncle, and cousin), etc. That wouldn't be true, even if at the end of the book Harry throws off the spell and decides to stay in this world, with his parents murdered and him hunted by the greatest evil of the day. Sarah Schreffler God is not safe, but He is good. C.S. Lewis -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/2006 From sarah at eskimo.com Fri Sep 1 05:47:34 2006 From: sarah at eskimo.com (Sarah Schreffler) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:47:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] About those vanishing cabinets... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c6cd8a$236e4d10$6401a8c0@Princess> No: HPFGUIDX 157713 Eddie: >At the beginning of CoS, Harry hides in the Vanishing Cabinet at >Borgin and Burkes. Why didn't he get transported to Hogwarts? The >other cabinet was not yet broken, since it was broken LATER by Peeves >(Filch: "That vanishing cabinet was extremely >valuable...") on Nearly-Headless Nick's prodding. SarahS: Harry never shut the door that time, though. I don't think it works until the door is shut... COS, p.30, chapter four "Harry looked quickly around and spotted a large black cabinet to his left; he shot inside it and pulled the doors closed, leaving a small crack to peer through. Seconds later, a bell clanged, and Malfoy stepped into the shop." Sarah Schreffler God is not safe, but He is good. C.S. Lewis -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/2006 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 10:05:42 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:05:42 -0000 Subject: An Apology and an Explanation In-Reply-To: <20060901033617.97704.qmail@web53010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157714 Mike: > I am happy to note the difference in sensitivity to bigotry that has occurred in my lifetime. Comments, phrases and words that were once used with no thought as to their effect on others are heard much less often today. And society in general, if not in specific, is less tolerant of those phrases, at least many more are willing to call the perpetrator to task. Ceridwen: Same here. I remember when it was perfectly acceptable for kids to say 'catch a (not a tiger) by the toe'. I also remember when I tried to say that and got all sorts of holy vengeance rained down on me. My parents didn't tolerate that sort of talk, or anything else that separated people. And this is exactly what I've been arguing about. The WW tolerates this without a second thought. It then becomes a part of everyday life for witches and wizards, whether bigoted themselves or not. I don't think Hagrid dislikes Filch because Filch is a Squib. Hagrid uses the term because he knows it will hurt, and they're arguing. The WW's attitude allows this, and doesn't allow for recognition that this is a bad thing to do. Like kids saying the toe-catching rhyme. It's WW society that is bigoted, not Hagrid. LV couldn't make the sort of splash he's made with Purebloods if the case was different. He uses this bigotry as a tool to win supporters, Us against Them. LV, Umbridge, the senior Malfoys, that Black who wanted to hunt Muggles, the statue at the MoM, the attitude of the Centaurs, Hagrid's and Ron's epithets toward Filch and Lupin (maybe even a children's rhyme where they 'catch a Mudblood by the toe'?), even looking fondly at Muggles as something cute and imaginative, 'noble savages', the way Arthur does, all point to a larger problem than a mere statement made innocently in anger or fear. For me, at least, all of these things put together are showing a problem in the WW itself. That problem is the same one you mentioned as having diminished in real life in both our lifetimes. To defeat Dark Lords like LV, who use a negative to polarize people, the root problem must be addressed. And I do think that is one place JKR will go. The more she throws in things like 'sneakin' Squib', the more I think so. She is showing the extent of the rot in the WW, to the point where even the Good Guys, and the most innocent of those Good Guys at that, are affected. Ceridwen. From vinkv002 at planet.nl Fri Sep 1 11:18:26 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:18:26 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: <20060831214925.62946.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > > Eddie wrote: > In PoA, Chapter "Marauder's Map", Hagrid says that Sirius Black > lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and said he (Sirius) wouldn't need any > anymore. > > Why? > > Pam: > My thought on this was that he knew his next stop (if Hagrid didn't give him Baby Harry, which was why he went there in the first place) was to go after Peter Pettigrew. He knew that if he killed Pettigrew, he would be going to Azkaban. Ask it turned out of course, he was half right. Renee: The interesting thing is, that Sirius could perhaps have pulled the kind of trick Wormtail did: change into his dog form and run before the Aurors arrived. That he didn't even try *and* gave his motorbike to Hagrid beforehand, suggests that he wanted to be arrested and put to jail. He considered himself guilty of James's and Lily's deaths(`I as good as killed them') and wanted to be punished. That he never even tried to escape in his Animagus form before he saw Scabbers in the Daily Prophet would be a very strange thing without this desire for punishment. Pam: Of course, Sirius isn't thinking quite rationally at the moment; he knew he'd be going to Azkaban but didn't quite work out what would happen to the baby had Hagrid given Harry to him. But we see even 12 years later, Sirius is still reckless and short-sighted, isn't he? Renee: I'm not entirely sure Sirius would have gone after Peter right away if Hagrid had left Harry in his care. But without Harry, he decided to do the only thing he still thought worth doing. From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 1 11:12:58 2006 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:12:58 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006b01c6cdb7$97825c50$2d353a9d@europe.corp.microsoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157716 Hi All, Tonks_op asks: >>> Would DD actually take someone's life? I think he would not. At one point DD tells LV that "we both know that there are other ways to destroy a man, Tom". Would DD use one of those methods himself? I get the sense that the "other methods" are worse than murder. Like the Dementor's kiss for example. Does anyone wonder why LV hasn't attempted to use one of these "other methods" on Harry? What are these "other methods" that both DD and LV know about? <<< I think this may be more a diversion than an answer, but for me it is about JKR's vision of humanity. We never see a goodie kill a baddie. The goodies were the first to realise that they were at war, but they are the last to risk taking a life. And I feel this is because the possibility of redemption, of living up to Dumbledore's vision of what a person might be, should be held on to. So no I cannot see Dumbledore, or any of his followers now he's gone, using a technique like the Dementor's Kiss that would remove the possibility of redemption. I think I've used this quote here before, sorry. I was brought up a Quaker and they have this quote from George Fox: "Walk cheerfully over the earth answering that of God in everyone." If you change "God" to "good" then that looks like Dumbledore to me. Cheers, Dumbledad. PS Of course I could be wrong. I read HBP twice on its release and haven't reread it since. Perhaps its littered with deaths that my 40 year old brain has forgotten. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 11:34:11 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 07:34:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? In-Reply-To: <007901c6cd80$f39a4700$d298400c@Spot> References: <007901c6cd80$f39a4700$d298400c@Spot> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609010434p73eb8577he404ea674ca53a20@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157717 >Magpie: >This is more like: "Here's an alternate theory for the plan in CoS: Ginny >faked the whole diary possession to get Harry to notice her." Random832: No, because there we're _shown_ that the diary possession happened, we're shown Diary!Tom from Harry's perspective, etc. In HBP, we're told that Voldemort has some sort of plot for Draco to carry out, and then we're shown Snape killing Dumbledore. Note that we're also told that Snape has no idea what the plot is himself. You are, again, confusing your interpretation of the book with the actual content of the book when you keep talking about "the canon version" and accusing anyone with a different interpretation of "rewriting it". I think this is more like the debate on whether Lucius acted alone or if this was a contingency plan set up by Voldemort. Many people thought the latter for a long time, I certainly did - now we know for sure it was the former. I'm sure that if we were talking about COS before that had come to light, you would be accusing anyone who thought Lucius was acting alone of having an "alternate theory" that is "rewriting the plot", because it being a plan to bring Voldemort back was the more obvious theory - even before we knew about Horcruxes. But we've seen that what is obvious is not always correct. -- Random832 From vinkv002 at planet.nl Fri Sep 1 11:48:13 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:48:13 -0000 Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fair wynn" wrote: > > > > > Renee: > > > > > > Lupin's still on JKR's list of favourite characters on her website. > > > What seems to have disappeared from the site (unless I did a really > > > bad search) is the question who she'd like to have dinner with, to > > > which the answer was Lupin. But AFAIK this was never a list. > > > >Pippin: > >JKR, Edinburgh Book Festival 2004 > >"If I could meet anyone, I might choose Lupin. I really like him. " > > > >JKR, An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp 2006 > >(asked which five characters she would invite to dinner) > > > >"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. " > > > >So there is an A-list, so to speak, (an A-list is Hollywood slang > >for a group of the most desirable people to invite) and Lupin's not on it. > >I thought there was a quote where JKR said she'd like to have Lupin > >to dinner but I can't find it either. > > Renee: Maybe we mixed up things because of OotP. There, Lupin says werewolves aren't popular dinner guests, but I suppose we both refuse to believe JKR shares the prejudice against them. ;) Still, I don't think this A-list says a lot (see below). Wynnleaf: > >I can't access the video of New York events-- can anyone tell if Lupin > >is one of the characters the crowd suggested? > > wynnleaf > I just watched it the other day. Try msn. Anyway, my impression was that > she first said Harry, Ron and Hermione and then commented, after it was > taking her some time to think of the rest, that she was the one who knew who > lived and who died -- as though she was trying to pick characters still > "alive." Another writer said she could list dead characters, too. After > that she mentioned Dumbledore -- I think primarily because she had just said > he was dead a few minutes earlier, and because she was trying to use a known > dead character. Then she thought a moment and added Hagrid. But I think > primarily she was trying to think of a "save" character to choose and she'd > earlier that evening said if she could bring any character to life it would > be Hagrid. > > So the fact that she didn't mention Lupin doesn't mean much. Renee: It might have meant something if it was JKR herself who limited the number of guests to five, but as it was someone else who did so, I don't attach too much importance to it. Fred, George, Ginny and Luna, a new favourite after OotP, are missing as well, compared against the favourites list at her website. In fact, I'm more concerned about Ginny's absence, certainly after JKR said she was the ideal girl for Harry, or something. If she belongs with Harry, why not invite her, instead of Hagrid? What is JKR hiding here? Wynnleaf: > However, remember that she's said several times that Snape was her favorite > character to write and she once called him -- I think the words were, "a > gift of a character." Yet her liking him as a character didn't get in the > way of her making him mean. Renee: There's a clear distinction between the characters she said she loved, without further qualificatino (a list containing Lupin) and Snape, a character she loved *to write*. Wynnleaf: So I think she can "like" Lupin and still make > him weak and possibly weak enough to betray people. After all, as far as > Lupin knew, he *was* betraying Dumbledore, the Hogwarts staff, and the > students by allowing a supposed known murderer and spy of Voldemort's to > gain access to the castle and threaten lives, without telling anyone how he > was doing it. Just remember, her liking Lupin didn't stop her from having > him betray the trust of Dumbledore, the staff and the students. If she did > it once, she could do it again. Renee: Theoretically, she could, though I still believe the way she's been talking about him since he first appeared, makes this highly unlikely. But if she did, she'd most likely do it by letting Lupin slip in a way characteristic for him - remaining passive where action is required, or keeping his mouth shut when he ought to speak, in order to avoid the condemnation of people who matter to him. His main flaw is his fear to be disliked. (There are moments when I think he gave in to Tonks because he feared the wrath of Molly and McGonagall.) Renee From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 1 14:50:20 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:50:20 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157719 > Tonks wrote: > > Before HBP some here criticized DD for only playing a defensive > game. When he had the chance to kill LV he didn't. Now we see the > reason why. The horcruxes. LV can not be killed until the horcruxes > are destroyed. So here is a question. If the horcruxes had been > destroyed before the MoM battle would DD have killed LV? I know > people will say, no, because it is Harry's job. But put that > aside. Would DD actually take someone's life? I think he would not. > > At one point DD tells LV that "we both know that there are other > ways to destroy a man, Tom". Would DD use one of those methods > himself? > > I get the sense that the "other methods" are worse than murder. Like > the Dementor's kiss for example. Does anyone wonder why LV hasn't > attempted to use one of these "other methods" on Harry? What are > these "other methods" that both DD and LV know about? > > Thoughts?? > Ken: First of all I would argue that both Harry and DD have already killed LV in a technical sense. They have each destroyed one of his horcruxes and sent part of his soul on to the next life. That would seem to be akin to murdering part of his soul. Canon is unclear on this however. I had a revelation about this a few days ago while reading Slughorn's horcrux comments. And then a couple of days after that I realized that a few pages later DD contradicts some of what Slughorn said in a very fundamental way and offers no comment on the discrepency. Is this a clue, a character's mistake (which one's?), or evidence of a horcrux theory revision that the author forgot to apply consistently in both scenes? At the moment I don't think we have any way to tell. A dementor's kiss would be one way to destroy a man without killing him. The Longbottom's fate is another. We now know that DD is trying to hide his suspicions/knowledge of LV's horcruxes from LV. So it is quite possible that DD was merely deflecting LV's attention from the real reason DD didn't try to kill him: that it was too soon. To reveal this at that point would be to give away the game. DD does not want LV to know that the horcrux hunt is going on. Certainly logic would tell him that DD must know that he has at least one horcrux and would be looking for it. LV may not know that DD suspects there are several and hiding that from him would be useful. But why not kill LV in the MoM scene? Sure, he wouldn't really be dead but he would be bodiless again, the DE would be leaderless again, and it would buy some time to find the horcruxes. At that point DD had to know that there were at least two horcruxes since Harry had destroyed one before LV's return to his body and LV's bodiless soul bit or spirit was still anchored to the Earth during the interim. I *think* that implies there still had to be an intact horcrux somewhere. With all the inconsistencies and unknowns in horcrux theory it is hard to be certain about that either. It is likely that LV's second return to a regenerated body would have happened quite quickly but still it seems that buying time would be a good thing at that point. I suppose an argument against that is the famous gleam in DD's eye upon learning that LV had used Harry's blood in the process. Tom's father still has more bones to give, LV still has servants willing to give flesh, but it is very unlikely that LV would get the use of Harry's blood again. It is quite possible that DD wants LV's regenerated body to be based on Harry's blood even more that LV does. LV will probably get a nasty surprise about that in book 7. I happen to think that both DD and Harry would kill LV given the chance under circumstances that mean it would end him for good or even merely give the Order a short term tactical advantage. They both say that this is their intent. I think it really might be that DD saw a strategic advantage to keeping LV in a body based on Harry's blood and his comment about other ways to destroy a man was just a smokescreen. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 14:54:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:54:48 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Before HBP some here criticized DD for only playing a defensive > game. When he had the chance to kill LV he didn't. Now we see the > reason why. The horcruxes. LV can not be killed until the horcruxes > are destroyed. So here is a question. If the horcruxes had been > destroyed before the MoM battle would DD have killed LV? I know > people will say, no, because it is Harry's job. But put that > aside. Would DD actually take someone's life? I think he would not. > > At one point DD tells LV that "we both know that there are other > ways to destroy a man, Tom". Would DD use one of those methods > himself? > > I get the sense that the "other methods" are worse than murder. Like > the Dementor's kiss for example. Does anyone wonder why LV hasn't > attempted to use one of these "other methods" on Harry? What are > these "other methods" that both DD and LV know about? > > Thoughts?? > > Tonks_op Carol responds: Interesting question, Tonks, even though it's hypothetical. I agree with you that Dumbledore wouldn't kill (wonder what those spells were that he *did* cast, especially the one that sounded like a gong when it hit Voldemort's shield? Apparently it could have done some damage, and LV knew he was in danger). I, for one, don't think that DD would use Dark Magic in any form, certainly not Unforgiveable Curses. There's also the Prophecy, which he seems to discount, but I think he does believe in it now that Voldemort has marked Harry as his equal. I think that DD knew, even without the Horcruxes, that Harry, not he, is the Chosen One and that only Harry can destroy Voldemort (or kill him, if it comes to that). I think that Harry will possess him and send him beyond the Veil, not a power that DD possesses. Carol, apologizing for using "possess" in two different senses in the same sentence From greatraven at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 14:50:16 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:50:16 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > Eddie: > In PoA, Chapter "Marauder's Map", Hagrid says that Sirius Black > lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and said he (Sirius) wouldn't need any > anymore. > > Why? > > Eddie > Sue here: This is an odd scene, because it's inconsistent with the first scene of HPPS, in which Hagrid says he's borrowed the motorbike and had better get going because he has to return it. I personally think it's just a glitch that was never fixed. I assume that in the context of PoA, Hagrid assumes he meant he didn't need it because he' was going to join Voldemort and Sirius actually meant he was going after the traitor and might never return. The trouble is, because of the inconsistency I have tended to ignore this bit of PoA. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 15:17:15 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:17:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609010817p705cb008q6de8000d27c19537@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157722 > Sue here: > > This is an odd scene, because it's inconsistent with the first scene of HPPS, in which Hagrid > says he's borrowed the motorbike and had better get going because he has to return it. I > personally think it's just a glitch that was never fixed. Random832: This was 'fixed' in later editions from "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back." to "I best get this bike away." - see http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html I actually think the original version works better if we assume that Hagrid didn't "know" Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters. The reason given for changing it was 'This sentence didn't fit very well with the way the character of Sirius was developed as the series progressed.' which tells me that JKR didn't know she was going to have Sirius be accused/wrongly-accused/whatever at the time she wrote this chapter. (I don't doubt that she had everything planned out to some degree, but it's possible that she hadn't put a name to the character she planned for PoA yet) -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 15:30:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:30:13 -0000 Subject: Draco's task (For Magpie and those who agree with her) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157723 Rather than quoting from the Draco thread, which has become rather tangled lately, I'd like to ask Magpie and those who agree with her a question. Do you think that Voldemort never intended for Dumbledore to die and that his only intention was to kill Draco or have the DEs kill him for failing to kill DD? Or do you think that LV has such a limited understanding of DD that he assumed that DD would kill the boy? I think, regardless of whether Draco went to LV or LV came to him, that the Vanishing Cabinet plot was in place from the beginning. Draco would fix the cabinet, allowing the DEs into Hogwarts. The DEs would set off the Dark Mark over the Astronomy Tower, fight off or kill anyone who got in the way, and force Draco to do the task. (Unknown to him, at first, they'd kill him if he failed.) They are acting under Voldemort's orders, and I think those orders have been in place since the beginning. I also think that having Fenrir Greyback check up on Borgin is part of the plan. How else ensure that Borgin does his part? And since Draco, despite his bluster, has no authority over Greyback, it must be LV who sends him. Draco buys the Peruvian Darkness Powder in Diagon Alley on the same day as the confrontation with Borgin. To me, that indicates that his plan is already in place and the DEs are aware of it. The pressure on Draco begins when he hasn't finished his seemingly minor repair job before the Christmas holiday (he panics and resorts to the mead and necklace ideas) and intensifies throughout the year, with death threats to his family by the time that Harry finds him crying in the bathroom. My point is that surely Voldemort knows about the cabinet and expects Draco to repair it so that he can get his DEs into Hogwarts to set the trap. Also, even though he certainly expects Draco to fail to kill DD once they're face to face, the DEs are there to ensure that both Draco and Dumbledore will die. And failing that, there's Snape, who'd "expected to do it in the end," whether or not LV knows about the Unbreakable Vow. I get the idea that people think LV has just sent in his goon squad and expected all of them to fail, with Dumbledore winning the day. I don't think that was the plan. For one thing, Brutal-Face (Yaxley?), at least, is not an idiot, and he expects the others to follow orders. And it's clear that they *do* have orders. And Fenrir Greyback is evil to the core. He'd love to kill DD himself if he has the chance. Granted, they didn't expect to find a Dumbledore weakened and perhaps dying from a potion, but they did expect Draco to surprise him and deprive him of his wand. They would be there as back up to make sure he did the job, sealing off the stairs to be sure they weren't followed. And they'd kill both the boy and the wandless Dumbledore. It's quite possible that LV didn't expect them to get back out again, but I think he did expect them to do their job. So the job was always to kill Dumbledore, but the *means* was getting the DEs into the castle as back up. If Draco failed, fine; he would die, too, and Lucius would be punished. But one way or the other, DD was supposed to die. Carol, wondering if this is how Magpie and others see it, and if not, why not From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 1 15:35:16 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:35:16 -0000 Subject: No New Astronomy Textbooks For Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157724 > Carol wrote: > Carol, who forgot to mention in her astronomy post how sad she feels > that poor Pluto has been demoted to the status of little oddball Someone send Professor Sinistra an owl, maybe she won't be needing to pick out a new textbook just yet: http://tinyurl.com/panej Maybe she will even sign the petiton to make Pluto one of the characters who gets a reprieve. Ken From silmariel at telefonica.net Fri Sep 1 15:58:49 2006 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:58:49 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos LONG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200609011758.49995.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157725 > Betsy Hp: > > The canon has this rather elegant story where a naive child is > > chosen by Evil to do an evil deed. ?The child did not choose to > > become evil, but Evil has selected him and the child cannot choose > > differently. ?Or at least, so Evil would have the child believe. > > > Alla: > > Does Draco mindset on the train not counts **at all*? Yes, he just > does not know that he never had the way out, but as far as I am > concerned whether he approached Voldemort or Voldemort approached > him ( and yes, I am much in favor of Voldemort choosing him), Draco > made a choice of evil by himself, hopefully he saw where it leads, > hopefully. Silmariel: As I read the scene, Draco in the train is mainly trying to keep himself convinced that the turn in his life is for good and not for bad. He is repeating the version he has constructed but has nothing to do with reality, a version that doesn't depict him as a peon to be sacrificed in a psychopath's game. Voldemort faced him with a suicidal task, and his mind happily refused to see the suicidal part of the question. If in order to acomplish that, he had to blissfully ignore the 'oh my god I've got to kill someone' part, let it be so. Brains are so complex traps. I think this is tied to Draco being an occlumens, and able to detatch from compassion, being able to shut off some parts of self or refuse to see them. (I think she said something to the effect in an interview) So I read a coward that in this scene has managed to stay in denial. After pressure and time reality kicks in, as it usually happens, and we have the crying mess in the toilet. Of course, it's only a reader's response and I'm not going to enter in the 'coming of age/parental figures' side, it has already been covered. Silmariel From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 1 16:02:56 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:02:56 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609010434p73eb8577he404ea674ca53a20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157726 > >Magpie: > >This is more like: "Here's an alternate theory for the plan in CoS: Ginny > >faked the whole diary possession to get Harry to notice her." > > Random832: > No, because there we're _shown_ that the diary possession happened, > we're shown Diary!Tom from Harry's perspective, etc. Magpie: No, we're not shown the possession. We're not in Ginny's or Tom's pov. We see lots of other stuff, like Diary!Tom, and we hear people tell us things about what happened. When the book is over we have just that--the things written in the text--to understand the story with. In HBP we're told LV has a task for Draco, we're shown Snape taking a Vow to do it, we're shown two murder attempts going awry, we're shown Draco finally facing Dumbledore on the Tower, we hear Dumbledore saying how Draco's been trying to kill him, we hear Draco giving some details of how he worked those previous murder attempts, we have a scene about whether or not Draco's going to do it and whether he's a killer, we see Draco lowering his wand. Then we we have Draco ultimately lowering his wand followed by DEs saying that Draco's got to do it referring to his killing Dumbledore, and then Snape killing Dumbledore. Random832: In HBP, we're > told that Voldemort has some sort of plot for Draco to carry out, and > then we're shown Snape killing Dumbledore. > > Note that we're also told that Snape has no idea what the plot is > himself. You are, again, confusing your interpretation of the book > with the actual content of the book when you keep talking about "the > canon version" and accusing anyone with a different interpretation of > "rewriting it". Magpie: I've never denied Snape doesn't know about the Cabinets. Snape himself claims to know the task that Draco has been given, which evidence points to being the task to kill Dumbledore, imo. None of which as reasonable interpretation gets near the actual *writing* of off-stage scenes never referred to that make up a lot of this thread. It's not that what I am doing can't be called reasonable interpretation, it's that making up new ideas not in the story is not interpretation. It's what usually in fandom gets called theorizing. Jordan: > I think this is more like the debate on whether Lucius acted alone or > if this was a contingency plan set up by Voldemort. Many people > thought the latter for a long time, I certainly did - now we know for > sure it was the former. I'm sure that if we were talking about COS > before that had come to light, you would be accusing anyone who > thought Lucius was acting alone of having an "alternate theory" that > is "rewriting the plot", because it being a plan to bring Voldemort > back was the more obvious theory - even before we knew about > Horcruxes. But we've seen that what is obvious is not always correct. Magpie: I would not be accusing anyone of rewriting CoS if they were doing that unless they were doing what they were doing here: claiming that we knew for a fact that Lucius was working with Voldemort (as in "we must remember that Draco went to Voldemort first...") and then changing scenes to have meanings that require unreasonable twisting. I have said on numerous occasions I'm not saying that people can't have this as a theory. But particularly if I'm being told something is going on in front of me in the book there's no reason not to subject it to the same tests any other interpretation would get. Usually the "making up theories" part of the list is separate from the "literary analysis" part, which is why it isn't a problem. This thread crashed them together. Seems this is a bad idea, because there's two different things going on and all of us are irritated at being expected to play the other's game. -m From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 16:12:27 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:12:27 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > >> I get the sense that the "other methods" are worse than murder. Like the Dementor's kiss for example. Does anyone wonder why LV hasn't attempted to use one of these "other methods" on Harry? Steven1965aaa: Because to Voldemort's way of thinking, there is nothing worse than death. I think Dumbledore was referring to other ways to destroy a man, other than killing him. IMO, by the way, this is one of the big advantages Harry has over Voldemort. Voldemort's ultimate goal is to survive. To achieve that goal he must kill Harry. On the other hand, while Harry certainly wants to live, his goal is to vanquish Voldemort and in the end IMO he will be ready to lay down his own life and sacrifice himself to achieve that --- in other words he's ready to die to get rid of Voldemort but Voldemort is not ready to die to get rid of him. This does not mean Harry will actually die in the end. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 16:25:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:25:23 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609010817p705cb008q6de8000d27c19537@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157728 Sue wrote: > > > > This is an odd scene, because it's inconsistent with the first scene of HPPS, in which Hagrid says he's borrowed the motorbike and had better get going because he has to return it. I personally think it's just a glitch that was never fixed. > Random832 responded: > > This was 'fixed' in later editions from "I'll be takin' Sirius his > bike back." to "I best get this bike away." - see > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html > > I actually think the original version works better if we assume that Hagrid didn't "know" Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters. The reason given for changing it was 'This sentence didn't fit very well with the way the character of Sirius was developed as the series progressed.' which tells me that JKR didn't know she was going to have Sirius be accused/wrongly-accused/whatever at the time she wrote this chapter. (I don't doubt that she had everything planned out to some degree, but it's possible that she hadn't put a name to the character she planned for PoA yet) Carol asks: But doesn't the Bloomsbury edition still say (as the Scholastic edition I have does) "Young Sirius Black lent it to me" (SS Am. ed. 14)? That line would have to be kept in (I hope!) because it introduces Sirius Black and foreshadows his role in PoA (which I think was planned from the beginning). I originally thought, when I read the conflicting version in PoA, that time and anger and too much to drink distorted Hagrid's memory of the events at GH in PoA and "lent" became "gave." In SS/PS, he would have viewed Sirius simply as the Potters' friend and Harry's godfather; in PoA, he "knows" that Black is a "murderin' traitor." Perceptions tend to color memories, at least the subjective versions in people's heads as opposed to the objectve version in a Pensieve, and I thought that he had subconsciously revised the events to fit his revised perception of Sirius Black. (Either that, or JKR had forgotten what she'd written in SS/PS.) Whether the motorcycle was lent or given, Black must have ridden it to GH to find out what was happening, and when he discovered that Harry was alive, he must have intended to fly away with him on the motorcycle. When he realized that Hagrid wasn't going to give Harry up, he decided to go after Wormtail instead, a job for which the motorcycle wasn't required. "Lent" suggests that he expected to return and take his bike back. "Gave" suggests a grimmer view, probably an intention to kill Wormtail (and be arrested for murder) or be killed himself. The addition of "I won't be needing it any more" (PoA, paraphrased) certainly suggests that it was given rather than lent, and that Black didn't expect to survive the encounter with Peter. That could reflect a revised view on JKR's part of what happened between Black and Pettigrew, but I think it actually reflects a clearer understanding of Black's mindframe. He *wouldn't* have lent the motorcycle to Hagrid, cheerfully optimistic that everything would work out all right. He would have given it to him, knowing that, one way or the other, he wouldn't be needing it any more. Even on the off chance that he survived without being arrested, the motorcycle would, as Hagrid points out in PoA, be too easy to trace. Carol, wondering whether "lent" has been changed to "gave" in the Bloomsbury edition (and/or recent reprints of the U.S. edition) since "I best get this bike away" doesn't remove the original reference to Sirius Black (which IMO ought to be kept) From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 09:13:36 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:13:36 -0000 Subject: Waking up from the dead in HP /some Buffy spoilers WAS: Re: prophecy In-Reply-To: <711319366.20060831124612@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157729 Dave: > So you mean it's like the episode of _Red Dwarf_ where the crew > hallucinate so that they *think* that their years on the big > crimson spaceship was just an elaborate "total immersion" video > game and that reality is that they are oppressed citizens in a > futuristic fascist dictatorship on Earth. Then they "wake up" back > on the ship, and find that Red Dwarf *is* the reality after all. Maria Vaerewyck: Yes, something like that. Dave: > I guess these kind of "which is the dream and which is reality?" > ideas have been played with at least since Lewis Carroll's > _Sylvie and Bruno_, but somehow I doubt Jo would go there... > > Or would she?? Maria Vaerewyck: I hope not or else it would be a big disappointment to all the readers, especially to the children. I for one would be highly disappointed, as I want the ending of HP to be realistic as it is, not some kind of dreams by the main character. Sometimes they use this kind of theme in Star Treks series as well (ST next Generation and ST with the female captain, for Treky fans :-)). Dave: > P.S. I once considered using this theme in an Oz pastiche I'm > working on, in order to explain why Dorothy thinks Oz is a dream at > the end of the MGM film, even though it's very real for her in the > books; but I was advised against it on the grounds that any Oz book > that alludes to Hollywood adaptations *can't* be a good thing... :) Maria Vaerewyck: Yes, you'll be facing legal consequences unless of course you ask permision from whomever is in charge of this in Hollywood. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 16:37:05 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:37:05 -0000 Subject: Who is Faith? WAS: Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? In-Reply-To: <007901c6cd80$f39a4700$d298400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157730 > Snow: > You see Faith can be as wrong as Sirius being the bad guy or Mad Eye Moody > being good in GOF and yet most of us fell for the trap. > > Magpie: > Sirius was revealed as the good guy at the end of PoA. The guy who we > thought was Mad Eye Moody was revealed to be DE Barty Crouch Jr. at the end > of GoF. Draco was revealed to be the would-be murderer of Dumbledore at the > end of HBP. Do you have alternate theories for PoA and GoF too? > > Snow: > There is entrapment in the books, which is why they are so damned good but > it is, more often than naught, Faith who leads us into the trap. > > I finally learned with OOP, after several attempts of throwing the book > against the wall and refusing to read further (for several minutes) to > simply accept that JKR has her answer and I have to be open to it. > > Magpie: > I don't understand your point. JKR has her answer and we have to be open to > it, yet you reject the answers given in HBP. > > Snow: > You know this thread has made me recall a likewise thread before HBP when > people were totally debating Dumbledore's possible abusive behavior by > leaving Harry with the Dursley's. So many were quite sure > that Dumbledore had actions he could have taken other than leave him with > the Dursley's and yet no matter how many of us proposed what became the > eventual outcome that it was Dumbledore's only and best choice, Faith > intervened in her magical way and convinced so many that Dumbledore was > cruel to leave Harry with them. > > Magpie: > Err...not understanding what this has to do with chucking out a plotline in > a novel and writing a new one and shoving it in its place. Alla: Magpie, I am not sure whether when you wrote you don't understand about Faith, you meant that you have not read about her or whether you read but did not understand. So, in case you have not read about her, here is the link: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#faith In the TBAY, as far as I am aware ( and this is from the POV of somebody who loved to read TBAY and hopes people will come back to it, but never wrote it) the Faith is the personification of the authoritarial intent, basically she accepts as given of what is written on the page, period. Again, TBAY theorists who actually used Faith in their essays will correct me if I am wrong. And very often the theories in Theory Bay were checked by Faith on whether they can sail or not :) So, yeah, I like this chick a lot :), even if sometimes she can be wrong. I think you already answered Snow's argument about Faith being wrong about Sirius being a bad guy and Moody being the real one. That was answered at the end of the book, so the way I understand it now - Faith position would be at the end of the book exactly what was written there. I am especially confused about HBP proving that Faith was wrong that Dumbledore was cruel leaving Harry with Dursleys. Is there anything there to show that Dumbledore was **not** cruel? Wound't the Faith position be that yeah, that was Dumbledore only choice, but she would ask for more definite stance on that? And in fact, isn't Faith position now that Dumbledore has regretted what Dursleys did to Harry? And where is in HBP that states that Dumbledore indeed had no other choice? He mentions blood protection in OOP as well, where does he say that absolutely nothing could have been done if not to remove Harry but at least for him to interfere? I am just how on this topic Faith is proven wrong in HBP, not sure **at all*, but this is moving from our topic. So, yeah, that is Faith as I understand her. Alla. From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 1 14:05:32 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:05:32 -0000 Subject: Waking up from the dead in HP /some Buffy spoilers WAS: Re: prophecy In-Reply-To: <711319366.20060831124612@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157731 Maria Vaerewyck wrote: Yes, JKR made that clear, but what I mean is, Buffy wasn't at all dead, all the slaying stuff was just in her mind. she's a schizo patient and the doctor and her parents were trying to make her coose or stick to getting better but she chose to being a slayer and be with her friends, hence the vampire slaying stuff continue and it became her reality.I do not know if anybody from this list watched that episode of Buffy. So it's more like waking up and it's all just a bad MV dream. Dave wrote: So you mean it's like the episode of _Red Dwarf_ where the crew hallucinate so that they *think* that their years on the big crimson spaceship was just an elaborate "total immersion" video game and that reality is that they are oppressed citizens in a futuristic fascist dictatorship on Earth. Then they "wake up" back on the ship, and find that Red Dwarf *is* the reality after all. Tinktonks says: Firstly I am a fan of Buffy and a HUGE fan of red dwarf so I love these parallels but I much prefer a previous Buffy episode as a comparable. Basically an early episode in which the Master kills Buffy. It reminds us that prophecies can be tricky little blighters when it comes to wording. Buffy did die, not all death is irrevocable to muggles though. Buffy was revived with CPR. I would love to see Harry & LV finish each other in a non magical way and the power of love save Harry one last time. In that Ginny (Or Snape?!?) resuscitates him and our little hero is neither murdered or murderer-just a survivor. Tinktonks ? Who says if Rimmer can become Ace then Snape is a good guy!!! (ps thinking red dwarf does anyone else want Snape to knee LV in the crotch say "remember only the good die young" then escape?) From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 16:49:19 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:49:19 -0000 Subject: Draco's task (For Magpie and those who agree with her) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157732 Carol wrote: > Rather than quoting from the Draco thread, which has become rather > tangled lately, I'd like to ask Magpie and those who agree with her a > question. Do you think that Voldemort never intended for Dumbledore to > die and that his only intention was to kill Draco or have the DEs kill > him for failing to kill DD? Or do you think that LV has such a limited > understanding of DD that he assumed that DD would kill the boy? Sydney: Question 1: I'm going with Snape here, and his opinion is that Voldemort intends Snape to kill Dumbledore "in the end". He intends Draco to "try first", in order that Draco will be killed. The two ideas don't have to be linked by any means. Draco isn't an asset that Voldemort wants to use, except as a means to punish Lucius. This is the "punish Lucius" plan. I don't think the "Snape kills Dumbledore at some point" concept would have really featured Draco in Voldemort's brain. Question 2: Evidently Voldemort *does* have such a limited understanding. I'm going with Dumbleodore's opinion here, which is in the US edition but not the UK one: "Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it." Narcissa, who we would suppose to have the typical mindset of the other side, immediately assumed that that was the only reason Draco could possibly be sent on such a mission, an opinion with which Snape seems in agreement. Until I see a good reason to discount all three opinions, I think I'll stick with them. I don't think in general this is true of the 'real world'-- most terrorists seem to rely on their opponents liberalism and care of civilians-- but that JKR is applying this psychology to Voldemort is pretty clear. The whole series starts with Voldemort not anticipating the Lily love-magic thing, 'deep magic' that he'd forgotten about, because he didn't expect Lily to die for Harry. Carol: > I think, regardless of whether Draco went to LV or LV came to him, > that the Vanishing Cabinet plot was in place from the beginning. Draco > would fix the cabinet, allowing the DEs into Hogwarts. Sydney: I don't think so, otherwise Snape would have had an inkling of it. Snape seems to have no idea what's going on, aside from Draco flailing around with unknown plans to kill D-dore. I think Voldemort gave a blanket order to the DE's to help Draco in any way that he asks. Carol: > And since Draco, despite his bluster, has no authority over Greyback, > it must be LV who sends him. Sydney: See above. Carol: > Draco buys the Peruvian Darkness Powder in Diagon Alley on the same > day as the confrontation with Borgin. To me, that indicates that his > plan is already in place and the DEs are aware of it. Sydney: Why does it indicate the DE's are aware of it? To me it indicates that Draco has been given his assignment and is stocking up with whatever he can think of-- the necklace, the Darkness powder, hey! the cabinet that can bypass Hogwarts security! That could come in handy! Carol: The pressure on > Draco begins when he hasn't finished his seemingly minor repair job > before the Christmas holiday (he panics and resorts to the mead and > necklace ideas) and intensifies throughout the year, with death > threats to his family by the time that Harry finds him crying in the > bathroom. Sydney: See, I'd always tied the crying in the bathroom in to Draco reacting to the near-deaths of Ron and Katie-- that is what wraps up the storyline with Dumbledore's "You're not a killer" line. The cabinet, the necklace, and the mead, all have in common that they are ways for Draco to avoid directly being a killer-- he gives the necklace to someone, who gives it someone else, who will give it to the murder victim... he'll fix the cabinet so someone else will magically appear. It's avoidance. Carol: > My point is that surely Voldemort knows about the cabinet and expects > Draco to repair it so that he can get his DEs into Hogwarts to set the > trap. Also, even though he certainly expects Draco to fail to kill DD > once they're face to face, the DEs are there to ensure that both Draco > and Dumbledore will die. And failing that, there's Snape, who'd > "expected to do it in the end," whether or not LV knows about the > Unbreakable Vow. Sydney: I don't think the Snape part is the backup to the DE's, though. Snape's line that he's intended to "do it in the end" sounds like Voldemort has always intended Snape to do it, and that this idea was in place pretty much since Snape was put in position as a spy. Snape being out of the loop for the whole year, and Voldemort not ordering Draco to bring in his Big Gun, to me says the actual "Kill Dumbledore" plan was be a separate one. Carol: > I get the idea that people think LV has just sent in his goon squad > and expected all of them to fail, with Dumbledore winning the day. I > don't think that was the plan. For one thing, Brutal-Face (Yaxley?), > at least, is not an idiot, and he expects the others to follow orders. > And it's clear that they *do* have orders. Sydney: The orders they seem to have, are to obey Draco's orders, and not to harm Harry. The latter is spoken by Snape who is out of the loop, so it's probably more by way of a standing order. I think Voldemort's plan is as stated, by Snape, Narcissa, and Dumbledore: for Dumbledore or his side to have to kill Draco. This would accomplish a lot PR-wise; but that's reading back and trying to make sense of a plan of Voldemort's, which, let's face it, have never made that much sense yet. Voldemort's plans such as they are seem pretty impusive and random, so this one seems perfectly in character. Of course we can read back and try to make the plan make sense, as people have tried to do with the Barty Crouch/Portkey/Cup Plan of Inefficiency; but when this retrofitting starts clobbering out some of the supporting structures of what to me is the main point-- Draco's arc as laid out in the plot-- then that's when the protests start. Sydney From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 1 17:39:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:39:59 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157733 Alla: Mmmm, I was responding to your statement ( or the way I understood it) that if Draco went to Voldemort that means that he was being a child asking grown ups to do a job for him and what I am saying is that we do not know what is in Draco's head and maybe he was viewing offering such smart plan to Voldemort as being a man. Magpie: Oh--sorry. There are like three different stories in the Cabinet First plot and I get them confused. I was thinking about the version described to me where Draco didn't want any job, he just thought he'd be giving information and getting rewarded. So Draco's got to change in response to that. Alla: Sorry, lost me again, especially lost me with the analogy to Snape. Yeah, telling LV about prophecy to me is more than enough to implicate Snape in Potters murders, without Snape that would not have ever started. Magpie: I believe what I was saying was that if the secret entrance into Hogwarts is a valuable piece of info for LV because it assures acts of evil, then once Draco has given LV this opportunity he's allegedly started the plan in LV's head, whether or not Draco is the one to fix the Cabinet. Just as with Snape his telling LV about the Prophecy started the plan to kill the Potters whether or not Snape was the one to actually kill them. In both cases these people are starting something according to the CF!theory, because they set Voldemort into action. Alla: Nah, sorry not buying. Draco is supposedly growing up with those guys, they are his dad's palls and why is it supposed to be a huge thing for his character to do? I mean, sure, Voldemort is sort of one step up, but DE circles is Draco's circles IMO. Magpie: You're saying the same thing as Harry at the end of OotP ("He's a mate of your dad's, isn't he?"). Only Harry is being sarcastic, teasing and mocking Draco with his fear. Draco flinches at Voldemort's name for all he might throw the Dark Lord around as a friend of his dad's. For Draco to go to the Dark Lord himself, as opposed to going to just a friend of his dad's? That takes some intitiative. I think Greyback is a similar thing. Draco's exhibited fear of werewolves in canon, but throws around Greyback's name when Greyback isn't anywhere near him. He's a DE, so could have ties (be a "friend") to Lucius or Bellatrix. But Draco's totally bluffing in bringing him up in an easy way, as we see when he's faced with him at the end of HBP. Magpie: That's a lot of steam > to get him in front of the guy. Alla: As I said I don't think so - just to go and approach his daddy's boss, that's all. :) Magpie: Voldemort's been dead for all of Draco's remembered life, a legend whose name he was nonetheless afraid to speak. Draco may be going to Daddy's boss, but his dad still works for Satan--his employees fear him. Alla: Wait, wait you are contradicting yourself, I think. In your story if Draco was never expecting that he'd have to to kill anybody or fix cabinet, he would have been surprised to find out that this is not what he wanted, correct? But in canon, just as you said Draco is bragging about the task, he is happy, so doesn't it suggest that *Oh sh*t moment* had not happened yet ,meaning that it is likely that Draco approached Voldemort? MY head sooooo hurts again :) Magpie: Heh--sorry! I'm getting tripped on the many competing versions of the CF!Plot. (That's what happens when you don't have an actual story to analyze, just ever-changing "what ifs?") In one version of this story, Draco goes to Voldemort hoping to just give information and skip off--but then LV ropes him into making the plan work and killing DD. But, as you said, Draco begins the book happy and proud to have the task. So either he went in not wanting a task, was surprised to get one, but then rallied to think it was a good thing, or we've got to go with some version where the task was always a good thing. Alla: And why this transformation could not have happened? Say Draco brought that plan, Voldemort gives him this mission and Draco evaluated his glory and got more happier in progress? Magpie: It could happen--it's just insane that it's not on the page. The version in the book is I think intentionally much simpler. We don't need to imagine Draco transforming many times between books. And since transformations of character are important, they tend to be written in in some way. Alla: Erm... if Draco brings plan to Voldemort that does not mean necessarily that Draco does not want to kill DD, IMO. That means that Draco did not **think** about killing DD, and if he did he may have embraced that right away, so voldemort puts this thought in Draco's head and Draco indeed thinks it is a very good thing. Where is contradiction of this speculation with canon? Magpie: Again, I was describing the version where Draco got pwned by LV. Canonically it seems to be given that Draco never thought about killing DD, LV gave him the task, and he was happy to do it. What's not mentioned are these extra complications where Draco *did* think first of getting people into Hogwarts. And took that to LV, and got this out of it, which replaced his own motivations so completely there's no trace of them left, except in ways they would completely overlap with the ones he has now. Alla: Yeah, and he does sort of has this triumph on the train, no? Magpie: Actually, he really doesn't at all. He's bragging that he's been given a task, not that he already impressed Voldemort by bringing him a great idea nobody else had thought of. Writing the scene with that different tact wouldn't be difficult. I think it would come naturally if the author had in her head that this is what happened. She does this all the time, sometimes intentionally disguising one motivation for another--but if the real one isn't revealed there's no payoff. (Though I don't think there's any disguising going on on the train.) Alla: In the TBAY, as far as I am aware ( and this is from the POV of somebody who loved to read TBAY and hopes people will come back to it, but never wrote it) the Faith is the personification of the authoritarial intent, basically she accepts as given of what is written on the page, period. Again, TBAY theorists who actually used Faith in their essays will correct me if I am wrong. And very often the theories in Theory Bay were checked by Faith on whether they can sail or not :) Magpie: Ah! Thanks--so it's what it sounded like. "Faith" refers to reading the books like ordinary books. But more importantly, it's something common to Theory Bay, and as I said in another post, I think the problem with this thread is two different activities having to do with the books crashing into each other. Alla: I am especially confused about HBP proving that Faith was wrong that Dumbledore was cruel leaving Harry with Dursleys. Is there anything there to show that Dumbledore was **not** cruel? Wound't the Faith position be that yeah, that was Dumbledore only choice, but she would ask for more definite stance on that? Magpie: Just for the record, that would be what HBP seems to say to me about DD and the Dursleys. Either way he left a kid in a household he could be pretty sure would be unloving, and for years knew it was downright cruel to Harry. But HBP confirmed there was a blood protection factor too. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 1 18:00:30 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:00:30 -0000 Subject: Draco's task (For Magpie and those who agree with her) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157734 Carol: > Rather than quoting from the Draco thread, which has become rather > tangled lately, I'd like to ask Magpie and those who agree with her a > question. Do you think that Voldemort never intended for Dumbledore to > die and that his only intention was to kill Draco or have the DEs kill > him for failing to kill DD? Or do you think that LV has such a limited > understanding of DD that he assumed that DD would kill the boy? Magpie: I believe Snape's line "He expects me to do it in the end" in the context of the scene and what happens could mean that Snape is saying he believes Voldemort expects Snape to kill Dumbledore "in the end." Meaning whenever LV makes his actual plan to kill Dumbledore, he means for Snape to be the one to do it. Could be years from now. I think within this story LV's intention, based on things said by Narcissa, Snape, Dumbledore, Draco and perhaps some others, is that Voldemort's goal here is for Draco to die either by being killed somehow in trying to kill Dumbledore (by someone on the other side, or as the result of someone defending themselves against him--could be Dumbledore whose compassion I think may be incomprehensible to LV), or, if that doesn't happen, by Voldemort or a DE as punishment. Carol:> > I think, regardless of whether Draco went to LV or LV came to him, > that the Vanishing Cabinet plot was in place from the beginning. Draco > would fix the cabinet, allowing the DEs into Hogwarts. The DEs would > set off the Dark Mark over the Astronomy Tower, fight off or kill > anyone who got in the way, and force Draco to do the task. (Unknown to > him, at first, they'd kill him if he failed.) Magpie: I think the Cabinet plan is in place in Draco's head in Draco's Detour for sure, where he acts on it, and at some point before that, and that the method of killing DD was left up to Draco, his choice being to use the Cabinets for back-up. Carol: They are acting under > Voldemort's orders, and I think those orders have been in place since > the beginning. I also think that having Fenrir Greyback check up on > Borgin is part of the plan. How else ensure that Borgin does his part? > And since Draco, despite his bluster, has no authority over Greyback, > it must be LV who sends him. Magpie: Draco's having the authority to have Fenrir checking on the Cabinet means that someone is enforcing that for him, yes. But it doesn't necessarily mean that LV is instructing DEs to get the Cabinet fixed etc. I can think of different scenarios where Draco is working far more independently under a more distant protection from LV. Carol: > Draco buys the Peruvian Darkness Powder in Diagon Alley on the same > day as the confrontation with Borgin. Magpie: I don't recall that being made clear. Fred and George introduce the powder to Harry in their store, and Malfoy walks past their store to Borgin's. But regardless, he is stocking up on special "school supplies" for the year.:-) And the powder has uses other than its final one as well--it's what he uses when Trelawney comes into the RoR. Carol: To me, that indicates that his > plan is already in place and the DEs are aware of it. Magpie: Clearly he is moving on his plan and he's got other people involved already too. But I don't know how much they know. We know that Snape, for instance, is aware of the plan to kill DD and that he tries to get Draco to tell him what he's up to. If Draco went to Bellatrix with more specifics she might arrange for back up with Voldemort's blessing--that might even be what Draco means by Fenrir being a family friend. Carol: The pressure on > Draco begins when he hasn't finished his seemingly minor repair job > before the Christmas holiday (he panics and resorts to the mead and > necklace ideas) and intensifies throughout the year, with death > threats to his family by the time that Harry finds him crying in the > bathroom. Magpie: Draco has not yet fixed the Cabinet by--is it October, the first Hogsmeade weekend?--and he puts the necklace plan into motion. The mead, too, must be put into motion before Christmas. We see Draco deteriorating, Harry notices he looks pale and ill at the Xmas party (post-Katie) and thin, like Tonks, in the Spring some time after Ron's birthday (post-Ron). He is exclusively concentrating on the Cabinet since pre-Xmas and getting more panicked and desperate as the Cabinet isn't getting fixed. I think given the themes of the story and the ultimate scene on the Tower, however, that the attempted murders (and his own near-death) are also a factor. Dumbledore's pointing out that Draco's "heart wasn't in" the attempted murders indicates, imo, an awakening awareness that all this isn't for him that he isn't able to acknowledge until the last scene. But his worries about failure, imo, have significance beyond the practical, the realization that he's not a killer more painfully arrived at and struggled with. That's why his panic doesn't lead him to try other attempts at murder. The Cabinet plot is great because it gives him a way of telling himself he's working towards killing DD without having to actually kill anyone else. Carol:> > My point is that surely Voldemort knows about the cabinet and expects > Draco to repair it so that he can get his DEs into Hogwarts to set the > trap. Also, even though he certainly expects Draco to fail to kill DD > once they're face to face, the DEs are there to ensure that both Draco > and Dumbledore will die. And failing that, there's Snape, who'd > "expected to do it in the end," whether or not LV knows about the > Unbreakable Vow. Magpie: Or Draco could screw up at any time during the year and be carted off or killed. If Dumbledore gets killed LV would of course be fine with that, but I don't think he's counting on Dumbledore being dead as a result of this caper. If Snape is expected to do it as part of the Cabinet plot I think LV would tell him about it. He doesn't need the Cabinets to get that particular assassin candidate inside Hogwarts. It also undercuts Snape's UV being his own decision if doing it for Draco is Voldemort's orders anyway. Carol:> > I get the idea that people think LV has just sent in his goon squad > and expected all of them to fail, with Dumbledore winning the day. I > don't think that was the plan. Magpie: I don't think intentionally sacrificing DEs to Dumbledore was a priority, no. The orders repeated throughout the scene are that Draco's got to do it, with DEs thinking it's important to stop anyone who tries to do it instead. Snape knows this much in Spinner's End, and is able to take over ordering them around when he arrives. Carol: > Granted, they didn't expect to find a Dumbledore weakened and perhaps > dying from a potion, but they did expect Draco to surprise him and > deprive him of his wand. Magpie: That's what I think is more important in terms of the story, thematically. He's underestimated a kid again, in such a way as to give one a little window of opportunity to find his own strength and break free of his clutches-like making Harry duel with him in GoF. Carol: > So the job was always to kill Dumbledore, but the *means* was getting > the DEs into the castle as back up. If Draco failed, fine; he would > die, too, and Lucius would be punished. But one way or the other, DD > was supposed to die. Magpie: Right. The job was always to kill Dumbledore, and the means that Draco was getting DEs into the castle. However, Draco could have done it any other way. He could have gotten caught poisoning someone with mead early in the year and carted off to jail and hopefully murdered and that would be that. So, imo, the plan to kill Dumbledore by using Draco was primarily about revenge against the Malfoys. If finding out about the Cabinet plot was the genesis of the plan instead because LV is a better strategist, I think would continue being a better strategist and make the Cabinet a priority for him. It's a priority for Draco for his own reasons, but Dumbledore's not sending any polyjuiced people to help him fix it, or letting Snape in on it. And if he means Snape to kill Dumbledore in the end (Snape's line could be intentionally ambiguous and refer to Snape saying Dumbledore means him to kill him in the end as well), he's already in the castle and could kill him without use of any Cabinet. And of course, I also think that Draco's going to LV first is a huge thing for him to be dealing with as part of his arc and would therefore be in the text. Draco has a well-supported arc starting with the order flung at him by LV possibly on a whim but which becomes the focus of Draco's life. It just seems that giving Voldemort a good plan starts leading into destroying the more important story. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 18:47:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:47:34 -0000 Subject: Who is Faith? WAS: Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157735 > Alla: > > Magpie, I am not sure whether when you wrote you don't understand > about Faith, you meant that you have not read about her or whether > you read but did not understand. > > So, in case you have not read about her, here is the link: > > http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#faith > > In the TBAY, as far as I am aware ( and this is from the POV of > somebody who loved to read TBAY and hopes people will come back to > it, but never wrote it) the Faith is the personification of the > authoritarial intent, basically she accepts as given of what is > written on the page, period. Again, TBAY theorists who actually used > Faith in their essays will correct me if I am wrong. > > And very often the theories in Theory Bay were checked by Faith on > whether they can sail or not :) > > So, yeah, I like this chick a lot :), even if sometimes she can be > wrong. > > I think you already answered Snow's argument about Faith being wrong > about Sirius being a bad guy and Moody being the real one. That was > answered at the end of the book, so the way I understand it now - > Faith position would be at the end of the book exactly what was > written there. > > I am especially confused about HBP proving that Faith was wrong that > Dumbledore was cruel leaving Harry with Dursleys. Is there anything > there to show that Dumbledore was **not** cruel? Wound't the Faith > position be that yeah, that was Dumbledore only choice, but she would > ask for more definite stance on that? > > And in fact, isn't Faith position now that Dumbledore has regretted > what Dursleys did to Harry? And where is in HBP that states that > Dumbledore indeed had no other choice? He mentions blood protection > in OOP as well, where does he say that absolutely nothing could have > been done if not to remove Harry but at least for him to interfere? > > I am just how on this topic Faith is proven wrong in HBP, not sure > **at all*, but this is moving from our topic. > > So, yeah, that is Faith as I understand her. Carol responds: I think the important point about Faith is in the first line of that document--she's first cousin to Naive and Gullible. If she believes everything on the page, she'll not only accept the narrator's words (Harry's parents were killed in an accident, SS/PS; there's no such word as "Quidditch," GoF, etc., etc.) but everything any character says. That acceptance of text as Truth doesn't allow for characters to be misinformed, mistaken, guessing wrong, lying, or withholding information--and we know many characters, including Dumbledore, Snape, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Lupin, Hagrid, and Sirius Black who fit into one or more of those categories. Her view doesn't allow for red herrings or misdirection or the (sometimes) unreliable narrator and (mostly) Harrycentric pov of all the books. And, of course, Faith doesn't allow for speculation or theorizing, either, which is the point of her (hypothetical) existence (not to mention that she can't account for Flints and inconsistencies in the books, even those that JKR herself has acknowledged and attempted to explain away). Faith may be the personification of authorial intention, but the problem is, authorial intention can't always be determined by what's on the page. You have to look at other things, chiefly the limitations of Harry's pov and the reasons why a character might be providing incomplete or misleading information (Hermione suggesting that Tonks is suffering from survivor's guilt, for example, or Hagrid saying that all DEs are from Slytherin) to determine what the author is up to. Or we can accept what's on the page in all cases: "Sirius was hiding, simply lurking out of sight" (OoP Am. ed. 807) or "This was the end of his ambition to become an Auror" (HBP Am. ed. 103). Absolute truth, right? There it is on the page. And if the Black family tapestry is canon, Faith takes it on faith that certain boys in the Black family fathered children at thirteen. In some cases (Crouch!Moody in GoF, for example), we can see where we've been tricked and the words on the page are either wrong or don't mean what we thought they meant. But HBP is the first half of the final book and there's a lot we still don't know. If we rely on Faith, we're in big trouble. Carol, who trusts Faith as she would adders fanged From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 19:01:34 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:01:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609010434p73eb8577he404ea674ca53a20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609011201m7c980c72m2c2393c3122b65c2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157736 > Magpie: > I would not be accusing anyone of rewriting CoS if they were doing > that unless they were doing what they were doing here: claiming that > we knew for a fact that Lucius was working with Voldemort (as in "we > must remember that Draco went to Voldemort first...") and then > changing scenes to have meanings that require unreasonable > twisting. Random832 I meant your objection seems similar to a hypothetical objection to arguing the (now known to be true) point that Voldemort had nothing to do with Lucius giving Ginny the diary, before that was generally known. Many people for q"knew" that it was Voldemort's plan, etc, and to say otherwise would be as disingenuous (and no more) as saying that Draco went to Voldemort first is now. > Magpie: > I have said on numerous occasions I'm not saying that people can't > have this as a theory. But particularly if I'm being told something > is going on in front of me in the book You're _not_ being told that, though. You're merely drawing a conclusion from the things you have been told. Others have drawn a different conclusion. Also, I don't seriously think that Draco's orders were anything other than to kill DD. But that doesn't mean we know it for a fact. I think there's substantially more doubt, however as to how the plan developed. We don't know and there is no obvious conclusion. Our _only_ source for it being Voldemort wanting to send Draco on an impossible mission to get revenge on the Malfoys is Narcissa, a character whom JKR has _not_ done anything in particular to set up as a reliable source of information - and neither Bellatrix nor Snape even claim she's right. > Magpie: > there's no reason not to > subject it to the same tests any other interpretation would get. > Usually the "making up theories" part of the list is separate from > the "literary analysis" part, which is why it isn't a problem. This > thread crashed them together. Seems this is a bad idea, because > there's two different things going on and all of us are irritated at > being expected to play the other's game. Random832: If "making up theories" is to be separate from "literary analysis", you can't analyze anything at all other than what's shown on the page. You just want to analyze the text in conjunction with _your_ theory, and to accuse anyone who wants to go off of a different theory of "crashing them together". Your theory that Narcissa has some special insight into Voldemort's motives is no less controversial than any other theory. Keep in mind that Narcissa also doesn't know about the cabinet but does know about the order to kill DD. This is an incomplete picture from which she (rightly) derives the belief that Draco has been given a mission with no means of accomplishing it. In that context, it makes sense to think it's an attempt at revenge by proxy against Lucius. However, that context is _manifestly incorrect_ in the face of the fact that the vanishing cabinet does exist and (by the fact that reinforcements are sent through it we may assume) Voldemort knows about it. It's not even clear that Narcissa would draw the same conclusion if she knew that Draco had a decent shot of pulling it off, and it's not clear that even if she would she'd be right. She does not (that we have heard of) have any special insight into Voldemort's motives, and she does not have all the information she would need even if she did. -- Random832 From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 19:12:53 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609010817p705cb008q6de8000d27c19537@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060901191253.56490.qmail@web39505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157737 --- Jordan Abel wrote: > > Sue here: > > > > This is an odd scene, because it's inconsistent > with the first scene of HPPS, in which Hagrid > > says he's borrowed the motorbike and had better > get going because he has to return it. I > > personally think it's just a glitch that was never > fixed. > > Random832 wrote: > > This was 'fixed' in later editions from "I'll be > takin' Sirius his > bike back." to "I best get this bike away." - see > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html > > I actually think the original version works better > if we assume that > Hagrid didn't "know" Sirius was guilty of betraying > the Potters. The > reason given for changing it was 'This sentence > didn't fit very well > with the way the character of Sirius was developed > as the series > progressed.' > -- > Random832 > parisfan writes: I would agree that in terms of progression from book one to book three in regards to sirius's devlopment it is true that JK probably had very little in mind in regards to characture development. But I always figured that at the time Sirius rode up on his bike at the potters house and met Hagrid getting Harry out of the rubble that Sirius probably had come to check on his friend and wife and upon seeing what happen decided to go after the 'rat' all on his own (without talking to anyone first about it). And when he said that He (Sirius) wouldn't need the bike anymore (to me) ment that Sirius was expecting to either die in his mission or like be in jail for murder. IN additon to that Hagrid probably wouldn't have guessed what Sirius was going to do. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bobhawkins at rcn.com Fri Sep 1 18:49:50 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:49:50 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > It is likely that LV's second return to a regenerated body would have > happened quite quickly but still it seems that buying time would be a > good thing at that point. On the other side of the ledger, it would be hard to convince the wizarding world that Voldemort was back, if he no longer was. "He *was* back for a while, and he will be again soon!" wouldn't convince many people. > I suppose an argument against that is the > famous gleam in DD's eye upon learning that LV had used Harry's blood > in the process. Tom's father still has more bones to give, LV still > has servants willing to give flesh, but it is very unlikely that LV > would get the use of Harry's blood again. It is quite possible that DD > wants LV's regenerated body to be based on Harry's blood even more > that LV does. LV will probably get a nasty surprise about that in book 7. > This sounds like a good argument. zeroirregardless. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 19:18:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:18:38 -0000 Subject: Who is Faith? WAS: Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157739 Carol: > Faith may be the personification of authorial intention, but the > problem is, authorial intention can't always be determined by what's > on the page. You have to look at other things, chiefly the limitations > of Harry's pov and the reasons why a character might be providing > incomplete or misleading information (Hermione suggesting that Tonks > is suffering from survivor's guilt, for example, or Hagrid saying that > all DEs are from Slytherin) to determine what the author is up to. Alla: Ummm, yes, of course. There is the question of degree. I would not trust Faith completely, but I sure trust her more than many people ( or some people - of course I have no statistics). As far as I am concerned, she had been proven wrong and she had been proven right too. I tend to think that she had been proven right in big situations often enough to consider this chick to be rather trustworthy to hang out with, often keeping in mind that she tends make mistakes too. I brought it up in the past, but I will say it again - Harry's heart saved him in MoM, Harry's ability to feel love, etc - this is on the page, that is what Faith believes. I trust her on that. Of course I also trust her on many other things, which could be questioned, but those are my preferences. Carol: > Absolute truth, right? There it is on the page. And if the Black > family tapestry is canon, Faith takes it on faith that certain boys in > the Black family fathered children at thirteen. Alla: Um, I do trust Faith that author as self-proclaimed is bad at math, but this is just minor detail of course, as I said Faith surely can be wrong, I just tend to wonder along with her and make mistakes with her, rather than question her every time along the way ( not saying that questioning her is an invalid way to read, just saying that it makes me feel more in sinch with the text when I do that). There are of course situations when I cannot help but question her. Oh well. JMO, Alla. From bobhawkins at rcn.com Fri Sep 1 18:54:34 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:54:34 -0000 Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157740 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > It's the weekend, we can use some fluff---does anyone else have an > example of 'did she really write that?'--lines that sort of jump out > and amuse us. > In CoS, after Harry talks Parseltongue to a faucet, "The sink, in fact, sank." zeroirregardless. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 19:40:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:40:38 -0000 Subject: Draco's task (For Magpie and those who agree with her) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157741 Carol earlier: > > > I think, regardless of whether Draco went to LV or LV came to him, that the Vanishing Cabinet plot was in place from the beginning. Draco would fix the cabinet, allowing the DEs into Hogwarts. > > Sydney: > > I don't think so, otherwise Snape would have had an inkling of it. Snape seems to have no idea what's going on, aside from Draco flailing around with unknown plans to kill D-dore. Carol again: Not necessarily. I think LV has told Snape only as much as he wants Snape to know--that he's assigned Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. He doesn't want Snape to know the details, either to help Draco or to hinder him. It's Draco's job to fix that cabinet and lts the DEs in, lead them to the tower, and then kill DD. Or at any rate, that's Draco's *plan* from the first moment we see him in Knockturn Alley with Borgin, threatening him if he doesn't cooperate in fixing or helping to fix the broken cabinet (or cabinets?). Sydney: > Why does it indicate the DE's are aware of it? To me it indicates that Draco has been given his assignment and is stocking up with whatever he can think of-- the necklace, the Darkness powder, hey! the cabinet that can bypass Hogwarts security! That could come in handy! > Carol responds: Draco buys the Peruvian Darkness powder at that time, AFWK. He doesn't, however, buy the necklace until later. It's still there when Hermione walks in to see if she can figure out what he bought. (I'm a bit confused as to when he acquired the Hand of Glory--certainly not in CoS. If he bought *it* at that time, that would be another indication that his plan was already fully formed.) I don't think it's nearly as random as you seem to think. Look how cocksure he is on the Hogwarts Express. He thinks he has everything under control. And he later tells Snape that he has a plan but that it's taking longer than he thought. The plan is clearly to fix the cabinet and let the DEs in, Peruvian Darkness Powder, Hand of Glory and all. And then, of course, to dispatch the old man, but he's not thinking about that part yet. Carol earlier: > > The pressure on Draco begins when he hasn't finished his seemingly minor repair job before the Christmas holiday (he panics and resorts to the mead and necklace ideas) and intensifies throughout the year, with death threats to his family by the time that Harry finds him crying in the bathroom. > > > Sydney: > > See, I'd always tied the crying in the bathroom in to Draco reacting > to the near-deaths of Ron and Katie-- that is what wraps up the > storyline with Dumbledore's "You're not a killer" line. The cabinet, the necklace, and the mead, all have in common that they are ways for Draco to avoid directly being a killer-- he gives the necklace to someone, who gives it someone else, who will give it to the murder victim... he'll fix the cabinet so someone else will magically appear. Carol: Look again at "the Unbreakable Vow." That chapter occurs just before the Christmas holiday, and Katie Bell is already in St. Mungo's (having been saved by Snape). Draco expresses no remorse or regret whatever regarding her, instead denying involvement and telling Snape that "that Bell girl" must have had an enemy." Ron's poisoning occurs on his birthday, March 1. I don't recall any reaction from Draco regarding it. Since he stated back in CoS that he hoped "Granger" will be one of the "Mudbloods" killed by the monster and actually wants to help the Heir of Slytherin, I doubt that he'd feel any grief or guilt if the poison went astray and accidentally killed another of Harry's friends, the "Blood Traitor" Ron Weasley. The scene where he's crying in the bathroom occurs on April 21, the day of the Apparition test, seven weeks after Ron is poisoned and about six weeks (IIRC) after his full recovery. At any rate, Draco isn't crying about Katie and Ron or about being unable to kill Dumbledore because he's not a killer. He's crying because he thinks that he and his family will be killed if he fails to fix the cabinet and get the DEs into Hogwarts so he can kill Dumbledore with them as backup--the only seemingly foolproof method of killing a wizard who has already defeated Voldemort in the MoM. He cheers ("whoops") when he's fixed the cabinet on the night that Harry and DD go Horcrux hunting. *Finally* his plan is working and he can finish his job (the task of killing DD, which is the only part Snape knows about--he know the goal but not the means for achieving the goal). He leads the DEs, with his Darkness Powder and the Hand of Glory, both obtained for exactly that purpose IMO, from the RoR toward the Astronomy Tower, where Gibbon is to set off the Dark Mark to lure Dumbledore. Things get a bit messy when the DEs encounter the Order members--Draco hadn't planned on that and he's used up all his powder, as Ginny tells Harry--but he's still confident as he heads up the stairs and shouts "Expelliarmus!" The impossible has happened. Not quite seventeen-year-old Draco Malfoy has disarmed the old Muggle-lover Albus Dumbledore. He's showed everybody, especially Snape. He boasts to Dumbledore that he's going to get all the "glory" and Snape will get none. He tells Dumbledore that he's going to kill him, and at first I think he really believes that he will. But then something Draco didn't anticipate happens. Here's Dumbledore--weak, disarmed, totally helpless--and Draco can't kill him. He finds out then and only then that killing isn't as easy as he had thought it would be--exactly the same lesson Harry learned when he stood over Sirius Black with a wand in PoA. BetsyHP was talking about the poignancy of this scene. I think the poignancy is spoiled if he's already learned that he's not a killer. It's Dumbledore's mercy which teaches him that lesson. Carol, hoping that Sydney will rethink her reaction to the "Sectumsempra" chapter given the timeline From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 21:22:46 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:22:46 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609011201m7c980c72m2c2393c3122b65c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157742 > >>Magpie: > > I have said on numerous occasions I'm not saying that people > > can't have this as a theory. But particularly if I'm being told > > something is going on in front of me in the book > >>Random832: > You're _not_ being told that, though. You're merely drawing a > conclusion from the things you have been told. Others have drawn a > different conclusion. Betsy Hp: Only the first conclusion is based on things stated (and restated) within HBP. The second conclusion (the "Cabinet came first" theory) is based on pure speculation and a desire for a different sort of thinking from Voldemort. So, IMO, the two are not equal. One is canon, the other is not. Of course JKR could write in a scene in book 7 where she has someone explain that the summing up scene on the tower was wrong, and actually the whole ball started rolling because of Draco. JKR could also write a similar scene wherein Ginny explained that in CoS she actually did the whole diary thing to make Harry notice her (thanks Magpie ). I highly doubt that's going to happen, but of course people can theorize. It gets complicated when they try and equate their theory with canon, however. > >>Random832: > Also, I don't seriously think that Draco's orders were anything > other than to kill DD. But that doesn't mean we know it for a > fact. I think there's substantially more doubt, however > as to how the plan developed. We don't know and there is no obvious > conclusion. Our _only_ source for it being Voldemort wanting to > send Draco on an impossible mission to get revenge on the Malfoys > is Narcissa, a character whom JKR has _not_ done anything in > particular to set up as a reliable source of information - and > neither Bellatrix nor Snape even claim she's right. Betsy Hp: I just don't get why there's such a strong reluctance to see this story as done. We had the summing up scene. Dumbledore and Draco discussed the fact that Voldemort had told Draco to kill Dumbledore. Goodness, Narcissa makes it clear that Voldemort chose Draco (not the other way around) at Spinner's End, and neither Snape nor Bellatrix chimed in to say, "Well, that's what you think, but..." or anything of the sort. I suppose we can have a discussion about *why* Voldemort chose Draco for that particular task (though I'm confused as to why the reason given isn't good enough, especially as Dumbledore seems to buy it) but that doesn't effect that fact that Voldemort did the choosing and Draco was the boy he chose. > >>Random832: > If "making up theories" is to be separate from "literary analysis", > you can't analyze anything at all other than what's shown on the > page. Betsy Hp: Well... yeah. That's what literary analysis is. There's still plenty to discuss of course (witness DDM Snape vs ESE Snape) but the discussion *is* limited to what is actually written. > >>Random832: > You just want to analyze the text in conjunction with _your_ > theory, and to accuse anyone who wants to go off of a different > theory of "crashing them together". Betsy Hp: Except what Magpie is arguing *isn't* a theory. It's canon. It's the story HBP tells. Now, if the "Cabinet Came First" theory is proven correct in book 7 it means that Draco's story in HBP was basically one giant redherring (and really badly written, IMO) but there's nothing yet to hang that theory on. So at this point in time Magpie's version is canon. Frankly, I could do that with anything. I could state that the reason Dumbledore loves sweets is that he's a child molester and all will be revealed in book 7 and anyone who states otherwise is just stating an opposing theory not canon at all, because really, who knows... At which point chaos reigns. > >>Random832: > Your theory that Narcissa has some special insight into > Voldemort's motives is no less controversial than any other theory. Betsy Hp: See, this is what's so odd to me. The entire discussion is about whether Voldemort chose Draco or Draco chose Voldemort (who approached whom) and for some reason the conversation keeps getting dragged around to Voldemort's motivations. Why? It's confusing and it fogs the issue. Who cares (at this point) *why* Voldemort chose Draco, all we're trying to say is that *as per canon* Voldemort Draco. And Narcissa doesn't need to understand a thing about Voldemort to correctly interpert Voldemort giving her son a task as Voldemort, well, choosing her son to do a certain task. > >>Random832: > > It's not even clear that Narcissa would draw the same conclusion > if she knew that Draco had a decent shot of pulling it off, and > it's not clear that even if she would she'd be right. > Betsy Hp: Even if Narcissa thought Draco could complete his task easily she'd still come to the same exact conclusion as to whether Voldemort sought out Draco or Draco sought out Voldemort. And everybody in the room (and on the Tower, for that matter) seemed under the impression that it was Voldemort who sought out Draco. That it might have been the other way around is *never* raised as a possibility by anyone in the books. (I'm stating that so confidently because I'm sure if such a statement *had* been made, it would have been quoted on this thread a long time ago.) Betsy Hp From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 23:27:46 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:27:46 -0000 Subject: Draco's task (For Magpie and those who agree with her) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157743 > > Sydney: > Snape seems to have no idea what's going on, aside from Draco flailing > around with unknown plans to kill D-dore. > > Carol again: > Not necessarily. I think LV has told Snape only as much as he wants > Snape to know--that he's assigned Draco the task of killing > Dumbledore. He doesn't want Snape to know the details, either to help > Draco or to hinder him. Sydney: Yes, but if this plan is all about efficiently killing Dumbledore, not about killing Draco (which is the story that is repeatedly sold in canon), then why would Voldemort keep critical details away from Snape, his Big Gun, the guy who is, in the "Draco is just a sideline" idea, it's all about? If Voldemort was all about killing Dumbledore via Snape and using Draco to facilitate it, why would Snape be desperately trying to find out what's going on, and not even have a clue when the sh** hits the fan, despite his life being at stake? Carol: > Draco buys the Peruvian Darkness powder at that time, AFWK. He > doesn't, however, buy the necklace until later. It's still there when > Hermione walks in to see if she can figure out what he bought. Look how cocksure he is on the > Hogwarts Express. He thinks he has everything under control. And he > later tells Snape that he has a plan but that it's taking longer than > he thought. The plan is clearly to fix the cabinet and let the DEs in, > Peruvian Darkness Powder, Hand of Glory and all. And then, of course, > to dispatch the old man, but he's not thinking about that part yet. Sydney: None of this hits on the crux of the 'alternate' theory, that Draco initially approached Voldemort. It just means that at the start of the year, after he has been given the assingment, Draco was already thinking about backup. This sounds in character for Draco to me. Carol: > Look again at "the Unbreakable Vow." That chapter occurs just before > the Christmas holiday, and Katie Bell is already in St. Mungo's > (having been saved by Snape). Draco expresses no remorse or regret > whatever regarding her, instead denying involvement and telling Snape > that "that Bell girl" must have had an enemy." Sydney: But Draco is already looking drawn and hollow-eyed and pale at the Christmas party. He has "dark shadows under his eyes and a distinctly greyish tinge to his skin". Harry is surprised by how different he looks, and how he's pulling away from Snape. I think Draco expressing remorse or regret to Snape in that scene would be bizarre-- Snape is exactly the person Draco is trying to hide his true feelings from. Because, IMO, his true feelings are something he thinks Snape would disapprove of (Snape as Draco thinks he is, a cold-hearted, death-loving Death Eater, that is). Snape asks him what feelings he's trying to hide from his master, and Draco deflects it into being all about Snape butting in; but I think Snape is right. That line, "What feelings are you trying to hide from your master?" is too poignant, IMO, to be off the mark. Carol: Ron's poisoning occurs > on his birthday, March 1. I don't recall any reaction from Draco > regarding it. Since he stated back in CoS that he hoped "Granger" will > be one of the "Mudbloods" killed by the monster and actually wants to > help the Heir of Slytherin, I doubt that he'd feel any grief or guilt > if the poison went astray and accidentally killed another of Harry's > friends, the "Blood Traitor" Ron Weasley. Sydney: See, this is the crux at which the resistance to the story, as sketched out in canon, start, I think. Draco has always looked pale (or flushed and glittery eyed) and a bit hysterical when these things happen to other people. It sounds like he's gloating but at the same time he's very stressed out. There's the way his smile is 'quivering' at the end of GoF when he's taunting them about Cedric. What I love about JKR is how very *specific* she is about character. Draco isn't the guy who is totally cool and has a 6-foot-thick wall between himself and compassion. I think we've seen again and again that Draco has a 6-inch-thick balsa wood wall between his "Ooooh I'm a cool DE kid" persona and his "OMG V-mort is scary and I'm stressed by what's going on" feelings. That's why he can't seem to help himself from leaping to the front of the line and screaming "You'll be next, mudbloods!!" with a white face. It's bravado. It's *why* to Voldemort he wasn't a potential resource in terms of Doing Evil Things, but a patsy to bump off to punish someone else. Voldemort would have looked into his brain and seen a piece of kleenex. I just don't see where there ever existed this character who was a stone-cold DE-in-embryo until he transformed on top of the tower. Draco, to me, has always been the guy who talked a big game but runs screaming like a girl when he's face-to-face with it. He's been that character since PS. I saw a character with a thin facade that was ready to crumble; and the surprising thing is not so much the 'you're not a killer' part, which was forgone, but the 'I got this far.. I'm the one with the wand" part-- the part, it is important to point out, that *Dumbledore praises him for*. That's Draco growing a spine and becoming an individual, not a follower, and getting the strength to make a choice consistent with his basic not-a-killer nature. Given the screen-time Draco gets to complete his arc, this is more appropriate level of change, IMO, than one from totally-not-caring-about-collateral-damage professional to not a killer. Carol: > At any rate, Draco isn't crying about Katie and Ron or about being > unable to kill Dumbledore because he's not a killer. He's crying > because he thinks that he and his family will be killed if he fails to > fix the cabinet and get the DEs into Hogwarts so he can kill > Dumbledore with them as backup--the only seemingly foolproof method of > killing a wizard who has already defeated Voldemort in the MoM. Sydney: I don't think we can state for a surety *when* the extra layer of stress was put on. Draco's stress to me seems to come from the totality of the situation, and, canonically, starts after the near-deaths of Katie and Ron. Carol: He boasts to Dumbledore that he's going to get all the "glory" > and Snape will get none. He tells Dumbledore that he's going to kill > him, and at first I think he really believes that he will.... > But then something Draco didn't anticipate happens. Here's > Dumbledore--weak, disarmed, totally helpless--and Draco can't kill > him. He finds out then and only then that killing isn't as easy as he > had thought it would be--exactly the same lesson Harry learned when he > stood over Sirius Black with a wand in PoA > > BetsyHP was talking about the poignancy of this scene. I think the > poignancy is spoiled if he's already learned that he's not a killer. > It's Dumbledore's mercy which teaches him that lesson. Sydney: But Dumbledore says confidently that Draco's not a killer at the very start of their scene together, and Draco reacts defensively: * Draco Malfoy did nothing but stare at Albus Dumbledore, who, incredibly, smiled. "Draco, Draco, you're not a killer." "How do you know?" said Malfoy at once. He seemed to realize how childish the words had sounded; Harry saw him flush in the Mark's greenish light." * To me, Dumbledore's smiling and Draco's sharp reaction mean that they both already know that Draco is not a killer. D-dore says, * "Forgive me, Draco, but they have been feeble attempts... so feeble, to be honest, that I wonder whether your heart has been really in it.." The scene would read so differently to me if I saw Draco up to this point as being sure of being hard-core and this is first inkling that he's not. Draco's already in pieces by this point. That's where, to me, the relationship between Dumbledore and Draco makes sense-- Dumbledore doesn't see Draco as a guy who nearly killed two people and didn't care. He sees him, tenderly, as someone who is lost and broken and needs reassurance. He praises his ingenuity and perseverance. He speaks 'mildly' about the murder attempts because he knows that Draco's already miserable about them. I think Dumbledore would be hitting an entirely different note if he wasn't facing a Draco who was *already* broken down-- a stern, authoritative note, to start to break him up and bring him around. But Dumbledore's attitude is soft, understanding, embracing, forgiving. He speaks "kindly" to him. Draco is already where Dumbledore wants him. There's no need to berate him about Katie and Ron. > Carol, hoping that Sydney will rethink her reaction to the > "Sectumsempra" chapter given the timeline Sydney: I'm not much of a one for poring over exact timelines-- I seriously think JKR is not famous for that either. I'm also not a Draco fan by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just relating two impressions-- my initial impression from reading the book twice on first encounter, and my impression on re-reading the critical, emotional reactions of the characters as the author seems to want us to understand them. >From that-- and not, I confess, from careful calendar study-- I get the overwhelming impression that on the main the story is the following: -- Voldemort was enraged at Lucius Malfoy and: -- decided to set his son a suicide mission to punish him and: -- the son, in 'innocent' ignorance, began his mission with excitement but: -- became horrified with the reality of the situation after nearly killing two people, but: -- was threatened with death for himself and his family if he did not persevere and so: -- continued because he felt there was no source of sympathetic help and he needed to 'be a man', which resulted in: -- the scene on the tower where he acknowledged that who he thought he was, and who he actually was, were incompatible and: -- met with the already present and waiting mercy of Dumbledore, who spoke to him as a lost sheep all along and embraced him. Before I am prepared to abandon this story, I need 'canon' in the sense of how JKR typically presents it: in terms of the emotional reactions of other characters, and scenes that sell the alternate story. In the absence of such reactions or scenes, and in the presence of reactions and scenes that present the above, that's what I'm going with. -- Sydney From caaf at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 21:17:41 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:17:41 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157744 Cyril here: Just a question that has been there in mymind, esp after reading some of the recent posts. Not sure if this has been covered earlier, if so - please point me to the relevant message. The question is "Why does Snape want the DADA job so bad?" He has been wanting this from the first year. He even mentioned it to Umbridge during inspection in OOTP. He *most* probably knows about the curse on the job - nothing in canon to directly support this assumption - but even the students are noticing that the job is not safe - and DD clearly told Harry in HBP that the job was cursed by LV (incl the trip down Pensieve lane)... so he also most probably told Snape. The thought that he did not want to give Snape the job earlier was because he did not believe that Snape would be able to control his feeling for the Dark Arts... but when he gave the job to Snape in HPB he must have known that Snape would not be keeping the job beyond the year? Would Harry have also realised this after knowing about the curse... Have rambled on a bit after my initial question... I suppose the questions I have are: a) Why does Snape want the job so bad (assuming he know it was cursed)? b) Did DD give it to Snape knowing that he would not be there end of year - or was it just temp and Snape may require to return to Potions in the next year? c) Did Harry realise that Snape was going to be out after learning about the curse on the DADA post? Let me know your thoughts. Cyril. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 00:00:14 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:00:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157745 >Cyril here: >The question is "Why does Snape want the DADA job so bad?" He has been >wanting this from the first year. He even mentioned it to Umbridge >during inspection in OOTP. > >He *most* probably knows about the curse on the job - nothing in canon >to directly support this assumption - but even the students are >noticing that the job is not safe - and DD clearly told Harry in HBP >that the job was cursed by LV (incl the trip down Pensieve lane)... so >he also most probably told Snape. wynnleaf My guess is that Snape doesn't really try to get the DADA job -- he just allows the rumour to continue for reasons of his own, or maybe Dumbledore's. He must know the job is cursed. It was even cursed when he was a student. He might truly wish he could teach it, probably because he's got some strong opinions about DADA, and even Dumbledore admits Snape knows a whole lot about the Dark Arts. But I doubt if he was actively trying to get a cursed job. Once he got the position, he apparently put a lot into it. We certainly never heard about any other DADA teacher teaching nonverbal spells. After all, Hermione didn't apparently know about nonverbals at the end of OOTP, when she tried to stop a Death Eater by silencing him -- the attempt backfired on her. I wonder if either the 6th or 7th years during OOTP (those taught by Umbridge and Crouch, Jr.) got nonverbal spell work, if 5th year Hermione didn't seem to know about it. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 00:14:28 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:14:28 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not? In-Reply-To: <007901c6cd80$f39a4700$d298400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157746 Magpie: I admit I don't get the whole "Faith" schtick. Don't know what it means, never have. So I may be misunderstanding things later in the post-- sorry if I do. Snow: Some definitions of Faith as given in Hypothetic Alley are that: Faith "believes what canon places before her. She is first cousins with those cute twins, Naive and Gullible." "A staunch defender of authorial privilege, Faith "keeps tapping me on the shoulder and saying things like 'Shouldn't we let the author decide that?' and 'We can't know this yet,' and 'tsk, tsk.' She doesn't mind when I hang around with George and the others, but she'll never let me buy a badge. I think she's Jiminy Cricket's girlfriend." "In this sense, Faith may be seen as a supporter of the status quo, an upholder of authorial hegemony, and thus an enemy of reader subversion in all its forms." Hypothetic Alley explained this way better than I ever could have attempted to. It is in no way meant to be disrespectful of your opinion but clarifies that you do not readily accept any alternative view of that which has been written (no matter what written manner it has been presented). Snow (me previously): You see, at Spinner's End, Snape never agreed to killing Dumbledore if Draco failed to, Snape agreed to "carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform". Wording is everything with JKR. We will naturally assume that what was meant by this particular wording was to kill Dumbledore since that is what inevitably happened Magpie: Yes, and that's not a bad thing at all. It's how books are read. Many people didn't get that Draco's task was to kill DD early on. They thought he was supposed to kill Harry or do something else. So they got more of an answer at the end when everything led to Draco trying to do what Voldemort told him to do in killing DD. If you don't accept this, the story is just a pile of random events. The end has nothing to do with the beginning, it's all just ever more complicated with little meaning at all. Snow: Well it does become a bit more complicated from your standpoint but I wouldn't say that it had no meaning at all. It's just that Faith hasn't been totally informed; she has jumped to conclusions based on assumption. Just because B (Dumbledore was killed) happened, does not directly relate that A (the plan) was to have Draco kill Dumbledore himself. Now when Faith is informed in the next book that the plan wasn't a straightforward Draco must kill Dumbledore himself, all the pieces will fit together and become much more clear. A strategist or theorizer attempts to get ahead of Faith by nitpicking what she has been told. We are not attempting to change the story but to foresee where the next book will take us by scrutinizing questionable dialog. Faith sits and waits to be spoon-fed the information while the strategist attempts to beat the author to the punch. We are aware of every possible open alternate meaning that has been said and jump on it. Could there be an alternate route that still takes us where we currently think we are. Our thoughts don't take us astray from the obvious it simply takes a different route to the same conclusion, which does affect the story but not the direct result. Snow (me previously): but you can never be totally certain because this is where the author can make her twist. (Leading you to the obvious conclusion is Faith's diversion) Magpie: I think the word choice in this case was to keep the reader from hearing flat-out that his mission was to kill Dumbledore, though it was fairly easy to guess, especially when the attempted murder attempts start happening. Snow: This is exactly what I am talking about. You see this as straightforward, given information. I see it as a bit too easy to accept. It feels like I'm being led by the nostrils to make this assumption. Magpie snipped slightly: One of the many problems with these theories is that they are all unfalsified premises. There's nothing actually there. Whenever somebody points out a flaw in it given the story in canon--a story that has a structure and so has limitations and shape--it can be explained away with new inventions. And maybe that sounds exciting when you're coming up with the answers, but as its own entity it just reads like working your way around canon that wasn't written to support what's being said. Snow: I wouldn't call them new inventions but rather alternative suggestions with a very similar conclusion. The storyline would not change what happens at the end where Dumbledore dies, Dumbledore will still be dead and Snape will still be the one who killed him. What it does affect is the reason Voldemort chose Draco; the reason Snape took the vow; the reason Snape was asleep instead of looking after his charge and securing the castle. It could also affect some things like the reasons why Dumbledore died and Snape killed him or why Draco was so confident at the beginning and becomes shockingly devastated at the end. If the plan became altered or enhanced from its original status, the end results would be quite the same but the reason it came to that point would be different. If Draco was of the understanding that his orders were to secure a way into the castle for the capture to kill Dumbledore and then learned that he was to kill Dumbledore himself, the result would be the same Dumbledore dies. But the reasons why people (like Snape) acted the way they did would be different. Snow (me previously): To truly understand what I'm attempting to get across to you, you would have to open your mind and allow suspicion to enter. Be suspicious of Faith and question wording that could also be interpreted with another suggestion, a twisty outcome, like what we have been proposing (although this suggestion isn't all conclusive, there are others). Magpie: So it's basically what I've already allowed, that yes, this is the plot of the book but if the author still has the power to announce in the next book that the plot of this one was totally fake? Yes, if the next book takes time to explain that Draco was not given the task of killing DD early in the year, but instead was given the task of fixing the cabinet, and that's what Snape agreed to do, and then Draco committed some near-murders for some odd reason, and then Voldemort surprised him with telling him to kill DD late in the year, I will certainly revise my thinking on HBP (perhaps for the worse). As of now I just read the books using the normal comprehension skills I apply to any book and assume, until further notice, that this was the plot--just as I assume Barty Crouch Jr. polyjuiced himself into Moody and put Harry's name in the Goblet to get him to the Portkey, and Kreacher went to Narcissa with info about Sirius and Harry, and Quirrel had Voldemort on the back of his head, and Lucius slipped Ginny the diary and it possessed her. It's worked fine so far. Snow: This is an absolutely exceptional example of Faith. Faith believes only what has been presented to her without question. Magpie: Why Snape took the Vow is a big question I am waiting to have answered. It becomes less of a question if the Vow isn't to kill Dumbledore. Because who the heck cares if Snape took a Vow to make a secret entrance into the castle? As to why he's asleep, that didn't seem like much of a question. He may be part of the Order, but he's at Hogwarts as a teacher, he's not on guard duty. He's got classes to teach the next day. Snow: Well making a secret entrance to the castle can greatly affect the lives of many including the headmaster. Snape being asleep when he is aware that Dumbledore is out of the castle and the Order is on full guard while all along realizing what `the plan' is and he is to protect his charge, `is' a bid deal in either version. Magpie: If the DEs are disposing of DD there goes that whole important "you are/are not a killer" part of the must-not-call-it-canon-version which is rather focused on committing murder or not, sticking it in only at the last minute when you can't avoid it instead of letting it be central. And making the Vow something that mundane drains the scene of drama. And why would I be looking for substitute plans? I'm not in the market of an alternate version of HBP--if I was it would be the one that changed the H/G storyline, not the one trashing the storyline I enjoyed. Snow: True enough if the plan only started out with Draco's cabinets and didn't include the fact that Dumbledore was the main target in doing so. But did Draco become aware that he was to kill Dumbledore himself without assistance from the very beginning? Did Draco feel confident from the beginning that he was a qualified enough wizard to handle the death of a powerful wizard all by himself or was Draco under the impression that he could have backup? Why did Draco feel the cabinets were so important in killing Dumbledore all by himself? Snow (me previously): You see Faith can be as wrong as Sirius being the bad guy or Mad Eye Moody being good in GOF and yet most of us fell for the trap. Magpie: Sirius was revealed as the good guy at the end of PoA. The guy who we thought was Mad Eye Moody was revealed to be DE Barty Crouch Jr. at the end of GoF. Draco was revealed to be the would-be murderer of Dumbledore at the end of HBP. Do you have alternate theories for PoA and GoF too? Snow: Lol, actually I do have an answer. JKR said that book six was like one half of the whole story being finished in book seven so as you point out that the twists in POA and GOF were concluded in that same book and HBP has been said to be part one of a bigger book then the conclusion has not yet been accomplished like your other two examples have. Snow (me previously): There is entrapment in the books, which is why they are so damned good but it is, more often than naught, Faith who leads us into the trap. I finally learned with OOP, after several attempts of throwing the book against the wall and refusing to read further (for several minutes) to simply accept that JKR has her answer and I have to be open to it. Magpie: I don't understand your point. JKR has her answer and we have to be open to it, yet you reject the answers given in HBP. Snow: I'm not rejecting them; I'm merely using them to the same end result. JKR has a very good way of saying something that gives two meanings, the straightforward meaning and the more obscure one. A great example of what I mean can be found in HBP pg. 590 "Rosmerta saw me leaving, she tipped you off using your ingenious coins, I'm sure." "That's right," said Malfoy. "But she said you were just going for a drink, you'd be back " "Well, I certainly did have a drink and I came back after a fashion," mumbled Dumbledore. Draco's view of Dumbledore's statement would only allow him to understand the straightforward answer that Dumbledore went into the bar and had a drink. The more obscure answer was that Dumbledore went to the cave and drank poison. This example is a given to the reader's of the double meaning but JKR uses this double meaning technique in other places where we become like Draco and only understand the straightforward answer and neglect to see that there may have an obscure, alternate answer as well. This is where `the plan' can be questioned as not as straightforward as we may think it is. (And yes we could be wrong but I doubt that will stop us because there has been a president set for such trickery) Snow (me previously): As this thread is similar to what I've just spoke of, I might agree that its outcome will be similar and that no matter how hard any of us may try only Faith will be able to enlighten you in the end. Magpie: This is more like: "Here's an alternate theory for the plan in CoS: Ginny faked the whole diary possession to get Harry to notice her." Snow: Nice one, I think you're getting the hang of things. (Just kidding) Seriously this book is only half of a whole book so its resolve has yet to come to light like the other books. Every book seemed to have a definite resolve where we found out who the bad guy was (thanks for the connection and enlightenment on this one); this last book left us hanging as to who the bad guy is. Was Draco the bad guy or was it Snape; was it both or neither? This book left us empty to a final conclusion unlike its brothers so can we treat it the same way? Cheers Snow From random832 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 00:19:07 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:19:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609011201m7c980c72m2c2393c3122b65c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609011719q58586482v6e51859e4d337358@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157747 > Betsy Hp: > See, this is what's so odd to me. The entire discussion is about > whether Voldemort chose Draco or Draco chose Voldemort (who > approached whom) and for some reason the conversation keeps getting > dragged around to Voldemort's motivations. Why? It's confusing and > it fogs the issue. Random832: Eh? I'm not saying that Voldemort didn't choose Draco - i'm saying that it is 100% compatible with canon, and no less likely than your version, that: Draco found out about the cabinets. Draco went to Voldemort to tell him about the cabinets, hoping to gain favor Voldemort then, AFTER being told about the cabinets, gave Draco the order kill DD _as a serious attempt to get DD killed_ (i.e. not as an attempt to have Draco end up killed). Nobody's saying that Draco came up with the whole plan _including_ him being the one to carry it out and then proposed it to Voldemort. Nothing in this theory negates the fact that the idea to have Draco kill Dumbledore did NOT originate from Draco's mind. Without the knowledge about the cabinets, it doesn't make sense that it was a serious attempt on DD rather than a suicide mission, so nobody considers that angle. this WHOLE DEBATE is about voldemort's motivations - whether it was an attempt to initiate Draco as a "serious" death eater, or to get him killed to get back at Lucius. I don't see how you can claim otherwise. You're setting up a straw man argument in claiming that we're saying that Draco said "hey, i'll go to the dark lord and offer to kill professor dumbledore". NOBODY has said that at all. That is NOT what this debate is about, and I don't understand why you keep saying it is. Betsy Hp: > Who cares (at this point) *why* Voldemort chose Draco, all we're > trying to say is that *as per canon* Voldemort Draco. And Narcissa > doesn't need to understand a thing about Voldemort to correctly > interpert Voldemort giving her son a task as Voldemort, well, > choosing her son to do a certain task. But there's no reason for her to consider the possibility that Voldemort gave Draco the task _in response to_ information that Draco gave him, because, well, she doesn't know he gave him information. > Betsy Hp: > Even if Narcissa thought Draco could complete his task easily she'd > still come to the same exact conclusion as to whether Voldemort > sought out Draco or Draco sought out Voldemort. Random832: Not necessarily, if that conclusion was based on speculation rather than knowledge. Betsy Hp: > And everybody in > the room (and on the Tower, for that matter) seemed under the > impression that it was Voldemort who sought out Draco. Random832: Because the other way doesn't make any _sense_ without the vanishing cabinet. And where are we given any knowledge about what anyone who knows about the vanishing cabinet thinks happened? -- Random832 From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Sep 2 00:53:47 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:53:47 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157749 > Tonks_Op: > At one point DD tells LV that "we both know that there are other > ways to destroy a man, Tom". Would DD use one of those methods > himself? Eddie: In a sense, Tom Riddle was destroyed by Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore (and Harry) could destroy LV and leave Tom Riddle alive. Especially if he can use some of that Love from the "Love Room" (for lack of a better name) at the Ministry of Magic. Ah, redemption. Eddie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 01:24:49 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:24:49 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2 In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609011719q58586482v6e51859e4d337358@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157750 > >>Betsy Hp: > > See, this is what's so odd to me. The entire discussion is about > > whether Voldemort chose Draco or Draco chose Voldemort (who > > approached whom) and for some reason the conversation keeps > > getting dragged around to Voldemort's motivations. Why? It's > > confusing and it fogs the issue. > >>Random832: > Eh? I'm not saying that Voldemort didn't choose Draco - i'm saying > that it is 100% compatible with canon, and no less likely than your > version, that: > Draco found out about the cabinets. > Draco went to Voldemort to tell him about the cabinets, hoping to > gain favor Voldemort then, AFTER being told about the cabinets, > gave Draco the order kill DD _as a serious attempt to get DD > killed_ (i.e. not as an attempt to have Draco end up killed). Betsy Hp: So, you *are* saying that Draco approached Voldemort; that *Draco chose* to put himself before Voldemort. *That's* exactly what I'm arguing against. And that's the exact scenario that has absolutely no canon to back it up. (Again I state that so definitvely because if there *were* canon I'm sure it would have been quoted shortly into this thread.) > >>Random832: > Nobody's saying that Draco came up with the whole plan _including_ > him being the one to carry it out and then proposed it to > Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: Right. But they *are* saying that Draco approached Voldemort. Which has no support in canon. > >>Random832: > this WHOLE DEBATE is about voldemort's motivations - whether it > was an attempt to initiate Draco as a "serious" death eater, or to > get him killed to get back at Lucius. I don't see how you can > claim otherwise. Betsy Hp: Because I'm on the other side of the argument and what I have a problem with is the very first premise that Draco approached Voldemort. Everything else follows that one assumption, and since that assumption has no canon support why waste time talking about what gets built off of it? > >>Random832: > You're setting up a straw man argument in claiming that we're > saying that Draco said "hey, i'll go to the dark lord and offer to > kill professor dumbledore". NOBODY has said that at all. That is > NOT what this debate is about, and I don't understand why you keep > saying it is. Betsy Hp: Erm, I haven't? I really, really haven't. I deny that Draco approached Voldemort *with the cabinet idea*. Kind of like the title of this thread, which I came up with, thank you very much. What this debate is about is who approached whom. Canon says, several times, that Voldemort sought out Draco. Nothing says Draco approached Voldemort. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Who cares (at this point) *why* Voldemort chose Draco, all we're > > trying to say is that *as per canon* Voldemort [chose] Draco. > > And Narcissa doesn't need to understand a thing about Voldemort > > to correctly interpert Voldemort giving her son a task as > > Voldemort, well, choosing her son to do a certain task. > >>Random832: > But there's no reason for her to consider the possibility that > Voldemort gave Draco the task _in response to_ information that > Draco gave him, because, well, she doesn't know he gave him > information. Betsy Hp: Yes, but apparently *no one* knows Draco approached Voldemort with any sort of information. Including Draco. Because *no one*, absolutely no one even hints that maybe darling little Draco made his own bed by putting himself before the big bad Dark Lord. Which is a bit strange if JKR is trying to foreshadow that big reveal. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Even if Narcissa thought Draco could complete his task easily > > she'd still come to the same exact conclusion as to whether > > Voldemort sought out Draco or Draco sought out Voldemort. > >>Random832: > Not necessarily, if that conclusion was based on speculation rather > than knowledge. Betsy Hp: Speculation that her son snuck out of the house to visit with the scary Dark Lord? Or speculation that Voldemort called at her home to visit with her son? That kind of speculation? Again, where is any sort of hint that Narcissa was just guessing at how her son and Voldemort crossed paths? > >>Betsy Hp: > > And everybody in the room (and on the Tower, for that matter) > > seemed under the impression that it was Voldemort who sought out > > Draco. > >>Random832: > Because the other way doesn't make any _sense_ without the > vanishing cabinet. And where are we given any knowledge about what > anyone who knows about the vanishing cabinet thinks happened? Betsy Hp: Why doesn't it make sense? How does it make more sense that Voldemort assigned the assassination of his greatest adversary to a sixteen year old? Honestly, we're not talking about anything complicated here. Did Draco bug his father's friends (or his newly returned Auntie), figure out where Voldemort was staying, and then take himself there? (Nothing in canon even hints to this occuring.) Or, did Voldemort descend upon Malfoy Manor and call Draco before him? (Which is what everyone at Spinner's End takes as a given, and how Dumbledore thinks it went down, and how Draco presents it to his friends.) Betsy Hp From random832 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 01:45:01 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:45:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609011719q58586482v6e51859e4d337358@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609011845t14682f76jeaaca4e4e07afb75@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157751 > > >>Random832: > > Because the other way doesn't make any _sense_ without the > > vanishing cabinet. And where are we given any knowledge about what > > anyone who knows about the vanishing cabinet thinks happened? > > Betsy Hp: > Why doesn't it make sense? How does it make more sense that > Voldemort assigned the assassination of his greatest adversary to a > sixteen year old? Random832: I was saying that _without_ the vanishing cabinet, Voldemort viewing this seriously as an attempt to kill DD doesn't make sense - and we therefore don't even _consider_ that angle at first, since we don't know about the vanishing cabinet - and then some of us may be too emotionally invested in "Voldemort planned the whole thing to get Draco killed for revenge on Lucius" to consider the alternative when the facts changed. -- Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 02:04:07 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:04:07 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609011845t14682f76jeaaca4e4e07afb75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157752 > Random832: > I was saying that _without_ the vanishing cabinet, Voldemort viewing > this seriously as an attempt to kill DD doesn't make sense - and we > therefore don't even _consider_ that angle at first, since we don't > know about the vanishing cabinet - and then some of us may be too > emotionally invested in "Voldemort planned the whole thing to get > Draco killed for revenge on Lucius" to consider the alternative when > the facts changed. Alla: Um, let me ask you the variation of the question I asked earlier in the thread. Does it really matter whether some of us "too emotionally invested" in the theory or not if canon based arguments in favor of this theory are being presented? I think I can venture a pretty safe bet that great deal of many list members ( totally including myself) are emotionally invested in the characters and/or theories. It is just seems to me as strange argument against the theory - that its proponents are too emotionally invested in it to take a look at the changed facts. Seems to me that proponents of this theory ( and I cannot speak for Magpie and Betsy) argue precisely that - that facts did **not** change, namely that canon does not hint that Voldemort chose Draco. See, I am totally on the same page with them on this point. Where I diverge is that I see the angle that those facts could be looked at as shaky and therefore speculation of "Draco comes to Voldemort" is not in contradiction with anything in canon. So, on those two things I diverge. There is also a third one, sort of. For the longest time I was also thinking that Draco chose Voldemort, or if you wish "Cabinet comes first" does not make any major thematic changes in the Draco coming of age theme, that it can be safely stuck in the beginning of the story and nothing is going to change. I am afraid that I am wavering on this one, since Magpie's explanation of why indeed "Cabinet comes first" does poke some big holes in the theme is getting to me :) JMO, Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 02:05:14 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:05:14 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157753 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Actually, I'd say it's very much *not* in character for Draco to > > seek out Voldemort. He's never taken such an active role in the > > past. > > > >>Alla: > He also rather actively seeks Buckbeak death and Hagrid being > fired... Betsy Hp: Ah, but see, Draco really just rode on his father's coat tails there. Which is *perfectly* Draco's style, I think. Someone else takes action and Draco gloats by the sidelines. It's actually a good example of Draco's childishness, I think. Just as in CoS when Draco says he wished he knew who the heir was so he could help him but didn't do any actual hunting for the heir, he just enjoyed the show. (This is a way that Harry is more grown up. Harry has a sense of doing for himself that Draco never had, until I think HBP.) > >>Alla: > ...but of course the stakes are raising with every book and Draco > did not have a chance to seek anything of that caliber, there is > always a first time. Betsy Hp: I agree, things do get more serious for Draco in HBP, in a way they never had before. He's finally at a place where daddy can't come along and make it all better. It would just shock the heck out of me if JKR had that "first time" occur off page. > >>Alla: > I just don't see the passivity as his character trait, IMO. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I'm not sure I'd call him passive either. But Draco's more the sort that sits on the sidelines and mocks the efforts of the hero, rather than trying to put himself directly against the hero (unless it's in a highly structured format, like quidditch). For example, I never felt like Draco wished he were in the Triwizard Tournament instead of Harry. He *loved* the opportunity to laugh at Harry, but he wasn't trying to meet Harry on the field. Does that make sense? > >> Betsy Hp: > > > But the entire theme of Draco's story in HBP is that he feels he > > *has no choice*. Draco says this time and again. > > >>Alla: > I don't seem to remember that he says that on the train at all. > Seems perfectly happy to me with the choice to enter LV service, > IMHO. Betsy Hp: On the train Draco was all thrilled and coy about *being chosen*. And he *was* perfectly happy. He had no idea what he'd been thrown into and I think was still excited about the romantic and glorious life he'd been chosen for. But it was still someone else (Voldemort) doing the actual choosing. Draco was just stupid enough (or childish enough) to think that was a *good* thing. > >>Alla: > Yes, that becomes his theme, or I would rephrase it as "took in > his mouth more than he could chew" theme. Betsy Hp: But that's an entirely new statement. It's not about Draco learning he *can* choose, it's Draco changing his mind about what he's *already* chosen. And sure, the second thing makes for a classic tale (redemption) but it's not the tale JKR told. She never even hints that Draco made his own bed. Frankly I don't see any point in Draco having a redemption tale because I think that's Snape's job in this series. I think you'd probably disagree with me on that Alla (understatement?) but I think you'd at least agree that Snape's story involves making a wrong choice. So why have Draco's story be a pale echo of Snape's? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Steve's version has it that the child has *already chosen*. So > > Dumbledore's offer, Good's offer, is empty. Draco cannot choose > > *against* Evil because he's already chosen *for* it. > >>Alla: > He sounded as if he already chosen on the train to me. That is > another thing where I don't see much difference - in both stories > Draco's mindset has to change IMO. Betsy Hp: Well, Draco on the train was certainly very pleased about where he was, I just don't see him suggesting that he'd done something super cool to get himself there. Draco was more hinting about Voldemort seeing something in him than Draco *doing* something that won Voldemort's interest. But I think the difference is that if Draco had actively chosen Voldemort by seeking him out himself, then he's taking an adult step, he's already moving out of childhood and heading in the wrong direction. I think it's important that he's still holding his daddy's hand and not really putting a lot of thought into where his dad is leading him. (And of course, at first he thinks his father's way is the best way ever, and isn't he just so great that he's been selected to follow his dad.) That's what the rest of the year is for Draco. It's realizing that following where he thinks his father would want him to go is not necessarily where he (Draco) actually wants to go. Which means that Draco's first grown-up move, his first adult choice is when he lowers his wand. It means that *Dumbledore* is the one who ushered Draco into adulthood, not Voldemort. I really think that's an important difference. (And a perfect last act for Dumbledore.) > >>Betsy Hp (who really does find that the "cabinet first" people > > are pretty down on Draco on a whole and is suspicious that this > > is big motivation behind the theory) > >>Alla: > Mmmmm, as long as theory is convincing, does it really matter what > the motivation behind it? > Betsy Hp: Well, I find the theory so totally *unconvincing* that I'm trying to figure out where on earth it's coming from. > >>Alla: > But look, here you have me, who um... as you know very harsh on > Draco, who in fact SO harsh on Draco that I had not an **ounce** > of sympathy for his situation in HBP? > > What am I getting it? As I said, I don't have tender feelings > towards Draco, **but** for various reasons I am much more in > Magpie's camp than Steve's. > totally is > > What I am saying is that your **suspicion** may not turn out to be > true, since Carol and Steve seem to go much easier on Draco than > me, you know? :) Betsy Hp: I'm not against the "cabinet came first" theory *because* the folks supporting it don't like Draco. I'm against it because it flies in the face of canon. I'm trying to figure out why it was even thought of in the first place. And from what I've read it looks like the people supporting it tend to not like Draco. But yeah, that's just me trying to figure out where that theory came from. And I could well be wrong. To actually argue against it, I'll stick with canon. Canon's been very good to me. Betsy Hp From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 02:40:19 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 22:40:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch is a Clue (IMO) WAS: Locket Horcrux as a Snitch? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0609011940x6bfb4ba5m467e9e0b6c39bbd7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157754 Let's try this again. If you get individual emails, you'll have already received a prematurely released post. Please ignore it. Randy wrote a thought about Quidditch: "What if Quidditch is a kind of clue! I have thought about this for a while but not been able to fully define it. There are 7 players in a Quidditch Team 3 are Chasers 2 are Beaters 1 is a Keeper 1 is a Seeker There are 7 DADA (one is Potion's teacher so far) teachers You could say a metaphor for each one may exist (IMO). 3 are Chasers (Quirrell chases the Stone, Lockhart chases fame and fortune, Maybe Snape chases after recognition (a bit of a stretch I admit) 2 are Beaters (Umbridge and Moody/Crouch)(ie. hurt Harry in lessons) 1 is a Keeper (Slughorn keeps a secret about Horcruxes) 1 is a Seeker (Lupin seeks acceptance) (IMO) * * * These are metaphors but the idea of burrying clues into Quidditch is still very strong to me. Maybe I am just reading the clues wrong." . Debbie: I have been beating the 'Quidditch as Metaphor' drum for years. In my view, Quidditch provides both character metaphors and plot metaphors. As you suggest, the Quidditch positions are character metaphors (including the Seeker, which is a metaphor for Harry himself). However, the difference is that the character metaphors refer to *Harry's* team. For example, characters such as Hermione act as Harry's chasers, keeping him in the game (like Quidditch, generally only the Seeker can win the game for the team; the chasers' job is to keep the team close enough to win. Trying to match the positions to the DADA teachers is a bit of a square peg, round hole exercise, as most of them (all but Lupin and, IMO, Snape) are not on Harry's team. Harry's team plays fair (most of the time); the Slytherins, OTOH, play dirty, just like Voldemort. In another example, the Keeper is a guardian and protector of the hoops. Any metaphorical match for the keeper should exercise that role. Dumbledore has fulfilled a keeper role for Harry (whose Seeker position is a metaphor for himself) over the first several books. Of the DADA professors, the character that most fulfills that role for Harry is Snape, not Slughorn. Slughorn is keeping a secret, but that's a different kind of keeping. The plot metaphors that I see are parallels between the Quidditch matches in each book and the plot in that book, particularly vis-a-vis Voldemort. Some of it is detailed here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/48192 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88055 I have to admit that the plot connections are more difficult to identify in HBP than in earlier books. School rituals are becoming increasingly unimportant to Harry as he comes to grips with the task he has taken on vis-a-vis Voldemort, and JKR herself has become tired of writing Quidditch scenes (which I would find very boring without the metaphors). However, there are a number of parallels. First and foremost is the fact that Quidditch in HBP emphasizes, even more than the other books, who is and isn't a team player. This parallels the central mystery of HBP: which team is Snape playing for? Here are some examples of the "team" parallels: * Even before the season began, Hermione hexed McLaggen at the Quidditch tryouts. She doesn't even play Quidditch, but she is fulfilling the Chaser role of providing support to the [Seeker/Captain]. McLaggen immediately justifies her actions by dissing the Weasleys; he would not be a good team player. And Zachariah Smith's commentary at the first match highlights this fact; friendship and comaraderie does often make a team play better. * The first match begins with Captain Harry administering a (faked) dose of Felix Felicis to his Keeper to shore up crumbling self-confidence of his defensive anchor. The climax of the book begins with Harry instructing his *team* to share the remaining Felix Felicis to defend Hogwarts. * Draco, OTOH, lets his team down in the first match by skipping it altogether to work on the vanishing cabinet, foreshadowing his actions on the Astronomy Tower, where Draco lets down the DEs by failing to kill Dumbledore even though he is in his grasp. * Gryffindor loses the second match because of teammate McLaggen's actions. First, instead of doing his job as a team member should, he tried to do everyone else's job., harassing Harry with new strategies, providing unwanted advice and unsought criticism to other team members. But he failed to pay attention to his own duties. Worse, McLaggen misfired a Bludger right at Harry, putting his captain out of commission. Some team player! Likewise, Dumbledore is killed by the actions of a *teammate* in the Order (though the jury is out, of course, on whether or not Snape is, or was, Harry''s teammate. * Harry himself doesn't always appear to do what's best for the team. His tryout of Sectumsempra on Draco earned him a date with some old records and forced his team to play the last Quidditch match without a Captain. Harry loses his *captain*, Dumbledore, on the Tower and must go on for the first time without his team. I'll do Book 7 now, too. JKR has said there will be no Quidditch matches in Book 7, and Harry won't be coming back to school. "You know, that was the last Quidditch match. I knew as I wrote it that it was the last time I was going to be doing a Quidditch match. To be honest with you, Quidditch matches have been the bane of my life in the Harry Potter books. They are necessary in that people expect Harry to play Quidditch, but there is a limit to how many ways you can have them play Quidditch together and for something new to happen. And then I had this moment of blinding inspiration. I thought, Luna's going to commentate, and that was just a gift. It's the kind of commentary I'd do on a sports match because I'm ? [laughs]." http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 2 02:58:25 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:58:25 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Re: Draco's task (For M In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609011201m7c980c72m2c2393c3122b65c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157755 > Random832:: > You're _not_ being told that, though. You're merely drawing a > conclusion from the things you have been told. Others have drawn a > different conclusion. Also, I don't seriously think that Draco's > orders were anything other than to kill DD. But that doesn't mean we > know it for a fact. Magpie: You're right in that--all story involves some interpretation. I am interpreting, yes. As your (reasonable) interpretation of the words in CoS leads you to remember us "seeing" Ginny possessed--that's how I remember the book too. I do, however, object to the idea that all interpretations are equal. R/Hr, to use another example, has been imo explicitly in canon since at the latest GoF, and JKR did all but say that in interviews I thought, but many H/Hr shippers claimed this wasn't so, that the groundwork was being laid for H/Hr. Perhaps they thought it was already happening--I don't know H/Hr theories in detail. Some still claim that they were right and HBP just arbitrarily went R/Hr--or even that JKR bowed to pressure and put it in when she was planning to go the other way. But I think that's a clear case of the interpretation just being wrong. They missed that R/Hr was already going on, misunderstood what was going on in some scenes, scenes from at the latest GoF that depended on R/Hr as a motivation. Obviously H/Hr-ers were welcome to have their own theories of what was going to happen, but I think it was significant that when H/G happened instead the author told them to read the books again rather than just saying sorry she didn't go their way. (H/G, btw, I think was just as easily predictable, but in a meta way, unlike R/Hr which was already happening.) And since I brought up ships and I don't usually like to, I want to make clear I don't mean to make a general statement about H/Hr shippers interpreting wrong. Guessing or not guessing a ship doesn't necessarily prove you've read correctly--there are some H/Hr shippers who are better at interpreting things correctly than some R/Hr or H/G shippers etc. Shipping doesn't imply being a better reader. > >>Random832: > If "making up theories" is to be separate from "literary analysis", > you can't analyze anything at all other than what's shown on the > page. Magpie: Exactly. That's why they're different. Analysis by definition means looking at what's on the page, breaking it apart, fitting it together. It's exactly the opposite thing. The theory impulse, which Snow explains below, embraces the idea that what's on the page is misleading and incomplete. If analysis finds what's on the page misleading or inconclusive, it's because the text itself supports its being misleading or inconclusive. We're starting from exactly the opposite rules of discussion. > Random832: > I meant your objection seems similar to a hypothetical objection to > arguing the (now known to be true) point that Voldemort had nothing to > do with Lucius giving Ginny the diary, before that was generally > known. Many people for q"knew" that it was Voldemort's plan, etc, and > to say otherwise would be as disingenuous (and no more) as saying that > Draco went to Voldemort first is now. Magpie: This is an interesting analogy, though, because you mentioned the "hypothetical objection" to the argument that Voldemort had nothing to do with Lucius giving Ginny the diary before it was known. Many people "knew" it was Voldemort's plan. And you've compared my objection to that objection. But if you directly parallel it to this situation, it's the Cabinet First people who are the ones who "know" it was Voldemort's Plan, because that's the thing that's not in the text. The reason I say that my theory here is the non-Voldemort involvement is because CoS on its own gives other motivations--it starts out giving us Arthur doing these raids to give Lucius a reason to feel hounded, to give him a reason to get rid of artefacts and go after Arthur to cut into his power. If I had I been on the list then I would have argued against that alternate theory that it was really Voldemort's idea for many of the same reasons as I argue against the many versions of this theory: there's no mention of Voldemort's involvement, and it interferes with Lucius' own straightforward motivations and the set up with the Weasleys. I don't think I'd be bothered by it if it was presented as a theory, something people predicted was going to be revealed later, but if somebody said, "We have to remember Voldemort told Lucius to slip the diary into Ginny Weasley's stuff that day..." then I'd have piped up just the same and said, "No he didn't." And so it would begin!:-) Snow: A strategist or theorizer attempts to get ahead of Faith by nitpicking what she has been told. We are not attempting to change the story but to foresee where the next book will take us by scrutinizing questionable dialog. Magpie: Ah--and this is what I felt that this alternate version *was* basically--a prediction that this information we have now would be overturned. I think that's why, as I said, I feel like we're just working at cross-purposes. If one of us is getting the jump on the author and the other of us, me, was absolutely waiting to be fed things I didn't have yet and only wanting to chew over things to the smallest bits I had, it's two different things going on. There are a lot of conversations in HP I have no interest in because I'm waiting to be spoon fed--Horcruxes, what they are, whether Harry is one, how he will destroy them or Voldemort, what's the deal with Snape--I may skim those conversations, but my instinct is just to file that under "Things for the author will tell me." HBP of course ends with twice as many unanswered questions as other books because it is one half of a story-but this one thread seems to me to be the part that's just HBP. I have lots of suspicion--it's just more for the things in TheoryBay than in the books.:-) Sydney: Given the screen-time Draco gets to complete his arc, this is more appropriate level of change, IMO, than one from totally-not-caring- about-collateral-damage professional to not a killer. Magpie: Really I wanted to quote the whole post but I'll just say what you described was the way I saw the story as well--and while I obviously am a Draco fan, I feel like I'd see it the same way even if I was indifferent to the character because of what we're given and the emotional beats JKR seems to be hitting--emotional beats being, as you said, usually the way she tells story. In PoA, Harry's not killing Sirius was a similar realization, but with different meaning because it was a different story (a good example of how the same actions can have different meanings in a different story). If all that matters in Draco's story is the moment he can't kill, the story we're reading is essentially "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" (the Seuss version--haven't seen the live action). Draco's heart is two sizes too small, and he's going along trying to do evil and frustrated at set backs, and then, faced with Cyndi Lou Who, who is then kind to him, suddenly his heart grows. I think if the Grinch had showed up in Malfoy Manor to see Draco's toys I think he would have cried and run to his mother. He's no Grinch.:-) -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 2 03:10:46 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 03:10:46 -0000 Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157756 > Renee: > Theoretically, she could, though I still believe the way she's been > talking about him since he first appeared, makes this highly unlikely. > But if she did, she'd most likely do it by letting Lupin slip in a way > characteristic for him - remaining passive where action is required, > or keeping his mouth shut when he ought to speak, in order to avoid > the condemnation of people who matter to him. His main flaw is his > fear to be disliked. (There are moments when I think he gave in to > Tonks because he feared the wrath of Molly and McGonagall.) > Pippin: Heh heh. I've thought that too, but I figured if *I* said it, people would think I was just being anti-Lupin. Just because JKR hasn't stated her reservations about Lupin doesn't mean she hasn't got them. I'd certainly have reservations about someone who let himself be bullied into a relationship he didn't think would work. You know, if it would endanger Lupin's mission to have a long distance relationship with Harry, it should be equally dangerous to have one with a Ministry Auror like Tonks. But that doesn't get mentioned. It makes me think that maybe both sets of excuses are secondary. But is passivity really Lupin's defining characteristic? You know, I can't find any Rowling quote with 'passivity' or 'passive' in the interviews and I don't recall those words ever appearing in canon. It seems to me the operative word, in your post as in canon, is 'fear'. JKR talks about fear, and its opposite, courage, a great deal. It's clear that in her book, fear is a greater danger than death or evil. I don't think it really matters what someone is afraid of. As the boggart lesson pointed out, whether your fear is realistic or not, it can be used to manipulate you. And Lupin doesn't handle fear very well. He never manages to turn his boggart into something funny. (Cockroach candy is funny only because cockroaches per se are not.) It seems there are things Lupin doesn't want to do because he's afraid, so he thinks up passive reasons not to do them. But the fear, IMO, comes first. Pippin From bobhawkins at rcn.com Sat Sep 2 02:43:52 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:43:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cyril A Fernandes" wrote: >> The question is "Why does Snape want the DADA job so bad?" Maybe he doesn't want it, but Voldemort ordered him to try to get it. Voldemort could presumably lift the curse -- or at least tell Snape that he would. Having a DE as DADA teacher would have several benefits for Voldemort. Snape could leave out crucial spells, making the students easy prey. (Snape teaches a defense against Dementors that Harry considers much inferior to the Patronus charm. Since the Dementors have gone over to Voldemort, advantage Voldemort. Except that Dumbledore's Army learned the Patronus charm from "Patronus Potter" himself....) Snape would be in good position to identify those students with strong DADA aptitude. He could keep them from becoming Aurors by giving them bad grades and weak recommendations, or try to recruit them to the DEs. Those who responded positively to his "I [heart] the Dark Arts" lecture would be likely candidates. Of course, Snape could want the job, and Voldemort could want him to take it. Snape doesn't seem like someone who has that kind of luck, though. zeroirregardless From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Sep 2 04:22:50 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:22:50 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157758 > > Eddie: > > In PoA, Chapter "Marauder's Map", Hagrid says that Sirius Black > > lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and said he (Sirius) wouldn't need any > > anymore. > > > > Why? > > > Carodave: > > Sirius gave Hagrid his motorbike at Godric's HOllow after discovering > the bodies of James and Lily (and baby Harry). Sirius knew that Peter > had betrayed the Potters and he was going to find Peter and probably > kill him to avenge them. He probably expected to be either dead or in > Azkaban at the end of the night. WHich turned out to be accurate, but > not for the reason expected... Eddie: This interpretation and the variants that have followed since make sense: whatever the exact motives, Sirius certainly seemed to be feeling fatalistic. New question: Where is the motorbike now? Hagrid tried to return it, couldn't, and then....? If Sirius only borrowed the bike, doesn't it really belong to Harry now, inherited from Sirius? Eddie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 04:59:53 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:59:53 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157759 > Eddie: > In a sense, Tom Riddle was destroyed by Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore > (and Harry) could destroy LV and leave Tom Riddle alive. Especially > if he can use some of that Love from the "Love Room" (for lack of a > better name) at the Ministry of Magic. > > Ah, redemption. Tonks: Good point. I am not sure where to go with it, but you do make a good point that in a sense, Tom was destroyed by LV. It is almost like LV being a false self and the true self (Tom) is hidden away. If your theory is correct, what will happen to Tom once he is free? Tonks_op From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 05:14:50 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:14:50 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > Eddie: > > New question: Where is the motorbike now? Hagrid tried to return it, > couldn't, and then....? If Sirius only borrowed the bike, doesn't it > really belong to Harry now, inherited from Sirius? Mike: I've had this whimsical thought ever since JKR mentioned that we would see the motorbike again. (Can't give you the reference, heard 2nd or 3rd hand). My thought was that after all the hullabaloo was over in book 7, Harry will have decided to settle in Godric's Hollow and fix up the house. First he has to pick up some things at 4 Privet Dr. As he's walking out of the house, Hagrid shows up on the motorbike and offers Harry a ride to G.H. Perfect symmetry to Harry's arrival in book 1, completing the circle. Well, I like it. From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Sep 2 05:20:38 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:20:38 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157761 > > Eddie: > > In a sense, Tom Riddle was destroyed by Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore > > (and Harry) could destroy LV and leave Tom Riddle alive. Especially > > if he can use some of that Love from the "Love Room" (for lack of a > > better name) at the Ministry of Magic. > > > > Ah, redemption. > > Tonks: > Good point. I am not sure where to go with it, but you do make a good > point that in a sense, Tom was destroyed by LV. It is almost like LV > being a false self and the true self (Tom) is hidden away. If your > theory is correct, what will happen to Tom once he is free? > > Tonks_op Eddie: I find redemption a tricky business in literature. On the one hand, I always root for it. On the other hand, it can be soooo sickly sweet it makes me want to -- er, nevermind. What then of a freed Tom? Here's some ideas, some silly, some serious, some sickly sweet: - Shamed by what he did as Lord Voldemort, Tom kills himself. - So lacking in Love until now, he refuses to leave the Love Room and whiters away there. - Tom Riddle joins the Weasley twins as a salesman at the joke shop. (Fred and George say, "The publicity is great for business, and he's still not as annoying as Percy.") - Writes an autobiography, "Menacing Me" and tours the Muggle TV shows, baring all on a Barbara Walters' special interview. Eddie From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 2 08:03:46 2006 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:03:46 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Special Announcement Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157762 Hi, everyone! The Elves are pleased to announce that we are helping to promote three great events next year: http://www.thephoenixrises.org -- 17 - 21 May 2007 (New Orleans) http://www.sectus.org/index.php -- 19 - 22 July 2007 (London) http://hp2007.org/ -- 2 - 5 Aug 2007 (Toronto, CA) Make sure to keep an eye out here for announcements, updates, and important info about each from the organizers of these events! Please remember, discussion of the events, along with responses to the announcement and update posts made here, are off-topic for the main list. Comments and questions are very welcome on our OTC and Convention groups, though: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Convention And of course, you're welcome to contact the organizers directly. --Kelley, for the Elves From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 08:51:46 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:51:46 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157763 I'm not even sure why I am back in this discussion again since I think it has taken a irrational turn. As much as it pains me to say this, and as much as it may appear to be a personal attack, I must say that when Betsy and Magpie are arguing the /merits/ of their /interpretation/ of canon, they are spot on, but when they are agruing the /demerits/ of my /interpretation/ of canon, they are lost in impossible flights of fancy. They are assigning characteristics and making assumption about the 'cabinet first' interpretation that are unfounded and even directly contradict what I said. When I say 'contradict', I don't mean they are making the counter agrument. I mean that are assigning characteristics that are the exact opposite of what I said. And please don't ask me for quotes, just go back and read what you said about my theory and 70% or more of it is bunk. Let's touch on a few examples. The idea that Draco went to Voldemort. Maybe...maybe not. I believe when I spoke of that I used terms like 'through a set of circumstances'. My post were already quite long, so I didn't see the need to bore anyone with minute details. In the /reality/ of the theory, Draco simply makes it known through a set of inconsequential circumstances (condensed version) that he knows a secret way into Hogwarts. Once that information reachs Voldemort, by whatever means, he calls Draco to a confab. In that conference, Voldemort makes his assignments. So, Draco didn't necessarily go running to Voldemort, and as Magpie and Betsy suggest (I think, hard to tell), Voldemort called for Draco. But he had a reason to call for him. That sets the Cabinet Plot into motion, and Voldemort compounds the situation by tacking on vengefull tasks that Draco hadn't counted on. This is the point where my theory and Mapgie's interpretation merge. From this point on, the story plays out the same either way. Despite what Betsy and Magpie /claim/, the story plays the same. The idea that by talking with Voldemort, Draco has irrevocably chosen the path of /pure irredeemable evil/. Not so, in his limited schoolboy view, Draco does what Draco always does; he causes trouble. Draco always has been a nasty piece of work, he's alway been a Death Eater's son, a Voldemort supporter, and he has always been against Harry and Dumbledore. Draco goes into that conference with schoolboy motives, but he comes out of it shouldering an impossible burden even for a man. It's no wonder he has forgetten all about Harry. He's fighting for his life. So, Draco has not chosen an irredeemable path of Evil that totally alters the plotline and the story as suggested, he has had the irredeemable path of Evil thrust upon him. He has had a very rude awakening. No wonder he's stressed out. No one takes on an assignment for Voldemort, whether large or small, without putting his own life at risk. Voldemort does not forgive easily. The smallest screw up will get you tortured; a slightly larger screw up might just get you dead. I see no problem with Draco having lost interest in Harry under those circumstances, and don't see Draco having passed information to Voldemort as having chosen an irredeemable plot-altering path of evil, again, under those circumstances. I've said before, that my theory does not alter the plot in any way. Though it has been further suggested that my theory will substantially alter the plot of the next book. That for some reason the next book will 'come to a screeching halt while Draco explains himself'. At the end of the book(HBP), Draco is thrust into the forefront of the story. There is no way for the next book not to deal with Draco. Theories abound; Draco's will come over to the good side, Draco is dead, Draco will fully join the Dark Side. Regardless of which one you buy, at some point in the next book, the book IS going to come to a screeching halt while Draco's subplot is resolved. It is one of the major hanging story threads. Draco's bravado on the train. You do know what 'bravado' means don't you? It means "A pretense of courage; a false show of bravery. A disposition toward showy defiance or false expressions of courage." Draco is stuck; he's been given an assignment. A do or die assignment. His wish has come true; he has become a Death Eaters, except that now he finds out it's not as romantic or a 'clean' as he imagined it was. So, what can he do; lay down and die, or make the best of it. Regardless of his choice he is not going to let his friends 'see him sweat'. Besides, in his warped little Draco mind, he imagines he might actually be able to pull it off. Why Draco? Why not someone else? Well, secrecy for one. Also, who better than Draco to fix the cabinet. He's aleady at Hogwarts. As is seen from people's reactions, no one would expect Draco to be personally working with Voldemort. Draco is smart, he's a good student, and has a reasonable knowledge of magic, and can generally be trusted. And, of course, the juicy /revenge/ aspect. If not Draco, then, realistically, who? Why not Snape? Because, Snape still has spy potential, regardless of the outcome of the plan. There is also the popular theory, that this is also a test for Snape. A chance for Snape to prove with absolute certainty that he is not in 'Dumbledore's Pocket'. Snape does seem to know something, but I don't think he is privy to any details or the schedule. Snape was to know /something/ was going on, but wasn't suppose to interfere unless things went hopelessly astray, as they certainly did. Finally, you keep asking for canon, but before I give it let me point out that Spinner's End does not confirm Betsy's or Magpie's view. I think their interpretation is the way that JKR wanted us to interpret the books while the story was playing out. But Spinner's End only expresses Narcissa's views, it doesn't confirm them. One could say that Harry flat our says with absolute certainty that Draco has the Dark Mark. Also, hints are dropped that this might be true. Despite Harry's certainty and the authoral intent to make us think it is true, it is never confirmed in the books. Neither is Spinner's End confirmed. We are made to think Narcissa is expressing Voldemort's motivation. But she is an extremely distraught mother worried about her husband's screw up and her son involvement way over his head. She has ever reason to worry, but we have no proof that her version is the correct version. Now I will say that it probably is the correct version, but that is my interpretation of those event. Just as I believe Harry's right about Draco having the Dark Mark is true. But both those interpretation are just that /interpretations/. The books don't confirm either one. Betsy and Magpie's absolute certainty about Spinner's End is their interpretation of canon. Because the story is in a sense a mystery, and some things can't be known with absolute certainty. Besides, I've never doubted the events in Spinner's End. Those event are part of what confirms in my mind, my interpretation of how Draco got involved in all this. So, my canon is - -The Montague and cabinet subplot in OotP. -Draco confrontation with and anger at Harry at the end of OotP. -Spinner's End -Draco's Detour -The entire 'what's Draco doing' subplot and associated accessories in HBP. -Draco's conversation with Dumbledore at the top of the tower. -Six years of knowing Draco's personality as documented in six books. Admittedly, I am filling in a little of the off-page back- story, but that back story fits my interpretation of the book to a tee. Finally, I may have spoken harshly to Magpie and Betsy. But I DID say, when they are arguing their postion, they are spot on in their arguments. But when they are trying to tell me what my theory does and doesn't mean, or does and doesn't say, they are lost in unsubstantiated flights of fancy. Still, it has been a hell of a fun discussion and a very nice break from Horcruxes and Snape. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 09:59:07 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:59:07 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157764 --- "Eddie" wrote: > > Eddie: > In PoA, Chapter "Marauder's Map", Hagrid says that > Sirius Black lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and said > he (Sirius) wouldn't need any anymore. > > Why? > > Eddie > bboyminn: See, there's a small flaw in you basic question. It's the 'anymore'. Really, Sirius never need the motorbike at all, certainly one of the most capable students to ever come through Hogwarts can Apparate. He might even be able to Apparate /while/ he is on his motorbike. Further, the motorbike is certainly an illegal improperly charmed muggle object. Which probably accounts for why a 'bad boy' like Sirius liked it so much. But also, it probably provided him with a means to traveling effectively through the muggle world. So, parting with the Bike at Godric's Hollow is no big loss. We do know Hagrid can travel by magic. He 'flew' to the Hut on the Rock. He vanished in the blink of an eye after putting Harry back on the train to the Dursleys. But it is a little unclear as to the exact nature of that magical travel. So, it might be reasonable that even if an under-educated person like Hagrid could Apparate, that he not try and Apparate while holding a baby. Especially a baby who was probably injured and tramatized. So, Sirius offerred Hagrid the motorbike to help transport Harry to safety. Sirius is completely able to transport himself around by other magical means. So, from a transportation perspective, the loss of the bike is insignificant. Sirius claims he /gave/ the bike to Hagrid. Hagrid implies at the beginning of SS/PS that he borrowed it from Sirius. He says he needs to get it back to him. Though someone pointed out that this has been changed in later versions of the books. Still those two pieces of information don't necessarily contradict each other since they are based on the preception of the individual persons in a very sad tramatic situation. Hagrid may have interpreted Sirius implying that he should keep the bike as merely the stress and dispare of the moment, and not taken him seriously. Sirius may have indeed thought that all was lost, and having lost what was truly important to him, saw, in a sense, that 'the thrill is gone'. The Bike he loved meant nothing compared to the people he truly loved. So, he just let Hagrid take it. Of course, this is compounded by the gradually forming plan to extract revenge on Wormtail. I suspect in his dispare, he didn't care whether he lived or died as long as he was able to avenge himself against Peter. So while a lot of complications come into play, it is important to understand that Sirius didn't need the motorbike 'anymore' because he never needed it in the first place. He liked it, but he didn't need it. As to where the bike is now. I have always suspected it is stored at or near Hogwarts. Hagrid was the last person to possess it, and he considered it borrowed even after Sirius was arrested. I suspect he put it away somewhere and just forgot about it. I doobt that it was a very comfortable ride for him anyway, so he would have no reason to continue using it. And let's not forget that it is probably an illegal magical object; also disincentive to ride it. So, stored at or near Hogwarts is my guess. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 09:56:39 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:56:39 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157765 Steve: > In the /reality/ of the theory, Draco simply makes it known > through a set of inconsequential circumstances (condensed > version) that he knows a secret way into Hogwarts. Once > that information reachs Voldemort, by whatever means, he > calls Draco to a confab. In that conference, Voldemort > makes his assignments. Sydney: This does indeed make sense and would make a good plot... but it's just plain not in the book. Despite endless opportunities to have someone mention it. It's not like this is a documentary, and JKR just didn't have the footage! I feel like we're looking at a still-life of a bowl of fruit, and you are vociferously arguing that there is a fig on the far side of the bowl where we can't see it. You are using many fine arguments about how figs would be in season at the same time as the rest of the visible fruit; and how figs are symbolic of this and that, and so the painter would have gained from having a fig in the painting even if we can't see it. But there is no fig, or a corner of a fig, or even a fig-leaf hinting at a fig. Neither, for that matter, is there a bowl of fruit. It's an illusion of a bowl of fruit, created by putting certain tones of paint in a certain arragement. If we can't see it, how can it be in the painting? Steve: > I've said before, that my theory does not alter the plot in > any way. Sydney: Well, I'm afraid it does. The plot as presented in the book, is Voldemort has a plan to punish Lucius by killing Draco. You're not mentally filling in the far sides of the apples; you're inserting another piece of fruit that isn't there. Steve: > Why Draco? Why not someone else? Well, secrecy for one. > Also, who better than Draco to fix the cabinet. He's aleady > at Hogwarts. As is seen from people's reactions, no one > would expect Draco to be personally working with Voldemort. > Draco is smart, he's a good student, and has a reasonable > knowledge of magic, and can generally be trusted. And, of > course, the juicy /revenge/ aspect. If not Draco, then, > realistically, who? Sydney: It's not "and of course the juicy revenge aspect" The juicy revenge aspect IS THE PLOT. This is the part where you alter the plot. Steve: > Finally, you keep asking for canon, but before I give it > let me point out that Spinner's End does not confirm Betsy's > or Magpie's view. I think their interpretation is the way > that JKR wanted us to interpret the books while the story > was playing out. But Spinner's End only expresses Narcissa's > views, it doesn't confirm them. Sydney: What I find so strange about this argument, is that the distinction between Narcissa's and Snape's and Draco's and everyone-else-in-a position-to-give-us-exposition-version, and your version, is so slight. Of course we should be suspicious of things not being as they seem in these books. JKR's entire strategy of plotting is based around there being a point in the books where she 'flips', and what happened is something completely different from what we thought. It's a technique reminiscent of 'trick drawings', what is called "rival schemata ambiguity"-- http://www.planetperplex.com/en/img.php?id=5 . The Victorians were very fond of 'topsy-turvy' drawings (a nice collection here: http://www.planetperplex.com/en/upsidedown.html )-- a drawing introduced with a caption, "a horse in a field... or is it!" and then you flip the drawing upside down and it's actually, I dunno, the Mona Lisa. Of course we're all getting jumpy and second-guessing everything we're told! But what's going on here, is that we're shown a drawing JKR has labelled 'Rabbit' (or, if you think there's a trick, "Rabbit... or is it!"), and you're saying, "it's not a rabbit, it's a.... lesser variegated Welsh *HARE*! See how she's cunningly not revealed the characteristic stripe of dark fur that normally tips the ears of this species!" I mean, if she's labelled it 'rabbit', and you think it's a trick, we should be looking for ducks, not other lagomorphs! Steve: > Neither is Spinner's End confirmed. We are made to think > Narcissa is expressing Voldemort's motivation. But she is > an extremely distraught mother worried about her husband's > screw up and her son involvement way over his head. She has > ever reason to worry, but we have no proof that her version > is the correct version. Sydney: JKR has a very limited set of means to convey plot points. She either sticks tightly to what Harry knows, or she shows us a scene 'cold', without any helpful narrative additions. She doesn't have any way to express Voldemort's motivation, except through dialogue. We don't have a present narrative voice who can come in authoritatively and let us know. If characters are lying or mistaken, then we're looking at a 'flip', and it should be something quite large that flips all three characters, because we wouldn't JUST have to correct the Draco plotline, but why Narcissa and Snape are wrong. Misleading an audience in this way is an expensive strategy because you have to pay off what the lie is about, AND why the lie happened, AND soothe the understandably ruffled audience who has been taken for a ride. If we've been taken for a ride and Narcissa and Snape are mistaken, I want a fun, exciting, roller-coaster ride, not three wrong turns and asking for directions and coming to the party 20 minutes late. Steve: > Admittedly, I am filling in a little of the off-page back- > story, but that back story fits my interpretation of the > book to a tee. Sydney: But, it's still a fig that's not the bowl. It's a personal addition that you are making extraneous to the book. It may be to your satisfaction, but as for me, I'm not about to start working the Invisible Fig into how I understand the layout of the bowl. Steve: > Still, it has been a hell of a fun discussion and a very > nice break from Horcruxes and Snape. Sydney: Yay! I'm having fun with this one, I hope everyone else is too... From ornawn at 013.net Sat Sep 2 12:43:27 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:43:27 -0000 Subject: Draco's task (For Magpie and those who agree with her) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157766 Carol:> Draco > would fix the cabinet, allowing the DEs into Hogwarts. The DEs would > set off the Dark Mark over the Astronomy Tower, fight off or kill > anyone who got in the way, and force Draco to do the task. (Unknown to > him, at first, they'd kill him if he failed.) Orna: Actually, Draco did fail ? and we don't see any hint of them trying to kill him. They insist upon Draco doing it ? holding Greyback back, but nothing there about killing Draco. They want Snape to act ? perhaps as Draco's teacher convince him, or help him to do it. But ? as soon as Dumbledore is killed ? nothing more there. You might say that Draco's failing didn't look to them as clear-cut- since he had admitted them into the castle, and got Dumbledore wandless. But that seems to underline it, in fact ? Draco doesn't succeed, not because he is afraid of Dumbledore, not because he thinks he won't get away with it ? he has support, he has nothing to fear from Dumbledore ? and he isn't able to do it- plain and visible in front of the Des. >Magpie: >Right. The job was always to kill Dumbledore, and the means that >Draco was getting DEs into the castle. And if he means Snape >to kill Dumbledore in the end he's already in the castle and >could kill him without use of >any Cabinet. Orna: I think it's Voldemort's "fun" to have Draco either killing or getting killed by Dumbledore: that would make headmaster Dumbledore kill his student ? he would never be able to convince anyone, that Draco was DE, and even if he did ? who would care about it - it's a skilled adult wizard killing a kid. (The bonus- revenge on Lucius, but that's still open ? Draco didn't wholly succeed, so he can assign him with another devilish task).The other "fun" -option ? having an (innocent-seeming) kid killing the headmaster. Again ? it would be a complete turmoil in sense of the wizarding world ? Hogwart's etc. And there is the other "Voldemort-fun" scenario - having Snape killing Dumbledore, or dying trying to do it ? again ? a most destabilizing act in terms of the wizarding world, and also a loyalty-test for Snape ?like terrorists do. Since Voldemort never succeeded killing Dumbledore himself ? he wouldn't really believe that this time, through a teenager, it would work. But even if not ? the advantages, from his point of view are tremendous- a student trying to kill headmaster, DE in the school, perhaps a teacher trying to kill headmaster, or getting killed in the battle (it might have gone astray ? since Snape had been sleeping ). Really from Voldemort's point of view ? he had only to gain from whatever would happen. And the big bonus, if they succeeded in killing Dumbledore. Evil cunning at it's best. Orna From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 13:02:06 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 09:02:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is Faith? WAS: Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0609020602y66608ee5r35aa765b3b50b17a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157767 An old-timer emerges to discuss Faith -- Alla wrote: > > In the TBAY, as far as I am aware ( and this is from the POV of > > somebody who loved to read TBAY and hopes people will come back to > > it, but never wrote it) the Faith is the personification of the > > authoritarial intent, basically she accepts as given of what is > > written on the page, period. > Debbie: Though Faith seems to have acquired this interpretation over the years, my recollection of the time was that Faith embodied an unwillingness to embrace the most wild speculations on the list. Faith relished her naivete and gullibility, perhaps not least because she *wanted* to be surprised. Kimberly, from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/35966: [Faith] loves the pins and needles of waiting for new Bangs; she's the little voice in the back of my head that wants JKR to take her time. She wants to draw it all out as long as possible so she can wallow in suspense. Debbie: Faith also recoils against the sadistic tendencies of certain speculators, instinctively rejecting such tropes as Tortured!Neville and cries of "Bloody Ambush!" to explain just why Dumbledore trusts Snape. Faith's defense against the bloodthirstiness of the F.E.A.T.H.E.R.B.O.A.S. (Foaming Enthusiasts of Ambush, Torture, and Hostility, Embracing Really Blood-thirsty Operations And Savagery) crowd was to employ her canon as a yardstick to test theories, and not surprisingly, she found most of them wanting. Thus, while Faith derives a certain level of amusement from speculation, she became a strict constructionist and therefore, very little speculation will survive her scrutiny. Kimberly, from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/35878 : Debbie: So, when Neri, for example, invites Faith to bless a theory, what he means is that its canon is airtight, and that despite her distaste for dabbling in theories, subversive or otherwise, that take the canon in a new direction, his theory is worthy of a "eureka!" from her. OTOH, I think Faith would find "The Cabinet Came First" to be the A.N.T.I.T.H.E.S.I.S. (All Nice Theories, I Think; However, Each Supposition Is Strained) of Faith. Carol wrote: > Faith may be the personification of authorial intention, but the > problem is, authorial intention can't always be determined by what's > on the page. You have to look at other things, chiefly the limitations > of Harry's pov and the reasons why a character might be providing > incomplete or misleading information (Hermione suggesting that Tonks > is suffering from survivor's guilt, for example, or Hagrid saying that > all DEs are from Slytherin) to determine what the author is up to. Debbie: Perhaps we should ask whether Faith really personifies authorial intent. I might characterize Faith's articulation of authorial intent as believing the author intends for us to be taken in, at least some of the time. (Did you really think Mad-Eye was really Barty Crouch in disguise?) As such, Faith represents a method of reading the books as much as a method of interpreting them. Debbie still enamored of Tortured!Neville theories [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 16:11:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:11:45 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157768 Sydney wrote: > > What I find so strange about this argument, is that the distinction > between Narcissa's and Snape's and Draco's and everyone-else-in-a > position-to-give-us-exposition-version, and your version, is so > slight. Of course we should be suspicious of things not being as they > seem in these books. JKR's entire strategy of plotting is based > around there being a point in the books where she 'flips', and what > happened is something completely different from what we thought. > Carol responds: As several people have pointed out, HBP is the first half of the final book. And, yes, her plotting strategy often "flips" what we think is true--for example, what happened on the tower. You and I both expect a reversal on that one and a revelation about Snape's true motivations. What follows is my canon-based interpretation of "Spinner's End," which differs rather radically from that of the three or four people who claim that they *know* Voldemort's motivation. Since we're never inside voldemort's head, I think that's too bold a claim. "Spinner's End" is part of that mystery and contains a number of unanswered questions, including Snape's motivation for taking the UV, whether he's bluffing, how much of his story to Bellatrix is true and how much is a web of half-truths spun to make him seem like a loyal DE. You're right that the chapter is told from the outside. we can't see into any of their minds. We don't know how much they know. And we don't know Voldemort's motivations, either. He isn't present, and the three adults--Narcissa, Snape, and Bellatrix--are all *assuming* that they know his motivations and their assumptions shape their actions. It's highly unlikely that any of them were present when Voldemort gave Draco his assignment. Certainly Snape wasn't (he doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet and Draco later refuses to tell him the plan, and Narcissa clearly knows only two things: that Voldemort "chose" Draco (assigned him the task that must not be named) and that she's not allowed to talk about it. Voldemort operates in secret and he tells his DEs only what he thinks they need to know. (He told Lucius how the diary operated but not that it was a Horcrux, for example.) Narcissa is not even a DE, only the wife of a DE he's unhappy with. He's not going to tell her anything. Snape neither confirms nor denies her fears. He may suspect that she's right, but he apparently doesn't know. Narcissa *assumes* ("Then I'm right!") that Voldemort is punishing Lucius by giving Draco an assignment that, in her view, is doomed to fail, but she doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet, either. She is a hysterical mother guessing the Dark Lord's motivation based on her own darkest fears (shades of Mrs. Weasley's Boggart). She may well be right, but we don't know that. We're never shown the initial encounter between Draco and Voldemort. LV may very well want to have his cake and eat it, too--a plan involving the DEs and the Vanishing Cabinet that could result in the death of the feared and hated Dumbledore, or, if it fails, will result in the murder of Lucius Malfoy's son as punishment for his failure. It seems unlikely to me that revenge on Malfoy would take precedence over a higher priority, the death of "the only one he ever feared." Snape, too, is in the dark. Assuming that he's not bluffing, he knows only that Voldemort has assigned Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. Voldemort is hardly going to tell a man he knows to be a friend of the Malfoys and the HoH of their son that his goal is to punish Draco by giving him a suicide mission. Snape knows that Voldemort is angry with Lucius, but he also knows that Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead (especially now, after the defeat in the MoM), and he suspects that Voldemort "intends [him] to do it in the end." Like Narcissa, he underestimates Draco's resourcefulness and considers it "unlikely" that he'll succeed in killing Dumbledore (whose greatness as a wizard he, unlike Bellatrix, does not underestimate). Unlike Narcissa (and possibly Voldemort), he's under no delusions that Dumbledore would murder Draco if Draco tried to kill him, but he's well aware that Voldemort is merciless to those who fail him. He stands at the window putting it all together based on the information available to him. Perhaps he's moved by Narcissa's tears. Perhaps he's seen the vision of a murdered Draco behind those tear-filled blue eyes. Perhaps he's figuring out what Dumbledore would want him to do. At this point, he makes his first tentative offer to help Draco--not to do the deed for him, but to watch over him and protect him, as Narcissa correctly infers from his words. It seems to me, after days of thinking about this thread, that perhaps we have an answer to the mystery of why Snape agreed to the UV. Quite simply and canonically, he's putting his life on the line to protect Draco. (That third provision, which was not part of her original proposal, draws him into the trap. But he can't know at this point how trapped he is because he doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan, which will give Draco a real chance for success. Or would if the death threats to himself and his family and his own experience with Sectumsempra hadn't removed the edge from his desire to murder Dumbledore, and Dumbledore's understanding and mercy hadn't made it impossible to kill him.) What Bella knows is harder to guess. Her source of information *seems* to be Draco. She shares his view that the assignment is an "honor" (no doubt what Voldemort told Draco--the old "honored above all others" line). And she doesn't seem to share Narcissa's view that it's a suicide mission. Glittering fanatic that she is, she wants Draco to succeed. Her idea of "helping" Draco consists of thwarting Snape by teaching Draco Occlumency and (IMO) undermining his credibility by telling Draco that Snape wants to "steal his glory." (Where else would Draco get that "childish" idea but from Bellatrix, who knows about all three provisions of the Unbreakable Vow?) Whether any of the three are correct in their assumptions is irrelevant. What matters is that the assumptions, along with Snape's and Narcissa's ignorance of Draco's plan, shapes their actions in "Spinner's End," with tragic consequences for Snape and Dumbledore. Carol, who was going to cite the scene on the Hogwarts Express as evidence that Draco says *nothing* about Voldemort "approaching" or "choosing" him but couldn't fit it into this post From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 2 16:21:46 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 12:21:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cabinet FIRST! One last time. References: Message-ID: <004e01c6ceab$e3600c90$87ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157769 Steve: > I'm not even sure why I am back in this discussion again > since I think it has taken a irrational turn. As much as > it pains me to say this, and as much as it may appear to > be a personal attack, I must say that when Betsy and > Magpie are arguing the /merits/ of their /interpretation/ > of canon, they are spot on, but when they are agruing the > /demerits/ of my /interpretation/ of canon, they are lost > in impossible flights of fancy. Magpie: There are about eight versions of the Cabinet First theory going around, and many of them are changing more in canon than yours is, so it's become a bit like fighting one of those monsters with many heads. Some people have worked onto changing more in the story already. Though I do think changing the way the story begins by definition changes the plot and the story in this case. Steve: >From this point on, the story plays out the same either way. Despite what Betsy and Magpie /claim/, the story plays the same. Magpie: Right, this is another core disagreement, which I addressed in my "carpenter" analogy. You're denying that there's any difference just as the person who doesn't build houses for a living denies that they can't do something that the carpenter says changes the structure, or that building a house with a garage built onto the side is the same as building a house without a garage. Imo in constructing the story this does make a difference. And we can just leave that to either agree or disagree, since it doesn't change the fact that whether it would change the story or not, it's still not something the author wrote into the story. Everyone in canon talks about Draco being given this assignment, no one ever challenges that he was given the assignment to punish Lucius. The opening of the story is a distraught mother reacting to this fact. If there were scenes where it was shown that people on the other side didn't understand why LV chose Draco, the Cabinet would be the answer. There would be some indication that something happened between Draco and Voldemort Snape and Narcissa didn't understand. Instead the story plays it the opposite way, that Snape is sure about what happened between LV and Draco--everyone is--he's just not sure what Draco is doing to carry out LV's wishes. You are saying that none of this matters, that JKR doesn't have to write this into the story in any way for it to be true. So I'm now proving a negative, an unfalsified premise. You don't have to give any evidence *for* what you're saying happened, you just have to say that I can't prove it didn't happen. But any things I have in the text that do seem to indicate it you can explain away any way you like. Steve: Not so, in his limited schoolboy view, Draco does what Draco always does; he causes trouble. Magpie: Which is exactly the way Betsy and I have said that your story changes the story. It's Draco trying to cause trouble and causing trouble for himself. That's a beginning to a story. You've added that on to a story where Draco is chosen to die as punishment for his father's screw ups, two different openings. JKR knows who Draco is and could easily have used that opening. She gave a slightly different set up. Steve: Draco goes into that conference with schoolboy motives, but he comes out of it shouldering an impossible burden even for a man. It's no wonder he has forgetten all about Harry. He's fighting for his life. Magpie: Again, this is exactly what I believe both Betsy and I have claimed is changed in your story, and have argued against for reasons we've outlined in other posts. You're writing one more satisfying comeuppance moment for Draco in between the two books with a development already happened: Draco's petty childish scheme thrown back at him as a man's job he must shoulder. If this happened I don't see why it would not actually be in the story. It means something regarding the character, even more than the fact that Sirius convinced James to switch Secret Keepers is part of Sirius. Steve: Regardless of which one you buy, at some point in the next book, the book IS going to come to a screeching halt while Draco's subplot is resolved. It is one of the major hanging story threads. Magpie: I believe the point Betsy was making there was not that Draco's story did not have more to go, but that the mystery of what he was doing in HBP was done. This element would mean going back and re-explaining the story in this book differently when we learned Draco actually caused all the plot trouble himself. And if JKR puts that in there, it will certainly be canon, but right now it is nonexistant. I think Betsy's also questioning why, with all we've got left to do and the even more desperate situation Draco is already in, why JKR would want or need to look back to the first chapters of this story, assuming what's more important is where the new character Draco is at the end of HBP will go and be. Steve: Why Draco? Why not someone else? Well, secrecy for one. Also, who better than Draco to fix the cabinet. He's aleady at Hogwarts. As is seen from people's reactions, no one would expect Draco to be personally working with Voldemort. Magpie: The "Why Draco?" answer given in the book was that chosen to punish his father. You've now added more conflicting reasons for it to be Draco--it's a strategic choice for Voldemort's Cabinet Plan (with the added monkey wrench that Draco is sending out poisoned mead and necklaces and so risking expulsion, jail and death, all of which would make him unable to fix the cabnet). The Revenge on the Malfoys theory is presented in the first chapter, never questioned, nobody acts out of character for it. No one in canon finds the explanation unsatisfactory. Your explanation here reveals imo different priorities to those of the story and of, it seems, JKR. You're coming up with ways to make this a good strategic plan to get into Hogwarts for LV with the plot in the book a side issue at best. The story never makes that a priority. It explains itself with the very fact that it's not a great strategic plan. And if there are good reasons for Draco to be the one fixing a Cabinet LV wants fixed then Draco's not just on a suicide mission, but helping a somewhat important mission for Voldemort because he's uniquely qualified for it. It does change the story, just as it changes the story to say that Ginny intentionally allowed the diary to seduce her to get Harry's attention, or that Lucius is giving Ginny the diary in CoS on Voldemort's orders, even if you can make the physical events in canon come out the same. Steve: Finally, you keep asking for canon, but before I give it let me point out that Spinner's End does not confirm Betsy's or Magpie's view. I think their interpretation is the way that JKR wanted us to interpret the books while the story was playing out. Magpie: So you agree that canon gives us our version. You're giving us reasons you disagree with the version canon and are expecting a revision later. It will only be canon if in the next book it's revealed to be true in the books. Steve: One could say that Harry flat our says with absolute certainty that Draco has the Dark Mark. Also, hints are dropped that this might be true. Magpie: Actually, no you can't. I know within the context here that sounds like hedging, but it's basic book-reading skill. Whether Draco has the Dark Mark is presented in the mouth of a character who's supposed to be coming to the question with no information. He's basing his conclusion on things we ourselves saw with him and did not necessarily add up to what he's saying. Finally, most importantly to this thread, Harry's conclusion is not the only one given. Does Draco not want Madam Malkin to see his tattoo? Or did he get stuck with a pin, something he's already complaining about before Harry walks in? (Iirc, those are the two versions and fanon actually conflates the two things and remembers it as Draco's Dark Mark being painful, thus mixing the two versions together.) We never find out what Draco did to make Borgin afraid, which might give weight to Harry's idea. But still even being in Harry's view the Dark Mark isn't something he bases much on--what he is sure of is that he's acting as a DE. As it happens the story doesn't depend on whether or not Draco has the Mark--if it did I think we'd be told one way or the other. And maybe I am supposed to be taking Harr's view as truth--after all, JKR specifically showed me Draco not getting the Hand of Glory and then had people talking as if they know he has one. So if in the next book it's taken as a given I'll say my bad that I didn't get that was supposed to be canon and JKR's bad for not presenting it conclusively enough for me, but at least she didn't omit it entirely. Both Draco having a Dark Mark and not having one are options within canon. How Draco got this assignment is a far more important thing, and we're given only one reason for it that seems to be guiding the actions of several important characters. You are certainly welcome to hold out for more information. But that's saying, "I don't think the version of the story we got in HBP is true." It still acknowledges that HBP gave us this version and not an alternate one. Draco's having the Dark Mark is indeed presented as a possibility in the book. Draco's telling Voldemort about the Cabinet and setting things in motion that way is not. Steve: Admittedly, I am filling in a little of the off-page back- story, but that back story fits my interpretation of the book to a tee. Magpie: Which I think is exactly what we are saying you're doing, filling in stuff off the page to support your interpretation of the book. We're more using the stuff in the book to come to an interpretation. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 16:44:05 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:44:05 -0000 Subject: Draco's task (For Magpie and those who agree with her) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157771 Carol earlier: > Draco would fix the cabinet, allowing the DEs into Hogwarts. The DEs > would set off the Dark Mark over the Astronomy Tower, fight off or kill anyone who got in the way, and force Draco to do the task. (Unknown to him, at first, they'd kill him if he failed.) > > Orna responded: > Actually, Draco did fail ? and we don't see any hint of them trying > to kill him. They insist upon Draco doing it ? holding Greyback > back, but nothing there about killing Draco. They want Snape to act? > perhaps as Draco's teacher convince him, or help him to do it. But > as soon as Dumbledore is killed ? nothing more there. Carol responds: There's "nothing more there" because Snape says "It's over!", snatches Draco by the scruff of the neck, and orders everyone off the tower--not to mention that he's sent Dumbledore over the ramparts, so there's no body for Greyback to ravage. The DEs are clearly under orders to let Draco kill DD, but only Brutal-Face (Yaxley?) has any inclination to follow or enforce that particular order. Greyback is slavering to eat Dumbledore for "afters" and the brother and sister (the Carrows?) seem eager for the action. They want to see Dumbldore dead. What would have happened if Snape hadn't entered the room is unclear, but since Draco can't kill Dumbledore, they would either have had to coerce him (through an Imperius Curse?) or kill Dumbledore themselves. Draco has been under death threats to himself and his family since at least April, and the DEs would have had to decide what to do when it was clear that he wasn't going to cooperate. Unless, of course, Dumbledore died from the potion first, in which case, they'd still be saddled with Draco. Kidnapping Draco with the Order members waiting downstairs was not an option. They'd have had to kill Draco and Dumbledore, too, or face Voldemort's wrath themselves. Snape's entering the room saved them from making that decision. They expected him to do it, and so, apparently, did Dumbledore. Only Snape could get Draco safely off the tower and the DEs out of Hogwarts. Only he could keep Greyback from eating Dumbledore for "afters." And only he could make sure the DEs left the tower before they discovered Harry under the Invisibility Cloak or he charged out to fight them. Carol, who thinks that terrible as the consequences of the UV were, it would have been even worse if Snape had not killed Dumbledore himself From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Sep 2 16:49:41 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:49:41 -0000 Subject: Fear and Gryffindor (Was: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Renee: > she'd most likely do it by letting Lupin slip in a way > > characteristic for him - remaining passive where action is required, > > or keeping his mouth shut when he ought to speak, in order to avoid > > the condemnation of people who matter to him. His main flaw is his > > fear to be disliked. (There are moments when I think he gave in to > > Tonks because he feared the wrath of Molly and McGonagall.) > > > > Pippin: > Heh heh. I've thought that too, but I figured if *I* said it, people > would think I was just being anti-Lupin. Just because JKR hasn't > stated her reservations about Lupin doesn't mean she hasn't got > them. I'd certainly have reservations about someone who let himself > be bullied into a relationship he didn't think would work. Renee: If that was what she intended to show, yes. However, I'm not sure this was her intention. There are at least as many moments when I think Lupin merely needed the reassurance nobody was going to condemn him for getting together with Tonks, old, poor and dangerous as he is. (I remember writing here on this list that I suspect Lupin of making depreciating remarks about himself in the hope someone will gainsay him.) And then there's the possibility JKR didn't realise the scene in the hospital wing could come across like that because of the way she'd written/talked about Lupin until then. (Generally speaking, I believe my opinion of her characterisation in the HP series isn't as high as yours is. ) BTW, JKR *has* stated reservations about Lupin - she's the one who said his flaw was that he liked too much to be liked, and that was where he slipped up. She's stated reservations about other characters too, but flawed =/= evil. Pippin: > You know, if it would endanger Lupin's mission to have a long > distance relationship with Harry, it should be equally dangerous to > have one with a Ministry Auror like Tonks. But that doesn't get > mentioned. It makes me think that maybe both sets of excuses are > secondary. Renee: It doesn't get mentioned, because POV character Harry doesn't find out about this relationship until shortly before the end of the book; JKR went to considerable lengths to mislead him and the reader. And after the hospital wing scene, Harry doesn't spend any thoughts on the two of them - he merely notices they're holding hands at DD's funeral - nor does he get to speak with either of them. But in fact the whole story, with the repeated, even exaggerated stress on depressed-unable-to-morph-Tonks-with-the-mousy-brown-hair, suggests that Lupin did try to distance himself from Tonks, and that it was Tonks who didn't accept this. Maybe one of the reasons Lupin finally gave in to her was, that his spying days are over now that he's openly fought against the Death Eaters at Hogwarts. Pippin: > But is passivity really Lupin's defining characteristic? You know, I can't > find any Rowling quote with 'passivity' or 'passive' in the interviews > and I don't recall those words ever appearing in canon. It seems > to me the operative word, in your post as in canon, is 'fear'. > JKR talks about fear, and its opposite, courage, a great deal. > > It's clear that in her book, fear is a greater danger than death or > evil. I don't think it really matters what someone is afraid of. As the > boggart lesson pointed out, whether your fear is realistic or not, it can be > used to manipulate you. And Lupin doesn't handle fear very well. He > never manages to turn his boggart into something funny. (Cockroach > candy is funny only because cockroaches per se are not.) > > It seems there are things Lupin doesn't want to do because he's afraid, > so he thinks up passive reasons not to do them. But the fear, IMO, > comes first. > Renee: That's true, but in Lupin's case it does lead to passivity. That the word isn't used in canon or interviews doesn't mean the implication isn't there. Lupin fails to speak up for Snape in the Pensieve scene, and he fails to tell Dumbledore that Sirius is an animagus. Sounds pretty passive to me. JKR did say he cuts his friends too much slack. You usually cut people too much slack by not interfering = remaining passive. Wormtail (I) sides with the biggest bully out of fear. Lupin remains passive out of fear. Same emotion, different personalities, different results. Still, fear is definitely *not* the opposite of courage; that's cowardice. Courage is about overcoming fear. If you really feel no fear, you can't be courageous. We're never told Gryffindors have no boggarts. Ron has fears. Hermione has fears. Even Harry has fears. Of course Lupin has them, too. And no, I don't blame him for being unable to turn the full moon into something funny. He can't escape it, he can't fight it, and no other boggart we've seen in the series is as completely unavoidable as his. Also, there are many kinds of fear. Lupin is obviously not afraid to engage in battle. Wormtail obviously does not lack the nerve to cut off his hand. Ron is afraid to reprimand his brothers, yet he tells Sirius Black `you'll have to kill us too'. Dumbledore is afraid to tell Harry about the prophecy, but he's not afraid to die. Molly is afraid to see her loved ones die - to such a degree that she can't fight her boggart at all. Does that make her a coward - how can you turn a dead child into something funny? Yet she's a Gryffindor. As per JKR, the Sorting Hat is never wrong. It also placed Lupin in Gryffindor, where dwell the brave of heart. (That it also put Peter there, makes me think we can expect a final act of courage from him in Book 7). Ren?e From random832 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 19:22:44 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:22:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609011845t14682f76jeaaca4e4e07afb75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609021222u5eca319u6561033ec9f2d0a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157773 > Alla: > Um, let me ask you the variation of the question I asked earlier in > the thread. Does it really matter whether some of us "too > emotionally invested" in the theory or not if canon based arguments > in favor of this theory are being presented? Random832: "Narcissa has some special insight into Voldemort's actions therefore she must be right" is not canon based - the _only_ canon basis IMO for believing her 'explanation' is if you've not read far enough to see that Draco _does_ have a chance at accomplishing his task (and therefore the idea that it was intended as a suicide mission, regardless of who went to whom otherwise, is unequivocally _sunk_). I think that anyone who has finished the book and still thinks that Voldemort initiated this as a way to get Draco killed is _necessarily_ too emotionally invested in the idea that Narcissa's right (even when she's been PROVEN wrong) to give anything else a chance. Alla: > I think I can venture a pretty safe bet that great deal of many list > members ( totally including myself) are emotionally invested in the > characters and/or theories. It is just seems to me as strange > argument against the theory - that its proponents are too > emotionally invested in it to take a look at the changed facts. Random832: I was trying to point out the most likely explanation for people refusing to accept the idea that Narcissa might be wrong even though it's clearly shown that she doesn't have some _very_ important pieces of information - the fact that this revelation comes so much later than Narcissa's original statement - after people have made up their mind to accept her explanation when at the time no credible alternative was presented. Alla: > Seems to me that proponents of this theory ( and I cannot speak for > Magpie and Betsy) argue precisely that - that facts did **not** > change, Random832 I meant the facts [as we knew them] changed _in the course of the book_. In the chapter Spinner's End, there is nothing about a vanishing cabinet, and no other hint that Draco has any chance of accomplishing the task, therefore the most logical conclusion is that it's intended as a suicide mission - which Draco certainly would not initiate. > Alla: > For the longest time I was also thinking that Draco chose Voldemort, Random832: "Draco chose Voldemort" implies a lot of things that, as far as I can tell, nobody's arguing for. It's an attempt to play games with words to make the "cabinet first" theory look as unappealing as possible. > Alla: > I am afraid that I am wavering on this one, since Magpie's > explanation of why indeed "Cabinet comes first" does poke some big > holes in the theme is getting to me :) Random832: Can you explain, clearly and in one place (one of my problems with arguing against it has been that it's not been clearly presented) exactly what holes it supposedly pokes in the theme and why? -- Random832 From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Sep 2 19:23:17 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:23:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157774 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cyril A Fernandes" wrote: > > Cyril here: > > > The question is "Why does Snape want the DADA job so bad?" He has been > wanting this from the first year. He even mentioned it to Umbridge The thought that he did not want to give Snape the job earlier was > because he did not believe that Snape would be able to control his > feeling f> during inspection in OOTP. > > He *most* probably knows about the curse on the job - nothing in canon > to directly support this assumption - but even the students are > noticing that the job is not safe - and DD clearly told Harry in HBP > that the job was cursed by LV (incl the trip down Pensieve lane)... so > he also most probably told Snape. Renee: Going off on a tangent: I wonder if DD told any of the others he hired for the job that it was cursed? It's hard to imagine he did, because in that case very few people would have accepted the job, and Hogwarts would possibly have been without a DADA teacher for years on end. On the other hand, not mentioning the curse does seem unfair towards the prospective teachers and is perhaps not quite compatible with being the epitome of goodness. Or is it that the curse won't affect you if you are flawless, without weaknesses and secrets, so that if you fall victim to it, it will be your own fault? (In which case I'm reminded of the doctrine of Original Sin: you're born with it, yet if you sin, you're still responsible.) Renee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 19:33:22 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:33:22 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609021222u5eca319u6561033ec9f2d0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157775 > > Alla: > > For the longest time I was also thinking that Draco chose Voldemort, > > Random832: > "Draco chose Voldemort" implies a lot of things that, as far as I can > tell, nobody's arguing for. It's an attempt to play games with words > to make the "cabinet first" theory look as unappealing as possible. Alla: Hate wasting a post on this, but since this is rather big misstatement of what I am arguing for, I feel like I have to. So, if you take another look at the part you snipped you will see that I am also **not** arguing for this. Alla. From random832 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 19:42:41 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:42:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Re: Draco's task (For M In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609011201m7c980c72m2c2393c3122b65c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609021242h4d94a2ccx48dcc8b1fec4c12e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157776 On 9/1/06, sistermagpie wrote: > > Random832:: > > You're _not_ being told that, though. You're merely drawing a > > conclusion from the things you have been told. Others have drawn a > > different conclusion. Also, I don't seriously think that Draco's > > orders were anything other than to kill DD. But that doesn't mean we > > know it for a fact. > > Magpie: > You're right in that--all story involves some interpretation. I am > interpreting, yes. As your (reasonable) interpretation of the words > in CoS leads you to remember us "seeing" Ginny possessed--that's how > I remember the book too. I do, however, object to the idea that all > interpretations are equal. Random832: My point was that even if we don't see it in a literal sense, we see enough to know she didn't fake the whole thing. Are we supposed to believe that diary!Tom was an illusion she conjured? Are we supposed to believe she can speak parseltongue? The idea that _any_ theory that's been presented thus far about HBP rises to the level of a hypothetical "Ginny faked the whole thing to get attention" theory is ridiculous. > > >>Random832: > > If "making up theories" is to be separate from "literary analysis", > > you can't analyze anything at all other than what's shown on the > > page. > > Magpie: > Exactly. That's why they're different. Analysis by definition means > looking at what's on the page, breaking it apart, fitting it > together. It's exactly the opposite thing. The theory impulse, > which Snow explains below, embraces the idea that what's on the page > is misleading and incomplete. Random832: That "idea" is _DEMONSTRABLY_ true. What's been "on the page" in any given book has _routinely_ been revealed in the next to have been misleading and incomplete in some way. And you haven't even pointed out WHERE we're shown "on the page" that Voldemort planned this as a suicide mission for Draco and summoned him to give him the orders. The first part is on the page, granted, but it's in Narcissa's mouth, and we KNOW that Narcissa doesn't have all the facts. The second part is just an assumption. Just a theory. Magpie. > If analysis finds what's on the page > misleading or inconclusive, it's because the text itself supports its > being misleading or inconclusive. Random832: A statement made by someone who is explicitly shown not to have critical information (even ignoring the fact that she's a Black other than Sirius, therefore highly likely to be a slytherin, which house's members have often shown to be dishonest) is _not_ conclusive. > Magpie: > But if you directly parallel it to this situation, it's the Cabinet > First people who are the ones who "know" it was Voldemort's Plan, > because that's the thing that's not in the text. It being a suicide mission isn't in the text either, in any meaningful sense. It's in writing, sure, but between quote marks, and the person it's attributed to is not in a position to draw a correct conclusion. It's in the text that Narcissa does not have enough information to draw any other conclusion. It's _CERTAINLY_ in the text that Narcissa cannot in fact make any conclusion, or even be relied on as evidence, one way or another, about when the cabinet was discovered and by whom, because of the simple fact that Narcissa _never finds out_ about the cabinet. > Magpie: > Ah--and this is what I felt that this alternate version *was* > basically--a prediction that this information we have now Random832: What information do we have now? Think carefully. The information we have now is that Narcissa believes that Voldemort gave Draco a suicide mission. Another piece of information we have is that Narcissa has _no knowledge_ about the cabinet. The "fact" that Voldemort gave this mission to Draco first (not on the basis of information about the cabinet) is not "information we have" at all - it's a theory. A conclusion drawn from the first piece of evidence above without considering the second. From random832 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 20:16:29 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 16:16:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609021316k76d0e31dn500a1c570ed38598@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157777 > Sydney: > Well, I'm afraid it does. The plot as presented in the book, is > Voldemort has a plan to punish Lucius by killing Draco. Random832: No, it's not. Regardless of anything else, that's NEVER presented as anything other than Narcissa's interpretation. And it is _clear_ from the text that Narcissa does not have all the facts. Narcissa cannot be relied on to supply any information that can be used as a basis for deciding when or who discovered the cabinet, and who told whom about it, because she herself _never finds out_ about the cabinet. Sydney: > If characters are lying or mistaken, then we're looking at a > 'flip', and it should be something quite large that flips all three > characters, because we wouldn't JUST have to correct the Draco > plotline, but why Narcissa and Snape are wrong. Random832: But we _know_ why they're wrong. It's very clear in the text that neither Narcissa nor Snape know about the cabinet, and that, furthermore, Narcissa _never finds out_. They're wrong because they're going on incomplete information. > Magpie: > There are about eight versions of the Cabinet First theory going around, and > many of them are changing more in canon than yours is, Random832: I, for one, am not convinced you are not imagining these other ones that supposedly completely break canon. > Magpie: > If this happened I don't see why it would not actually be in the story. Random832: Because the story is about Harry. > Magpie: > And if there are > good reasons for Draco to be the one fixing a Cabinet LV wants fixed then > Draco's not just on a suicide mission, but helping a somewhat important > mission for Voldemort because he's uniquely qualified for it. Random832: He _is_ uniquely qualified. He's a student at Hogwarts. The cabinet is at Hogwarts. And, before you say it - it's not some other slytherin because if it was we'd all be saying "who the heck is this and why should we care about him?" - Draco is the only slytherin Harry knows, and the story is about Harry. It's not Snape because Voldemort doesn't trust Snape. And the _only_ basis for it being a suicide mission is that Narcissa thinks it is, and we KNOW she doesn't know about the cabinet. -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 20:20:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:20:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157778 "zeroirregardless" wrote: > Maybe he doesn't want it, but Voldemort ordered him to try to get > it. Voldemort could presumably lift the curse -- or at least tell > Snape that he would. Having a DE as DADA teacher would have several benefits for Voldemort. Snape could leave out crucial spells, making the students easy prey. (Snape teaches a defense against Dementors that Harry considers much inferior to the Patronus charm. Since the Dementors have gone over to Voldemort, advantage Voldemort. Except that Dumbledore's Army learned the Patronus charm from "Patronus Potter" himself....) > Snape would be in good position to identify those students with > strong DADA aptitude. He could keep them from becoming Aurors by > giving them bad grades and weak recommendations, or try to recruit > them to the DEs. Those who responded positively to his "I [heart] the Dark Arts" lecture would be likely candidates. > Of course, Snape could want the job, and Voldemort could want him to take it. Snape doesn't seem like someone who has that kind > of luck, though. Carol responds: I take it you haven't been converted to the DDM!Snape camp? It's entirely possible that Voldemort still wants Snape to take the DADA job, but possibly not for the reasons you suggested. Since he already has someone assigned to the task of killing Dumbledore, that doesn't seem to be the reason--except for Snape's suspicion that "he intends for me to do it in the end, I think." Maybe he just wants Snape to perform his "useful role as spy" a little longer. (With Dumbledore dead, he'll no longer be needed, at least at Hogwarts, assuming that Hogwarts is even open, so why not take a cursed post?) Or maybe Voldemort wants the DADA curse to serve his purposes by working on its own, as indeed it does, with Snape losing his job under the worst possible circumstances. Dumbledore, of course, has his own set of reasons for hiring Snape, ranging from Snape's deep knowledge of the Dark Arts to his desire to hire Slughorn as Potions Master. Dumbledore has put off hiring Snape for as long as possible, almost certainly knowing that the curse would reveal him as an apparently loyal DE at the very least. Whether or not Dumbledore suspects that his own time is limited, as his behavior throughout HBP suggests, he knows that if he hires Snape for the DADA post, it will be *his* last year, and he's waited until the last possible moment to do it, when he needs to send Snape into deep cover, but also needs Snape's expertise at healing Dark Curses, as opposed to the potion-making skills he's needed in previous years. (There's more to the DADA position than teaching classes, as Lockhart found out to his cost, and it wouldn't do to have the Potions Master handling cursed necklaces and similar incidents. That Dumbledore is worried about such items being smuggled in, even before the Katie Bell incident, is shown by the increased security relating to communication and Hogsmeade outings.) But all that aside, Dumbledore knows, and Snape himself knows, that Snape is a DADA expert (unless we count a supposed flub relating to minor Dark Creatures, not his area of expertise). Far from teaching the Slytherin students Dark spells or preventing the Gryffindors from learning effective defenses, Snape starts by showing them exactly what Dark Curses and major Dark creatures or beings like Inferi and Dementors can do to you (without actually casting Unforgiveable Curses on them as his predecessor Crouch!Moody did). He follows up with making them learn to cast defensive spells nonverbally, which will give them a split-second advantage over opponents who don't happen to know Legilimency. And his alternate method for handling Dementors, which Harry argues against in his essay, may very well prove more than useful for those students who haven't yet learned to cast a Patronus--or even those from the DA, who've learned to cast them in the safe environment of the RoR but have never faced so much as a Boggart!Dementor and might have great difficulty conjuring up the happy memory required to cast the spell when faced with a Dementor determined to suck out not their happiness but possibly their soul as well. (Harry didn't master the spell against a Dementor Boggart; he was still casting silver mist when he first tried to fight the Dementors on the lake. His quick mastery of the spell is movie contamination.) Snape undoubtedly knew about the curse on the DADA position, and he may have routinely applied for it every year to keep up the pretense of loyalty to LV (who originally sent him to apply for the position, not knowing that he was already spying for DD "at great personal risk"), and there's no reason to suppose that he really wanted that cursed position--not when, as he tells Bellatrix, he a "comfortable job" at Hogwarts in the uncursed Potions position. Nevertheless, I get the feeling that he views most if not all the DADA teachers with a touch of resentment and either contempt or suspicion, depending on the teacher. I suspect that he thinks (rightly) that he could do a better job than most of them and he doesn't mind nudging them toward their inevitable exposure (Lockhart and Lupin) or working actively to expose them (Quirrell and Crouch!Moody) or subtly undermining them (Umbridge). So when he gets the position in HBP, he has the satisfaction of knowing that he's the best-qualified candidate in many years (even if he weren't the only one left) mixed with the bitter knowledge that it will be his last year at Hogwarts and the possible realization that he has doomed himself with that accursed Unbreakable Vow. Carol, just presenting one DDM!Snaper's perspective without presuming to speak for anyone else From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 20:40:28 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:40:28 -0000 Subject: Would DD Kill? Other Ways to Destroy a Man. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157779 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > In a sense, Tom Riddle was destroyed by Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore (and Harry) could destroy LV and leave Tom Riddle alive. Especially if he can use some of that Love from the "Love Room" (for lack of a better name) at the Ministry of Magic. > > > > > > Ah, redemption. > > > > Tonks: > > Good point. I am not sure where to go with it, but you do make a good point that in a sense, Tom was destroyed by LV. It is almost like LV being a false self and the true self (Tom) is hidden away. If your theory is correct, what will happen to Tom once he is free? Steven1965aaa now: I'm all for redemption, but personally I think Draco is a better candidate than Tom Riddle because the "true self Tom" wasn't such a sweet kid in the first place --- the bunny hung from the rafters, taking those kids down to the cave, "I can make them hurt if I want to ..." were all young Tom Riddle. Now I know its not like there are examples of Draco being a nice kid either, but we do know that, unlike Tom, he was loved (see Spinners end where Narccissa is ready to risk everything to help her son). From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 20:44:26 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:44:26 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609021316k76d0e31dn500a1c570ed38598@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Sydney: > > Well, I'm afraid it does. The plot as presented in the book, is > > Voldemort has a plan to punish Lucius by killing Draco. > > Random832: > No, it's not. Regardless of anything else, that's NEVER presented as anything other than Narcissa's interpretation. Steven1965aaa: On the tower Dumbledore says that Voldemort probably expected Draco to die in the attempt. That is perhaps some indirect support for the interpretation. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 20:48:42 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:48:42 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157781 > >>Carol: > > Narcissa *assumes* ("Then I'm right!") that Voldemort is punishing > Lucius by giving Draco an assignment that, in her view, is doomed > to fail, but she doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet, either. > Betsy Hp: But here's the thing: Who *does* know about the cabinet at this time? Seriously, as per canon, does anyone, including Draco have any idea about using the cabinets? Because again, there is *no* canon suggesting that this plan has occured to Draco yet. And there's massive canon to suggest that it hasn't. Certainly canon weighs very heavily *against* Voldemort being aware of this plan even if Draco has thought of it already. I've brought it up before, and it's been routinely ignored, but if Voldemort was aware of the cabinets (heck if Draco had thought this idea up) *why* would he wait so long, why would Voldemort allow him to wait so long to confirm that the other cabinet is available and the cabinet in Hogwarts is even fixable? Frankly, (to run with Sydney's still-life analogy ) it's like you're arguing for an invisible fig in a bowl of fruit that ripen at a totally different season. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 21:11:44 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:11:44 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609011845t14682f76jeaaca4e4e07afb75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157782 > >>Random832: > I was saying that _without_ the vanishing cabinet, Voldemort > viewing this seriously as an attempt to kill DD doesn't make > sense - and we therefore don't even _consider_ that angle at > first, since we don't know about the vanishing cabinet - and then > some of us may be too emotionally invested in "Voldemort planned > the whole thing to get Draco killed for revenge on Lucius" to > consider the alternative when the facts changed. Betsy Hp: What facts changed? On the Tower we know about the assignment Voldemort gave Draco, we know the various ways he tried to fulfill it (the cabinet, the mead and the necklace), and we know that Draco wasn't really meant to survive. Dumbledore sums that all up for us. As he usually does at the end of a book when the mystery of that book is solved. Now, of course JKR could take time out of the next book (stop all foward progession) to rewrite what she wrote in HBP. But I don't see that as being very likely. Especially since we have no forshadowing at all that the "Draco's task" part of the story has more yet to be told. (I'm betting that we'll move on to "Where does Draco go from here?" as a part of book 7.) Honestly, if there was *any* canon supporting the alternative (someone in Spinner's End hinting that the popular reading of Voldemort's motivations are wrong, Draco hinting that he put himself in front of Voldemort, anything showing that Voldemort actually gave a flip about the cabinets, etc.) than I'd look at it. But they haven't because (I assume) there isn't any. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 2 21:37:12 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:37:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Re: Draco's task (For M References: <7b9f25e50609011201m7c980c72m2c2393c3122b65c2@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50609021242h4d94a2ccx48dcc8b1fec4c12e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00e301c6ced7$f6e103b0$87ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157783 >> Magpie: >> You're right in that--all story involves some interpretation. I am >> interpreting, yes. As your (reasonable) interpretation of the words >> in CoS leads you to remember us "seeing" Ginny possessed--that's how >> I remember the book too. I do, however, object to the idea that all >> interpretations are equal. > > Random832: > My point was that even if we don't see it in a literal sense, we see > enough to know she didn't fake the whole thing. Are we supposed to > believe that diary!Tom was an illusion she conjured? Are we supposed > to believe she can speak parseltongue? Magpie: We can believe she willingly went along with Tom because she thought it would get Harry's attention rather than being unwittingly seduced by him. Jordan: > > The idea that _any_ theory that's been presented thus far about HBP > rises to the level of a hypothetical "Ginny faked the whole thing to > get attention" theory is ridiculous. Magpie: They change the method by which Voldemort works through the student villain, and in Draco's case they change the exact situation he is responding to--one the author has created as carefully as she creates everything like this. Ginny doesn't have to be faking the whole thing (nobody's suggesting Draco's making up the task to kill DD), but slightly changing how she got into her situation--Ginny just needs to be changed into a slightly more ambitious young girl when she begins talking to Tom, Tom's got something slightly different to work with. > Random832: > That "idea" is _DEMONSTRABLY_ true. What's been "on the page" in any > given book has _routinely_ been revealed in the next to have been > misleading and incomplete in some way. Magpie: Things have been revealed to be misleading ON THE PAGE. If this is revealed to be misleading on the page, it will become canon. The fact that Ron's rat turned out to be a dead Marauder does not make the idea that Arnold the Pygmy Puff is really James just as canonical. Jordan: And you haven't even pointed > out WHERE we're shown "on the page" that Voldemort planned this as a > suicide mission for Draco and summoned him to give him the orders. Magpie: We don't see that scene--just as we don't see Ginny getting possessed. We see Draco's mother giving the information that Draco has been given a task by Voldemort. And people react to that, don't bring up any of the problems with it, act in response to it...and nothing else is ever mentioned in the book. There's no need for another explanation, none is offered. You put the two things together and it makes for a story. Why scratch your head and wonder why this is happening when the story starts with a scene saying, "This is what is happening and why--what are we going to do about it?" If somebody else brought up the possibility that Narcissa didn't have her facts right--somebody in canon--I'd agree with you. > Random832: > A statement made by someone who is explicitly shown not to have > critical information (even ignoring the fact that she's a Black other > than Sirius, therefore highly likely to be a slytherin, which house's > members have often shown to be dishonest) is _not_ conclusive. Magpie: These are all doubts you're bringing to the story, but as the text itself never suggests Narcissa (who also has more information than some other characters in the story) is mistaken why should I? That suggests something to be revealed about what really happened, and it's not there. If it's there in Book VII it will be there, but it's not in here. Jordan: > It being a suicide mission isn't in the text either, in any meaningful > sense. It's in writing, sure, but between quote marks, and the person > it's attributed to is not in a position to draw a correct conclusion. Magpie: The dramatic tears scene in Spinner's End isn't meaningful? Draco's "they all thought I'd die" isn't meaningful? The story hangs together fine with that basis? Jordan: > It's in the text that Narcissa does not have enough information to > draw any other conclusion. Magpie: And neither does anyone else in canon and neither do we. So why drive ourselves crazy asking random readers if there's anything else it could be? > Random832: > What information do we have now? Think carefully. The information we > have now is that Narcissa believes that Voldemort gave Draco a suicide > mission. Another piece of information we have is that Narcissa has _no > knowledge_ about the cabinet. The "fact" that Voldemort gave this > mission to Draco first (not on the basis of information about the > cabinet) is not "information we have" at all - it's a theory. A > conclusion drawn from the first piece of evidence above without > considering the second. Magpie: You are speaking about "information" in the way Sydney described it--as if this is a documentary and JKR didn't have the footage to put this in the story. I am using "information" as in the text, what the narrator put into the story, which is all there is. If I don't accept this information I have no textual reason for the storyline at all except for something I make up from other information not linked to this question in the text. > Magpie: > There are about eight versions of the Cabinet First theory going around, > and > many of them are changing more in canon than yours is, Random832: I, for one, am not convinced you are not imagining these other ones that supposedly completely break canon. Magpie: In the context of that conversation, Steve is claiming that once Draco mentions the Cabinet and Voldemort uses that as the basis for his plan, he has no more disagreements about how the story plays out. Snow's theory has major disagremeents with Steve's theory, with Draco not even being given the task to kill DD into later in the year, and so Snape not vowing to kill DD in Spinner's End. Draco is therefore not almost killing Katie and Ron in an attempt to kill DD. Many theories not compatible with each other. > Magpie: > If this happened I don't see why it would not actually be in the story. Random832: Because the story is about Harry. Magpie: So this story isn't a major part of the plot of HBP? Any plotline featuring someone other than Harry is meant to be co-written with fans? The author crafted this story very well despite its not being about Harry, I believe because ultimately this will tie back to Harry. The emotional beats are all consistent with the opening she gave us with nothing nodding to this version as well. It's not like the information of why Draco could be given this task is information the author just left out--she gave us an answer to the question. Random832: He _is_ uniquely qualified. He's a student at Hogwarts. The cabinet is at Hogwarts. And, before you say it - it's not some other slytherin because if it was we'd all be saying "who the heck is this and why should we care about him?" - Draco is the only slytherin Harry knows, and the story is about Harry. It's not Snape because Voldemort doesn't trust Snape. And the _only_ basis for it being a suicide mission is that Narcissa thinks it is, and we KNOW she doesn't know about the cabinet. Magpie: Which once again changes what's going on in the story. Draco's being tapped because of his unique qualifications, Voldemort actually is recruiting him as a potential valuable DE, and he's doing it because Draco mentioned this Cabinet in Hogwarts, so there goes that suicide revenge plot. Which is exactly what this Cabinet First plot is trying to get rid of, or bury under all these other concerns that contradict it. Either Voldemort thinks this is a suicide mission for Draco and Draco surprises him by doing better than expected or Voldemort sees potential in Draco and Draco lives up to it. (Though there's still that necklace and mead plot where Draco risks the Cabinets never getting fixed by himself.) So we've got a mish mash of stuff going on on that side instead of the straightforward clear story that we have with the Revenge Against the Malfoys version. -m -m From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 23:03:48 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:03:48 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609021316k76d0e31dn500a1c570ed38598@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157784 > > Sydney: > > Well, I'm afraid it does. The plot as presented in the book, is > > Voldemort has a plan to punish Lucius by killing Draco. > > Random832: > No, it's not. Regardless of anything else, that's NEVER presented as > anything other than Narcissa's interpretation. Sydney: It's also Snape's opinion of Voldemort's objective; Draco's realization at the All is Revealed scene ("they all thought I'd die!"); and Dumbledore's "This is what happened and what we've all learned" summation at the end of the book ("forgive me, but Voldemort probably expects it" [draco being killed in the attempt]). I mean, that's rather a lot. That is, as I said, "the plot as presented in the book". I'm not yet so paranoid about the books that I'm going to discount anything short of an insert in a different font saying: "Do not doubt this part; this is true-- love, JKR". *Especially* if it's the end of the book and I've gotten the Dumbledore wrap-up (and believe me, I am fully anticipating the Dumbeldore's Portrait Wrap Up of everything in Book VII). If I get a couple of characters with some dialogue; people's actions following on in a clear cause-and-effect manner; people having a genuine emotional reaction to what they say is going on; and a clear beginning-middle-end arc to a coherent, gapless story (or as gapless as ol' Jo 'Plothole' Rowling normally does), I'm just not in the market to break my normal way of reading. I should point out that in a series with Memory modification and Time-turners and Polyjuice, there is hardly ANYTHING that 'happens' that can't be doubted. I'm not going to start doubting a perfectly good story until someone shows me something that's *actually in the text* to MAKE me doubt it. Not stuff that that could theoretically be in the book but isn't. Random: And it is _clear_ from > the text that Narcissa does not have all the facts. > > Narcissa cannot be relied on to supply any information that can be > used as a basis for deciding when or who discovered the cabinet, and > who told whom about it, because she herself _never finds out_ about > the cabinet. Sydney: What *is* this obsession with the cabinets? That's not even Draco's only plan: he has a Cursed Necklace, and Poisoned Wine, and, given this dime-novel set of murder weapons, probably a Polynesian Native with a Blow-Dart stashed somewhere. The overall commonality of the Cabinet-firsters (if I may so term this movement), as far as I can tell, is a core belief that the Cabinet-plot is hugely important to Voldemort as a means to kill Dumbledore. But this isn't supported by the text. The text has Snape, the guy who is supposed to kill Dumbledore "in the end" (as he expresses it), not being in on the cabinets at all, and seeing as he's *at* Hogwarts, not needing a Secret Passage to begin with. I mean, this is the only guy on the scene who has a hope in heck of even ruffling Dumbledore's beard, and he's not a factor in the Awesome Cabinet Plan. You know, Dumbledore, the guy who kicked the ass of Voldemort a couple of weeks before the assignment of killing Dumbledore was given to... Draco Malfoy? Why are the DE's that get sent on this mission more notable for being likely to cause a bit of havoc in the school, than being likely to best the Greatest Wizard that Ever Lived in a duel? Who could possibly, in a million years, have anticipated that Dumbledore would have gone out and drunk a gallon of poison before arranging himself in front of Draco? If this really was a kill-Dumbledore plan and not a kill-Draco plan, well, what was the plan? -- Sydney, Still Not Seeing the Invisible Fig, or the Fig-Shaped Gap, or the vague reflection of a Fig on a goblet From random832 at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 01:05:47 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 21:05:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cabinet first - a not-so-serious thought Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609021805y4985c67cp6c5e63efded856dc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157785 > Sydney: > Why are the DE's that get sent on this mission more notable for being > likely to cause a bit of havoc in the school, than being likely to > best the Greatest Wizard that Ever Lived in a duel? Who could > possibly, in a million years, have anticipated that Dumbledore would > have gone out and drunk a gallon of poison before arranging himself in > front of Draco? If this really was a kill-Dumbledore plan and not a > kill-Draco plan, well, what was the plan? How about exactly what went down - unbreakable vow and all? I.e. voldemort finds out (from draco or not) about the cabinet, manipulates Bellatrix and Narcissa into having Snape do the unbreakable vow, makes sure that Draco is feeling too much pressure and can't do it himself, etc, etc, etc. After all, all that is supported in the text, being as it's what _happened_. And it's apparently not such a bad plan, since it did end up in Dumbledore's death. For those who want DDM!Snape, suppose Dumbledore also just happened to come up with the exact same plan with the intention of getting Snape in good with the DE's, and since he was already dying from the ring and the potion from the cave it's no big loss, plus he didn't really die anyway and this gives him time to go into hiding and recover, etc, etc, etc. -- Random832, just kidding, of course From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 3 01:06:44 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 21:06:44 EDT Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... Message-ID: <554.63011b0.322b84a4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157786 Snow: Well making a secret entrance to the castle can greatly affect the lives of many including the headmaster. Snape being asleep when he is aware that Dumbledore is out of the castle and the Order is on full guard while all along realizing what `the plan' is and he is to protect his charge, `is' a bid deal in either version. Julie: But was Snape asleep, and did Dumbledore really expect him to be asleep? I know Dumbledore told Harry to go wake Severus, but later Hermione tells us that she and Ginny stood outside Snape's *office* door for a period of time, until Flitwick went barging in to tell Snape that Death Eaters were on the grounds. Snape came out of the office almost immediately--presumably without time to change his clothes-- dressed in his standard black robes. What gives? It seems like there are three possiblilities- 1. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep due to the late hour, but Snape hadn't even gone to bed yet. Perhaps he was behind on his exam-grading, or had other things to catch up on, or he had a sense that he might be needed at a moment's notice. If he did have such a sense, did he get it from Dumbledore, or Voldemort, or was it his own inner intuition that things were coming to a head? 2. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep because he had put some sort of sleeping spell on Snape purposely, perhaps to keep Snape from knowing about or protesting the dangerous cave expedition. This explains why Snape would be sleeping in his office still wearing his robes, but leaves the question of how the spell was removed. If Dumbledore expected Harry to be able to wake Snape, he must have used a spell he could remove from a distance, or one that would end if anyone attempted to wake Snape directly. 3. It's a mistake by JKR, and the inconsistency was missed by the editors. In which case, it will just be another minor red herring that won't ever be addressed in the story. And that leaves us to choose for ourselves which alternative above fits our individual perspectives on the story and both characters... Julie, figuring picking one over the other is rather like choosing the task or the cabinet first ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 01:23:13 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:23:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? In-Reply-To: <554.63011b0.322b84a4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157787 >From: juli17 at aol.com >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Julie: > But was Snape asleep, and did Dumbledore really expect him to be >asleep? I know Dumbledore told Harry to go wake Severus, but later >Hermione tells us that she and Ginny stood outside Snape's *office* >door for a period of time, until Flitwick went barging in to tell Snape >that Death Eaters were on the grounds. Snape came out of the office >almost immediately--presumably without time to change his clothes-- >dressed in his standard black robes. What gives? > >It seems like there are three possiblilities- > >1. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep due to the late hour, >but Snape hadn't even gone to bed yet. > >2. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep because he had >put some sort of sleeping spell on Snape purposely, perhaps to >keep Snape from knowing about or protesting the dangerous >cave expedition. > >3. It's a mistake by JKR, and the inconsistency was missed by the >editors. wynnleaf I don't think we can really know this one. But here's what I always imagined. Dumbledore and Snape knew that something big would happen that night -- don't know how much they knew for sure or how much was speculation. Still, if it involved finally having to fulfill the vow, then as soon as that happened, Snape would be "out of there" fast. So, I picture Dumbledore getting ready for his Cave expedition and telling Snape, "Tonight's the night. You might as well get some sleep while I'm gone because once I'm back you'll be very busy and probably won't have any chance to rest for a long time." But Snape *can't* sleep waiting on everything to break loose. So he's still up and dressed when Flitwick comes for him. If he was waiting on Dumbledore's call, I wouldn't think he'd have planned on getting undressed anyway, but would have perhaps tried to sleep in his clothes. Just my guess of course -- utterly without evidence except the evidence that they were working together in a plan. And that they'd both know that once Snape AK'd Dumbledore, then he'd be on the run. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl=4&scene=3712634&trfc=1 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 01:28:32 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:28:32 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first - a not-so-serious thought In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609021805y4985c67cp6c5e63efded856dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157788 > >>Sydney: > > > > If this really was a kill-Dumbledore plan and not a kill-Draco > > plan, well, what was the plan? > >>Random832: > How about exactly what went down - unbreakable vow and all? I.e. > voldemort finds out (from draco or not) about the cabinet, > manipulates Bellatrix and Narcissa into having Snape do the > unbreakable vow, makes sure that Draco is feeling too much > pressure and can't do it himself, etc, etc, etc. > > After all, all that is supported in the text, being as it's what > _happened_. > Betsy Hp: I'd love the canon that proves so decisively that Voldemort knew about the Cabinets at the time Spinner's End occured. (I'd also love the canon that tells us clearly that Voldemort was behind the Vow for that matter, but I'm starting small. ) Since you're so certain this is what actually happened. Though honestly, I'm really wondering how you explain Voldemort sending the keystone cops to back Draco while keeping Snape out of the loop. I mean, Dumbledore's death is a bit of luck isn't it? There's no way Voldemort could have known Dumbledore was off to collect a horcrux and drink some poison while he was at it, is there? Betsy Hp From tiomotzz at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 01:08:10 2006 From: tiomotzz at yahoo.com (robin) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:08:10 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157789 > Betsy Hp: > But here's the thing: Who *does* know about the cabinet at this > time? Seriously, as per canon, does anyone, including Draco have > any idea about using the cabinets? Perhaps it wasn't who but when. Perhaps Voldemort knows of it's existence or had forgotten it and remembered it and then decides that a certain time is ripe. It doesn't seem likely that the cabinets were only discovered by Draco. robin From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Sep 3 01:42:33 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:42:33 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first - a not-so-serious thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157790 > Betsy Hp: > Though honestly, I'm really wondering how you explain Voldemort > sending the keystone cops to back Draco while keeping Snape out of > the loop. I mean, Dumbledore's death is a bit of luck isn't it? > There's no way Voldemort could have known Dumbledore was off to > collect a horcrux and drink some poison while he was at it, is there? Eddie: I agree with this bit. There seems to be lots of reasons to have included Snape -- he knows the castle better than anybody, including Draco; he knows the password to Dumbledore's office, which is probably necessary; etc -- and only one reason to not include Snape: Voldemort doesn't fully trust Snape. While I'm on it, why would a plan to kill Dumbledore wait for a night when Dumbledore wasn't there? That seems exactly wrong. Yet another reason to have included Snape -- he would know Dumbledore's comings and goings better than anybody. A better plan, if Voldemort was willing to trust Snape, is to get everybody in, follow Snape to Dumbledore's office at a time when they know he (DD) would be there, and take him by force. Why rely on the Dark Mark to summon Dumbledore to the top of the tower? I have two reasons this might be: (1) Jo Rowling has a really good reason but we don't know it (2) Jo Rowling doesn't, but hey, it's children's literature and it's exciting anyway even if it doesn't hold up to several years of daily scrutiny by exacting fanatics on Yahoo. Heck, what other literature could? Eddie From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 01:42:04 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:42:04 -0000 Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Re: Draco's task (For M In-Reply-To: <00e301c6ced7$f6e103b0$87ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157791 Magpie: We don't see that scene--just as we don't see Ginny getting possessed. We see Draco's mother giving the information that Draco has been given a task by Voldemort. And people react to that, don't bring up any of the problems with it, act in response to it...and nothing else is ever mentioned in the book. There's no need for another explanation, none is offered. You put the two things together and it makes for a story. Why scratch your head and wonder why this is happening when the story starts with a scene saying, "This is what is happening and why--what are we going to do about it?" If somebody else brought up the possibility that Narcissa didn't have her facts right--somebody in canon--I'd agree with you. Snow: Well in a manner we do have someone in canon that does give us a clue into how Voldemort acts and how Narcissa will act, which can affect her facts, and that would be Dumbledore. OOP pg. 838 " ? In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." Does Narcissa love Draco? Well she shows that she loved him enough to confide in Snape when she was specifically told not to tell anyone. Does Voldemort know how fools who love will act? Well Dumbledore certainly believes so. Herein lies the trap. So the question of whether Narcissa has her facts straight would depend largely on what Voldemort expected Narcissa to do when she learned of the plan involving her precious. It isn't so much whether we can trust her, it's more a question of if we can trust what had been told to her by the master manipulator. What was she told that Voldemort expected her to take to Snape, because I really do suspect from Dumbledore's statement that Voldemort did expect this loving mother to act in a foolish way, why else would he have included her as one who was entrusted with the plan that involved her only son? Oh yeah, to use her. Narcissa believes Voldemort's motives are because of her husband that Draco has now been burdened with this mission, what else would she believe; he's just a kid? Snape however puts two and two together pretty quickly and realizes that it is Snape himself that Voldemort has targeted when he says that he intends me to do it in the end, I think. So you see it was never about Draco at all, Draco was a bonus prize. Do you think that Narcissa would even hesitate to think that Voldemort might be using her and the boy to get an even bigger fish? Narcissa didn't even walk, she ran to see Snape, and don't you think that Voldemort knew that she was going to do that? Narcissa enters Snape's house with not only her heart on her sleeve (an occlumency no no) but plenty of information for Snape to gather as he stares into those tear-filled eyes. In the end, can we simply assume what the plan was when it has not been fleshed out in detail? We know the end result but can we be 100% certain what the plan Narcissa speaks of was or even if it was the same plan Voldemort told Draco for that matter? Even if the boy was ordered from the beginning to find a way to kill Dumbledore, can we be certain that the boy knew from the beginning that if he didn't do it himself he would be killed? If Draco knew all along that he and his family were in danger of being killed if he did not succeed, why wouldn't Draco have allowed Snape to help; why were the cabinets so necessary; why wasn't Draco more engrossed with his two failed attempts on Dumbledore's life? It certainly raises a lot of questions if Draco knew from the start that he had to kill Dumbledore or be killed. Instead what we saw was a-cocky-little-son-of-a-Lucius who wanted all the glory for himself but wait this wasn't glory about killing Dumbledore no, no, this was glory for letting the deatheaters into the castle by means of his cabinets. If Draco was being subjected to a life and death situation (his life) and yet his primary concern was for those damn cabinets, wouldn't you automatically question his priorities? The boy is more concerned with the glory he feels he will receive over the cabinets, by rejecting Snape's help, than whether he lives to appreciate the glory; this does not make sense if we are to believe that the boy knew it was his life or Dumbledore's. There's something up with the whole "plan". Magpie: In the context of that conversation, Steve is claiming that once Draco mentions the Cabinet and Voldemort uses that as the basis for his plan, he has no more disagreements about how the story plays out. Snow's theory has major disagremeents with Steve's theory, with Draco not even being given the task to kill DD into later in the year, and so Snape not vowing to kill DD in Spinner's End. Draco is therefore not almost killing Katie and Ron in an attempt to kill DD. Many theories not compatible with each other. Snow: To make a theory from what one may consider questionable dialog, one must be willing to admit defeat on parts that have been proven unacceptable along with those parts that can enhance a theory. The whole reason for theorizing is to have others input as to what could actually play out in the end without disrupting actual canon in doing so. So if you or others can point out that there is disputable canon, then as TBAY would say the ship is sunk. I am always open to rebuttal because it helps me to reconsider and take a different path to my conclusion, therefore my theories change accordingly. The basis of this topic, for me, is that there is open interpretation of canon, which makes me leery to readily accept the obvious about the plan. Now whether that means that the cabinets came first or not has been under such scrutiny, I must give further matter to the idea that it could defiantly be a true scenario of events that we have yet to realize on page as fact. This cabinet came first scenario could have repercussion, which you have already pointed out yourself, as to why or where this could alter the given scenario we are being spoon-fed. Alternate ideas then present themselves for equal scrutiny. They are like tangents that arise from the origin. They could be right or they may be wrong but that is what this forum has been for, the polite conflict of debate and rebuttal. If everyone simply agreed with everyone else I would dare say the forum would die out. I see it almost as a marriage where you have the males straightforward and less emotional way of thinking coming together with the female's overly emotional way of thinking. If you can join them in agreement you will find your answer. Cheers Snow From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 3 01:50:14 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:50:14 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first - a not-so-serious thought In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609021805y4985c67cp6c5e63efded856dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157792 Random832 wrote: > > How about exactly what went down - unbreakable vow and all? I.e. > voldemort finds out (from draco or not) about the cabinet, manipulates > Bellatrix and Narcissa into having Snape do the unbreakable vow, makes > sure that Draco is feeling too much pressure and can't do it himself, > etc, etc, etc. > > After all, all that is supported in the text, being as it's what _happened_. > Julie: That works beautifully, except that there is absolutely no indication Voldemort knew about the cabinet in the beginning (though he must have by the end, to send the DEs through), there is no evidence he manipulated Bellatrix and Narcissa into having Snape take the Unbreakable Vow (how exactly would Voldemort know Narcissa is likely to consider an Unbreakable Vow, let alone one demanding Snape complete the task if Draco can't?), and while I can see him putting pressure on Draco (Draco must have gone from proud of the task assigned him to fearful for the lives of himself and his family because of something Voldemort or one of the DEs said to him), I'm lost on how Voldemort can actually be sure Draco can't do the task (other than suspecting from the beginning that Draco was neither skilled enough nor bloodthirsty enough to complete the task), particularly when he's made it clear Draco is now fighting for his own life (and those of his family). IMO, by using death threats Voldemort is actually giving Draco more incentive to *succeed* than fail, even if Draco does prove unable to do it in the end (thanks to Dumbledore's compassionate response). Granted, some or all of your points *may* end up being the case, but this is hardly the straightforward version of what happened in the text (or the "Faith" version, as it were). That version is no more than Voldemort giving Draco a task at which he will likely fail with the cost being his life (per Narcissa, Snape, Draco and Dumbledore), Narcissa eliciting an Unbreakable Vow from Snape out of desperate love for her only child, and Draco trying with increasing desperation--and repeated failure--to complete that assigned task. And everything in the plot indicates the task is to kill Dumbledore (or die trying). That's all we have now and if that's all we have after Book 7, well, then I guess we won't be arguing about it anymore (er, yeah, right ;-) Julie From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 02:15:17 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:15:17 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <554.63011b0.322b84a4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157793 Snow (me previously): Well making a secret entrance to the castle can greatly affect the lives of many including the headmaster. Snape being asleep when he is aware that Dumbledore is out of the castle and the Order is on full guard while all along realizing what `the plan' is and he is to protect his charge, `is' a bid deal in either version. Julie: But was Snape asleep, and did Dumbledore really expect him to be asleep? I know Dumbledore told Harry to go wake Severus, but later Hermione tells us that she and Ginny stood outside Snape's *office* door for a period of time, until Flitwick went barging in to tell Snape that Death Eaters were on the grounds. Snape came out of the office almost immediately--presumably without time to change his clothes-- dressed in his standard black robes. What gives? Snow: There was a plan behind `the plan' would be my assumption. Dumbledore demands that Harry retrieve Snape and not a healer, why? Well because Snape healed him last time he had conflict with a Voldemort Horcrux and no one else is privy to the information about the Voldemort Horcruxes that we are aware of. Julie: It seems like there are three possiblilities- 1. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep due to the late hour, but Snape hadn't even gone to bed yet. Perhaps he was behind on his exam-grading, or had other things to catch up on, or he had a sense that he might be needed at a moment's notice. If he did have such a sense, did he get it from Dumbledore, or Voldemort, or was it his own inner intuition that things were coming to a head? Snow: I think I like the needed at a moment's notice concept since I believe that Dumbledore entrusted Snape to know what Dumbledore was about to attempt to do that night. Snape was told to stay put in his room no matter what else was happening in the castle unless someone came for his help. You see that way Dumbledore could be assured that Snape could be found in either dire need, Dumbledore needing him or Draco. Julie: 2. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep because he had put some sort of sleeping spell on Snape purposely, perhaps to keep Snape from knowing about or protesting the dangerous cave expedition. This explains why Snape would be sleeping in his office still wearing his robes, but leaves the question of how the spell was removed. If Dumbledore expected Harry to be able to wake Snape, he must have used a spell he could remove from a distance, or one that would end if anyone attempted to wake Snape directly. Snow: I would have to nix this one because Dumbledore trusts Snape explicitly. Julie: 3. It's a mistake by JKR, and the inconsistency was missed by the editors. In which case, it will just be another minor red herring that won't ever be addressed in the story. And that leaves us to choose for ourselves which alternative above fits our individual perspectives on the story and both characters... Snow: Very doubtful in my opinion, JKR had one huge mistake over the Priori Incantatem effect in GOF, I doubt that she would ever allow such a huge mistake to happen again. Julie, figuring picking one over the other is rather like choosing the task or the cabinet first ;-) Snow, realizing that even if the cabinet didn't come first, which I still think it does, it opened up a questionable dialog. From tiomotzz at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 02:33:03 2006 From: tiomotzz at yahoo.com (robin) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:33:03 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157794 Some have speculated that Harry is himself, one of the seven horcruxes. Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort planned for seven, one being Voldemort, one being the ring, one the diary, one being Nagini, one being the Hufflepuff Cup, one being the locket; that is six. He tells Harry that Dumbledore went to kill Harry to prevent the prophecy from coming true but also that with that death he would create his seventh and final horcrux. Obviously that didn't work out quite as planned. Some of us have speculated that at the moment Voldemort tried to kill Harry and failed, Harry became an unintentional horcrux. So, IF that were the case and we go by canon and assume that something from every Hogwarts house is included in the Horcrux's we can assume the ring represents Slytherin and the Cup is Hufflepuff. What Horcrux represents Ravenclaw and which one Gryffindor? We don't know the answer to Ravenclaw but what if Harry is the horcrux that represents Gryffindor? If he is, do you think Dumbledore knows or suspects this? How much more did Dumbledore know that he didn't reveal to Harry? And what about the the sorting? The hat puts Harry in Gryffindor because Harry chooses it. But it originally thought to put him in Slytherin. If it had put him there would it have changed Harry's status as a Horcrux, assuming he is a Horcrux? robin. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 03:20:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 03:20:59 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157797 > Betsy Hp: > I'd love the canon that proves so decisively that Voldemort knew > about the Cabinets at the time Spinner's End occured. > > Since you're so certain this is what actually happened. > > Though honestly, I'm really wondering how you explain Voldemort > sending the keystone cops to back Draco while keeping Snape out of > the loop. I mean, Dumbledore's death is a bit of luck isn't it? > There's no way Voldemort could have known Dumbledore was off to > collect a horcrux and drink some poison while he was at it, is there? > > Betsy Hp > Carol responds: I know this post wasn't addressed to me, but it's as good a place as any to fire my last few shots before retiring from this discussion, which unfortunately is going nowhere. It's hard to argue when the other side is so sure it's right that it won't even make a concession. No one on the cabinet side of the argument has ever presented that idea as proven. Compatible with canon, yes. But we haven't called it "canon." It is only a possibility that of course can't be proven, any more than your side can show that it didn't happen. I do think, and only think, that Voldemort must have known about the cabinets from the beginning. For one thing, he's a Legilimens. He would know when the cabinet idea sprang to Draco's mind and ask about it even if Draco didn't eagerly volunteer. it. And why wouldn't he, considering how eager he is for the job? For another, someone (we don't know who or how) is keeping tabs on Draco and pressuring him from at least the time of the first Hogsmeade weekend, when he resorts to the necklace idea (not part of the cabinet plan, just a desperation measure, IMO.) Presumably the DEs want to know why he hasn't finished the cabinet, which is his plan for accomplishing his mission (killing Dumbledore). Let me politely ask you for the canon you mentioned about Voldemort approaching Draco. I searched for it and couldn't find it. Here's Draco on the train (after he's been to see Borgin, which means that he's acting on his cabinet plan and making the necessary preparations): "I might not even be at Hogwarts next year, what's it matter to me if some fat old has-been [Slughorn] likes me or not?" Pansy asks what he means and Draco responds with "the ghost of a smirk": "Well, you never know. I might have--er--moved on to bigger and better things." Pansy asks, looking "dumbfounded": "Do you mean--*Him*?" Draco shrugs and says that his mother wants him to complete his education, but he doesn't think that NEWTs and OWLs will matter when the Dark Lord takes over. "It'll be all about the kind of service he received, the level of devotion he was shown." Blaise ask scathingly whether Draco thinks he'll be able to do anything for Voldemort: "Sixteen years old and not even qualified yet?" And Draco responds, quietly this time: "I've just said, haven't I? Maybe he doesn't care if I'm qualified. Maybe the job he wants me to do isn't something that you need to be qualified for" (152). This is all we get. Whether Draco is just talking about killing Dumbledore or is including fixing the cabinet in the job description is unclear. Neither, of course, requires him to have passed his NEWTs. He's being extremely evasive. And he hasn't said one word about being "approached" or "chosen" or why Voldemort has assigned him the job. (I think we can at least agree that *he* doesn't think it's a suicide mission at this point and seems confident that he can accomplish it. And there can be no question of his loyalty to Voldemort in this scene. He's still the old Draco from the end of OoP except for his new indifference toward education. He hasn't yet felt any pressure, and either Bella or Voldemort has apparently given him the honor and glory line since he expects to be rewarded for his services. No suicide mission canon here that I can see. Once we get to Hogwarts, the Draco plot focuses, as it did in "Draco's Detour" (only we don't know that on a first reading) on the cabinets. We have constant references to Harry checking the Marauder's Map and not finding Draco on it, to Draco in the company of first-year girls (or little girls dropping things in the hallway) and Draco giving up Quidditch to do something he considers more important. We have Snape "angry and a bit afraid" when Filch finds Draco in an upstairs corridor after hours, we have the plan that's taking longer than he expected (much longer--it takes the whole year), we have two desperate attempts when the cabinet plan seems to be failing but Draco keeps coming back to it, we have Harry finally figuring out that he's been in the RoR all these times and trying to get in to figure out what he's doing in there, and then we have the "whoop" when Draco finally succeeds in repairing the cabinet, and of course the DEs coming out of the cabinet into Hogwarts to act, or so he thinks (based on his talk with Snape), as back up. (Certainly, he never attempted, or thought about attempting, to kill Dumbledore face to face without them. Even Draco knows that would be impossible.) If the cabinet isn't important, at least as central as the "suicide mission" idea that motivates the *adults* in "Spinner's End," why is so much page time devoted to it? As for the scene on the tower, about which I also have a lot of questions, I have a question for you (as a group). Why do the DEs, primarily Brutal-Face, just keep telling Draco to kill Dumbledore without taking any further action? I realize that they're interrupted by Snape, and I proposed my own (tentative) explanation in another post, but I want to know what you and Magpie and Sydney think. Surely, if it's a suicide mission, their orders wouldn't be to let the boy kill Dumbledore. They would be to make sure that he kills him or is killed himself. I think the DEs would ultimately have resorted to that solution if Snape hadn't entered the tower at that moment, but it doesn't seem as if their orders included that crucial provision of the suicide mission theory. It seems to count on Dumbledore to kill Draco. (Snape would not have been worried about Draco if he thought that DD killing him was the chief danger. He'd know that wasn't going to happen. He and Narcissa, rightly or wrongly, seem to have feared that Draco would be killed by DEs or LV himself if he failed to accomplish his mission.) And DD's statement that he thinks Voldemort expected Draco to fail isn't proof of a suicide mission, either. He wasn't present at the initial interview any more than snape was, and he can't know whether the plan was to kill him or kill Draco or both. I see no reason why LV wouldn't be happy with either outcome. What's really odd, IMO, is that the DEs don't seem to have planned to kill either Draco or Dumbledore themselves. They seem to have expected Draco to kill Dumbledore and their job was to make sure that he did it. They don't hesitate to Crucio Harry or burn Hagrid's house once their leader, Brutal-Face, is incapacitated, so I doubt that the'd have hesitated to kill either DD or Draco if Brutal-Face hadn't restrained them by reminding them of those orders, which, to me, don't seem to fit with a suicide mission at all. On a side note, this group of DEs does seem to have only one reasonably competent member, Brutal-Face (Yaxley?). But Gibbon is already dead, and, aside from the big blond (who is certainly a liability), we don't know how competent the DEs who remain downstairs fighting are. (Aren't there two, not counting Brutal-Face and Greyback, that don't make it to the door?) The DEs can't have expected to encounter Order members and they're outnumbered, so I'm not sure we can judge the competence of the group as a whole based on Blondie and the brother and sister (Amycus and Alecto)--or Fenrir Greyback, a known murderer with no scruples whatever but no capacity for leadership, either. But even if we can, who does Voldemort have now that he can send? Bellatrix is in disgrace, not to mention that she's a wanted fugitive, and Lucius, Dolohov and the rest of MoM crew are in Azkaban. He can't send Wormtail, who must be wanted for some fourteen murders by now since Black has been cleared. Who's left? Goyle wasn't in the MoM unless JKR omitted him by accident, but he'd be no better than Blondie. (Maybe he *is* Blondie.) Maybe Voldemort was counting on Snape to step in and finish the job. Or maybe he just sent the best people he has left. Carol, who still has more questions than answers and is not at all persuaded that the suicide mission theory fills up all the holes or that is' consistent with all the available canon From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 03:48:10 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 03:48:10 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157798 > Betsy Hp: > Though honestly, I'm really wondering how you explain Voldemort > sending the keystone cops to back Draco while keeping Snape out of > the loop. I mean, Dumbledore's death is a bit of luck isn't it? > There's no way Voldemort could have known Dumbledore was off to > collect a horcrux and drink some poison while he was at it, is there? > Tonks: I have not been follow this long discussion closely and maybe someone has said this already. But here is a bit of pondering... In war one should always know their opponent. Even if they don't have the same ideology they should at least be able to estimate what the opponent might do. I know that LV underestimates the power of love and does not really understand love. But I wonder if LV knows DD well enough to know that he would not try to kill Draco? This theory would work as long as Draco was alone. But it doesn't play as well with a band of DE with Draco. LV would expect DD to try something at that point I think. And, of course, no one could have predicted that DD would be weakened by the poison. But I think that even weak and wandless DD could have saved himself and Harry, maybe even Draco. DD allowed himself to die to save Snape from the Vow. DD could have take them all out even in his weakened state. Maybe that is the plot. Draco is the bait for Snape. Snape is the bait for DD. But that leaves us with LV knowing that DD would allow himself to be killed to protect Snape, and I am not so sure that LV can understand that idea. On the other hand we have LV as the general and he would not come to kill DD himself. He would send others. If a boy did it this would show that DD was not such a great wizard after all. If a band of misfits and a boy did it that would still not be a problem. Snape doing it might be since he is a smart man and a possible rival for the King of the Hill position. Course, all LV has to do to take care of that problem is just to be ready to kill Snape ASAP. So here is the plot: Send a boy and a bunch of misfits to do the job. Where will it be done? Draco says he knows how to get into the castle. LV gives him the job to fix the cabinets and maybe has Bella give him advise. There is a backup plan for some place else like Hogsmead if Draco can't get the cabinets fixed. If for some reason plan A (kid and keystones kill DD) fails, Snape will be able to do it as plan B. And then when Snape gets back, get what information you can from him and then kill him. Maybe a wand accident or something. A Dementor gets a bit too intimate while he is sleeping. Nice clean plan. Tonks_op From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 3 04:08:01 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 00:08:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... References: Message-ID: <015901c6cf0e$8d21c450$87ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157799 Snow: So you see it was never about Draco at all, Draco was a bonus prize. Magpie: Yes, I get that the point here is to make it never about Draco but about the Cabinets and [insert complicated master plan of Voldemort that follows around X reader's preferences]. Some of us are arguing that story actually is about Draco, who changes. Snow: In the end, can we simply assume what the plan was when it has not been fleshed out in detail? Magpie: The plan only matters to understand the plot, for which we need to know Draco has been told to kill Dumbledore. The question of why Draco doesn't tell Snape has been covered over and over in this thread--most eloquently in Sydney's posts, imo, which all relate to a comprehensible emotional arc and not a series of decisions by an off-page character pulling everyone's strings. Snow: nstead what we saw was a-cocky-little-son-of-a-Lucius who wanted all the glory for himself but wait.this wasn't glory about killing Dumbledore no, no, this was glory for letting the deatheaters into the castle by means of his cabinets. Magpie: Actually, that's not what we saw. Or at least it's not what I saw. I saw a much better story that made good sense and was compelling. Oh, and it was about killing Dumbledore, the Cabinets being only one of a number of potential ways. (This thread is wonderful just for the reference to the Polynesian native with the blow dart!) Draco ends the book without the "glory" promised for doing Voldemort's bidding, because he doesn't kill DD. Snow: If Draco was being subjected to a life and death situation (his life) and yet his primary concern was for those damn cabinets, wouldn't you automatically question his priorities? Magpie: Again, please see Sydney's posts explaining what's going on. Snow: To make a theory from what one may consider questionable dialog, one must be willing to admit defeat on parts that have been proven unacceptable along with those parts that can enhance a theory. Magpie: Not sure what "proven unacceptable" means. None of the scene is unacceptable to me. The whole plot is pretty tight. None of the objections to that plot have been proven unacceptable at all from what I've seen. Unacceptable to individual readers who need the Cabinets to be hugely important to Voldemort and don't like the Malfoy's as a target, maybe, but everyone in canon accepts it. The alternate theory has certainly been shown to not be hinted at in canon at all, but that doesn't seem to matter. Carol: Surely, if it's a suicide mission, [the DEs in the Tower's] orders wouldn't be to let the boy kill Dumbledore. Magpie: Why wouldn't they be? Voldemort wants Draco to try first. It's a suicide mission because the idea of this kid killing Dumbledore is ridiculous. Ultimately everyone's surprised to find the kid standing over a wandless, weak Dumbledore. It's not a suicide mission due to the orders being "Tell Draco to kill Dumbledore, but make sure he doesn't do it." If Draco fails to kill Dumbledore and is still alive and free he can be killed as punishment any time (I'd imagine Voldemort would do it along with his mother to make it more fun.) You seem to think "suicide mission" refers to Draco thinking he's supposed to kill DD but really he's ordered to fix the cabinets and the DEs will show up and kill him and DD. But the idea actually seems to be that it's suicide because it's impossible and Draco will be killed by somebody else. Then there's the added fact that if he fails as punishment he can be killed with Narcissa at any time after that. Carol: What's really odd is that the DEs don't seem to have planned to kill either Draco or Dumbledore themselves. They seem to have expected Draco to kill Dumbledore and their job was to make sure that he did it. Magpie: Almost as if nobody ever thought they'd get to a situation where Draco was so close to doing it because he was expected to get killed or caught earlier! -m, thinking the suicide mission really does fill up all those holes if you let it. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 04:22:40 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:22:40 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > But here's the thing: Who *does* know about the cabinet at this > time? Seriously, as per canon, does anyone, including Draco have > any idea about using the cabinets? > > > > I've brought it up before, and it's been routinely ignored, but if > Voldemort was aware of the cabinets (heck if Draco had thought > this idea up) *why* would he wait so long, why would Voldemort > allow him to wait so long, to confirm that the other cabinet is > available and the cabinet in Hogwarts is even fixable? Mike: I'm going to answer your question with some questions. Leave JKR's storytelling aside, instead view it from the character's perspective, just as you have above. 1) Why does Voldemort wait an entire year and hinge his plan on a bizarre (from an objective PoV) plot to get Harry's blood for his rebirthing? Why not tell Crouch!Moody to turn anything into a portkey and get it over with? One could probably point out ancilliary benefits, which would also probably include speculation on our part. Was LV looking for maximum impact by taking Harry right out of the TWT? And what, stay in his weak Baby!Mort form, delaying his *Return* for most of a year for a dubious impact. 2) If LV becomes aware that he can reverse the psychic connection with Harry at Christmastime, that is plant a story into Harry's mind, why wait another six months to finally implement a plan? You may say he waited for the DE Azkaban breakout. -Happened early to mid January. How about, he was still trying to get others (Bode, Podmore) to retrieve it, that is until Rookwood set him straight. - Happened the 23rd of Feb (why did Rookwood wait so long?). So LV still waits 4 months. Don't have anything in canon that LV either knew about Harry's Occlumency nor whether it really did "soften him up" like Ron says. In any case those ended mid April. We all know how poorly JKR handles timelines and therefore hanging any argument on a timeline is iffy at best. But if we're speaking about Voldemort's motivations and rational thought and trying to tie that to a timeline, well, I'll just say that next step could be a doozy. But that does bring up another point. You have presented LV as irrational in your argument against cabinet first, yet you want him to have acted rationally in the checking_up_on_the_cabinets timeline. Besides, how long has that cabinet been in B&B's? Maybe waiting three weeks doesn't seem irrational if the cabinet has been there since Riddle was an employee. We know it's been there for at least 4 years. > Betsy Hp (unceremoniously ripped from above): > Because again, there is *no* canon suggesting that this plan has > occured to Draco yet. And there's massive canon to suggest that it > hasn't. Certainly canon weighs very heavily *against* Voldemort > being aware of this plan even if Draco has thought of it already. Mike: Here is where I disagree with both your canon support and your analysis, sorry. When Draco claims that he was the only one who understood the implications of Montague's story, it *strongly* suggests that "everyone" heard this story during Draco's fifth year. Even if you move this to after the train ride home, it still comes before meeting LV. Otherwise, you are suggesting that after Draco gets his *suicide mission*, he is still out socializing with his Slytherin pals swapping stories. Besides, if Montague is supposedly still incoherant after three months (mid-April to mid-July), why does he miraculously recover over the next few weeks? Don't you see that it becomes far more likely that Draco knows about the cabinets *before* he is summoned by LV? As to whether Voldemort knew about the cabinets, umm Betsy, you were the one who convinced me he did. I'll get there in a bit. First let's examine some canon. In HBP, Ch 15, Draco says to Snape: "It's my job, he gave it to me and I'm doing it, I've got a plan and it's going to work, it's just taking a bit longer than I thought it would". I propose there is an alternate or dual meanings to the words "job" and "plan". We have readily assumed, job = kill_Dumbledore and plan = fix the cabinet. What if instead or also they mean, job = fix_the_cabinet and plan = how_to_fix_the_cabinet. Remember, we don't know what's going on at this point but Draco does. When I thought that cabinet repair guy was not important, you and others disavowed me of this notion. You explained that fixing the cabinet was intrinsic in Draco's mind to his success. Now I ask, if one of the jobs Draco was assigned by LV *was* to fix the cabinet, would that make it less or more intrinsic? Then what about Draco's 2 feeble attempts with the necklace and the mead? If Draco was only told that getting DEs in was to help complete his task, there's no conflict in his mind. Better yet, what if LV used words like 'The DEs will infiltrate to ensure the intended execution is accomplished'. Nice double meaning or an alternate meaning than what Draco would interpret. Sorta like, "one that many of my followers would give their right hands to perform". Back to canon. Did LV assign Draco DE support? Draco told Snape that he's "got other people on my side, better people". He threatens Borgin with Greyback. Bluffing? Maybe, but Greyback was in on the plan in the end, wasn't he? Draco said he didn't know "he was going to come"; sounds to me like he thought Fenrir was only included to strong arm Borgin. What about other DEs? Does anybody think Fenrir was enough for Draco to think he had "better people"? Draco is suppose to bring them in while DD is out, he confirmed that on the tower. Wouldn't they have to be prepositioned or at least at Draco's beck and call to make this happen? Canon strongly suggests that LV *had* assigned Draco some DE support. Since LV had assigned DEs to Draco, was the entire plan to just get Draco killed? Is it logical from LV's perspective to assigned Draco some DEs to carry out the *plan* if LV's only *plan* was to get Draco killed? (Told you I'd get there ). Betsy explained to me a while back that this was planned as a terrorist action.(In a previous post I inadvertantly said it was Draco's idea. In my zeal to assign proper attribution to Betsy, I merged two sentences, my bad, sorry Betsy ) Of course, you said it was Voldemort's plan. But in order to pull off a terrorist action, Voldemort would have to be aware of *some* method to secretly infiltrate DEs into Hogwarts. If LV is not aware of *some* infiltration method, no terrorist action. No terrorist action, why assign Draco DE support? So what do we have? 1. Draco knew about the cabinets before the LV summons. Most logical canon interpretation. 2. LV assigned DEs/ally to infiltrate Hogwarts. Canon. Logical extrapolations: 3. LV was informed of some method of secret infiltration. 4. LV assigned DEs to be available to Draco, at least some from the beginning. Logical Interpretation: 5. Draco told LV about the cabinets at the beginning. How about a compromise? LV summoned Draco and in that meeting Draco tells LV about the cabinets. LV assigns Draco the job of killing DD and includes the job of fixing the cabinet to infiltrate some DEs. LV tells Draco they are coming to affect an ambush when all along LV is planning a terrorist action. He tells the DEs to ensure Draco gets his shot at killing DD figuring on Draco getting killed instead. But if DD doesn't kill Draco or Draco doesn't kill DD, then they are to kill both themselves. Have fun tearing this one apart :D Mike From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 04:39:45 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:39:45 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <015901c6cf0e$8d21c450$87ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157801 Snow (me previously): So you see it was never about Draco at all, Draco was a bonus prize. Magpie: Yes, I get that the point here is to make it never about Draco but about the Cabinets and [insert complicated master plan of Voldemort that follows around X reader's preferences]. Some of us are arguing that story actually is about Draco, who changes. Snow (me previously): In the end, can we simply assume what the plan was when it has not been fleshed out in detail? Magpie: The plan only matters to understand the plot, for which we need to know Draco has been told to kill Dumbledore. The question of why Draco doesn't tell Snape has been covered over and over in this thread--most eloquently in Sydney's posts, imo, which all relate to a comprehensible emotional arc and not a series of decisions by an off-page character pulling everyone's strings. Snow (me previously): instead what we saw was a-cocky-little-son-of-a-Lucius who wanted all the glory for himself but wait.this wasn't glory about killing Dumbledore no, no, this was glory for letting the deatheaters into the castle by means of his cabinets. Magpie: Actually, that's not what we saw. Or at least it's not what I saw. I saw a much better story that made good sense and was compelling. Oh, and it was about killing Dumbledore, the Cabinets being only one of a number of potential ways. (This thread is wonderful just for the reference to the Polynesian native with the blow dart!) Draco ends the book without the "glory" promised for doing Voldemort's bidding, because he doesn't kill DD. Snow (me previously): If Draco was being subjected to a life and death situation (his life) and yet his primary concern was for those damn cabinets, wouldn't you automatically question his priorities? Magpie: Again, please see Sydney's posts explaining what's going on. Snow (me previously): To make a theory from what one may consider questionable dialog, one must be willing to admit defeat on parts that have been proven unacceptable along with those parts that can enhance a theory. Magpie: Not sure what "proven unacceptable" means. None of the scene is unacceptable to me. The whole plot is pretty tight. None of the objections to that plot have been proven unacceptable at all from what I've seen. Unacceptable to individual readers who need the Cabinets to be hugely important to Voldemort and don't like the Malfoy's as a target, maybe, but everyone in canon accepts it. The alternate theory has certainly been shown to not be hinted at in canon at all, but that doesn't seem to matter. Snow: You know I always try to play fair by answering all of your points in succession, paragraph-by-paragraph and if I don't comment to your complete paragraph then I attempt to imply that by adding a snipped to your interlude. I do not feel that you are giving me that same privilege. Where do you answer any of my questioning? You are picking and choosing (taking out of context the meaning) what you answer to. This makes my attempt at explaining anything that much harder. This is not a contest as to who is right or wrong but what could be the possible outcome in the story. I am not invested to the point that I really care who lives or dies, at this point; I just want to beat the author to the punch line. I'm not connected to any fictional character to the point that I would argue to my point of view by relying on such tactic as to not allow the other person's viewpoint to be considered. By not allowing a blow-to-blow or paragraph-to-paragraph confrontation you are actually stating that you are willing to resort to any manner to prove yourself. Sincerely Snow From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Sun Sep 3 03:16:51 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 03:16:51 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Confessions In-Reply-To: <20060822063917.94035.qmail@web53004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157802 Mike writes: > What I want to know is why LV wants Draco to infiltrate some DEs. > When DD is at full strength he had no problem handling, what 9, 10 > of them in the DoM, and LV knows it. So LV is going to send 6-8 of > his less than Sterling DEs into Hogwarts where DD will be on his > home turf and will probably have Order and Teachers to call on. > > If he expected Draco to fail at killing DD (and face it who > wouldn't) what does he expect his DEs to do? Snape wasn't part of > the plan because he was still in his office knitting tea cozies > when Draco and the DEs where on the tower. I'm not so sure LV is > such a brilliant tactician. There might be method to his madness, > but all I'm seeing so far is the madness. Lilygale here: Mike, I essentially agree with most of your post and snipped those parts to which I can only say amen. Just one comment on the part about LV's methods at Hogwarts vs the DoM. Dumbledore is not even close to full strength on the Tower. Even without knowing what went on in the cave, LV and Draco are very aware of Dumbledore's blackened hand, and his failing strength. He has not hid it in any way all year. Snape was very clear in telling the Black sisters that DD's reactions are not what they used to be, ensuring that Bella will tell LV. His blackened hand has not been hidden in any way over the past year. Yes, LV only sends a few DEs, but they are depraved and a, to use Red Hen's word, "vicious" bunch. So LV could assume that these DEs could do the job. And if they don't succeed in murdering DD? They could still murder Draco. And we know that DD won't murder the DEs. In the DoM he captured them, but didn't kill them. We don't know that Snape wasn't part of LV plans to back up Draco (as the person to murder Dumbledore if Draco fails). At some point Snape will become aware of the doings, even if its Dumbledore who summons him. I can see LV assuming that, even if DD ropes and ties his DEs (after they murder Draco) Snape will be summoned by the Headmaster and could leisurely finish off the job. For LV, its a win-win situation. Lilygale - whose respect for Red Hen keeps growing with each new essay. From kjones at telus.net Sun Sep 3 05:27:09 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:27:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Harry as a Horcrux theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FA67AD.1020703@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157803 robin wrote: snip If he is, do you think > Dumbledore knows or suspects this? How much more did Dumbledore know > that he didn't reveal to Harry? And what about the the sorting? The > hat puts Harry in Gryffindor because Harry chooses it. But it > originally thought to put him in Slytherin. If it had put him there > would it have changed Harry's status as a Horcrux, assuming he is a > Horcrux? > > robin. KJ writes: This is another hugely hot topic, but it is one of my favourites, so I will gingerly dip my toes into the water. My feeling is that Dumbledore had suspicions that Harry might be carrying a piece of Voldemort. We have Harry missing for several hours after the attack on Godric's Hollow, and we have conversation between Hagrid and Minerva at Hogwarts. It seems likely that Harry was taken to Madam Pomfrey to be checked out, at least for injuries before being taken to the Dursleys. Dumbledore was the only one who had heard the entire prophesy, assuming, of course, that we have heard the entire prophesy. He knew that Harry had been "marked as his equal." Dumbledore would have known very quickly that Voldemort wasn't precisely dead and gone because of Snape's Dark Mark. (of course I am a DDM believer). I believe that Snape would have been able to tell that the mark was faded but still active. In fact, Snape's mark has been important to the plot all along. He would have suspected Voldemort's use of a horcux at that time, and begun his search for information. There are the clues of the Sorting Hat and the brother wands that lead us in the same direction as well. Dumbledore would also have had that information at his disposal. I think that the Sorting was simply an indication, or clue. The fact that Harry chose Gryffindor was important. Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursley's for a reason. Lily's sacrifice protects him personally, while Dumbledore's magic protected the house. I am thinking that he might have left Harry there to allow Harry to grow up in the same loveless environment as Voldemort, perhaps as a test, perhaps to encourage the "equality". Whenever JKR refers to someone as "the epitome of good", and adds later that no one is all good or all bad, I have to wonder about Dumbledore. He had a plan, that is canon, but we have no idea what that plan was. He began to become more attached to Harry than was good for his plan, which surely indicates something nasty for Harry. He has made Harry no promises regarding protecting Harry's life, Harry chose to take it that way. The most he could offer Harry was that he hoped their lessons would help him survive. So, in Book 7, we know that Harry has some horcruxes to get rid of, we know that Snape is going to play a part somehow, and we know that Voldemort has to be stopped, because that is basically the challenge facing the heroes. We know that Snape has obeyed Dumbledore implicitly throughout the books but we do not know if that is going to continue. We also don't know if Voldemort has any idea what might be causing the connection between himself and Harry. We do know from HBP that he occludes against Harry to prevent him knowing what is being plotted. I suspect that Snape was kept out of the loop because of his contact with Dumbledore. If Voldemort is convinced that Snape is not an Occlumens, he would not want to risk Dumbledore discovering the plan in Snape's mind. Dumbledore had little or no contact with Draco, so the risk was not the same. So, on that basis I can see the book ending in several ways: 1. Voldemort kills Harry, the last "horcrux" and Snape kills Voldemort while he is dancing a jig over Harry. 2. Harry kills Voldemort, a lucky accident, and Snape snuffs Harry. 3. Harry and Snape kill Voldemort, Snape knows he is a horcrux but can't bring himself to obey Dumbledore's last orders. We are left wondering if Voldemort returns. 4. The Prime Minister advises the British military that there is a terrorist cell operating out of the old Riddle house, and they obligingly blow all three of our characters out of existance.:-) KJ From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 06:11:26 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 02:11:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet first In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0609022311u138888f6m4754ac98fe401b0d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157804 I probably should never jump into a thread such as this at the eleventh hour, especially since I'm not at all sure what the players' positions are, though I've tried. Carol wrote: > Why do the DEs, > > primarily Brutal-Face, just keep telling Draco to kill Dumbledore > without taking any further action? I realize that they're interrupted > by Snape, and I proposed my own (tentative) explanation in another > post, but I want to know what you and Magpie and Sydney think. Surely, > if it's a suicide mission, their orders wouldn't be to let the boy > kill Dumbledore. > Debbie: If the objective were to kill the boy, why bother at all with the pretense of the tower. Why not just take Draco out into the forest and kill him now? Expecting Draco to fail, and forcing him to fail, are not the same thing. I suspect that at some level Voldemort would have been quite pleased if Draco had succeeded in killing Dumbledore. He'd have to find some other way to punish Lucius, but if Draco had succeeded, he would have gone back to Voldemort in a blaze of glory. Carol: > What's really odd, IMO, is that the DEs don't seem to have planned to > > kill either Draco or Dumbledore themselves. They seem to have expected > Draco to kill Dumbledore and their job was to make sure that he did > it. They don't hesitate to Crucio Harry or burn Hagrid's house once > their leader, Brutal-Face, is incapacitated, so I doubt that the'd > have hesitated to kill either DD or Draco if Brutal-Face hadn't > > restrained them by reminding them of those orders, which, to me, don't > seem to fit with a suicide mission at all. > Debbie: If the Cabinet was only a means to an end, and one Draco chose to pursue because (i) he wanted backup, and (ii) proving that the Hogwarts defenses could be breached would increase his glory, then there is an explanation. Whether or not Voldemort knew of the Cabinet plan, there's no evidence that Voldemort was micromanaging anything. It was up to Draco to provide the ways and means. If he wanted to fix the Cabinet and bring in backup, he'd have to figure out how to do it himself. Therefore, the simple reason for the DEs' reluctance to take out Dumbledore -- or Draco, for that matter -- is that Draco was in charge of this mission, and the other DEs were following Draco's orders. Their job was to clear Draco's path to the tower so he could kill Dumbledore. The notion that the orders came from Draco, not Voldemort, also explains the oddity that at least one of the four on the tower, and perhaps more, weren't much inclined to follow them. As you pointed out earlier, I believe, Fenrir is salivating to get Dumbledore himself, and Amycus is jumping the gun a bit as well. I suspect that they wouldn't be so trigger-happy if Voldemort had issued their orders. I think "suicide mission" should be interpreted very loosely. Voldemort did not need to send an escort to kill Draco on the spot if he failed in his mission. It's consistent with Voldemort's modus operandi to arrange for him to be punished later, at a time and place, and using a method of his own choosing. A young follower who was resourceful enough to get DEs into Hogwarts and gutsy enough to kill Dumbledore would be a great asset to Voldemort, and Draco got plenty of time, both throughout the year and on the tower, to show what he could do. Debbie > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 3 06:12:54 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 06:12:54 -0000 Subject: Suicide mission (was Re: Cabinet first) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157805 Carol wrote: > > As for the scene on the tower, about which I also have a lot of > questions, I have a question for you (as a group). Why do the DEs, > primarily Brutal-Face, just keep telling Draco to kill Dumbledore > without taking any further action? I realize that they're interrupted > by Snape, and I proposed my own (tentative) explanation in another > post, but I want to know what you and Magpie and Sydney think. Surely, > if it's a suicide mission, their orders wouldn't be to let the boy > kill Dumbledore. They would be to make sure that he kills him or is > killed himself. I think the DEs would ultimately have resorted to that > solution if Snape hadn't entered the tower at that moment, but it > doesn't seem as if their orders included that crucial provision of the > suicide mission theory. It seems to count on Dumbledore to kill Draco. > (Snape would not have been worried about Draco if he thought that DD > killing him was the chief danger. He'd know that wasn't going to > happen. He and Narcissa, rightly or wrongly, seem to have feared that > Draco would be killed by DEs or LV himself if he failed to accomplish > his mission.) And DD's statement that he thinks Voldemort expected > Draco to fail isn't proof of a suicide mission, either. He wasn't > present at the initial interview any more than snape was, and he can't > know whether the plan was to kill him or kill Draco or both. I see no > reason why LV wouldn't be happy with either outcome. > Julie: I've always considered the term "suicide mission" apt because of the high unlikelihood that Draco could actually succeed at his task, not because Draco was slated to be killed either way. He'd only be killed if he couldn't kill Dumbledore, and since his odds of success seem to be about 1 in a million, it's to all intents and purposes a suicide mission. But no one counted on Dumbledore's extreme weakness from the cave potion. Suddenly it *is* possible for Draco to kill Dumbledore. So the DEs stand by, giving Draco the opportunity to complete his now achievable task. I too suspect if Snape hadn't shown up the moment he did, the DEs would have taken matters into their own hands, killed Dumbledore and then Draco (or vice versa). And if Draco had actually killed Dumbledore before Snape arrived, then he would have left with the DEs, fully alive and intact, to be congratulated by Voldemort (who would presumably be smart enough to hold onto a budding DE with the fortitude to murder the Headmaster of Hogwarts, despite his previous expectation of getting revenge on budding DE's father). Of course, Draco didn't complete his task, and he's still alive, thanks to Snape. Given that the task was performed, even if by someone else, and Snape seems to hold a higher position within the DE ranks than the others present, it's easy enough to suppose they wouldn't presume to question Snape's decision to spare Draco's life. They'll leave that to Voldemort ;-) Julie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 06:30:46 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 06:30:46 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157806 > >>Carol: > > No one on the cabinet side of the argument has ever presented that > idea as proven. Betsy Hp: Steve did at the very beginning. That's what got this whole train moving. And then there was the whole thing of both views being equal. That's what caused the train to pick up speed. > >>Carol: > Compatible with canon, yes. But we haven't called it > "canon." It is only a possibility that of course can't be proven, > any more than your side can show that it didn't happen. Betsy Hp: Frankly, I just haven't seen any evidence of compatibility. Sure, you can shoehorn it in. Just as Magpie can shoehorn the "Ginny used the Diary to catch Harry's eye" theory into CoS. But since the cabinet theory doesn't have anything in canon that actually suggests it's happening I don't see it as backed by canon. It's hard to prove a negative, but that we've pointed out time and again that what occurs on the printed page is probably... well, what occurred, I feel like we have done our jobs. Though obviously you disagree. (Which is probably why no one's backing down on this. ) > >>Carol: > I do think, and only think, that Voldemort must have known about > the cabinets from the beginning. > Betsy Hp: Actually, I agree with that. Only I see the beginning of the cabinet idea as occurring *after* "Draco's Detour" when Draco figured out that his kooky idea was actually viable. I just don't think Voldemort hung his hat on the cabinet thing. >From everything HBP tells us it seems like the Hogwarts stuff is just a side thing for Voldemort. A diversion, not his big bad, "I will rule the UNIVERSE" plan of giant complication. (Which explains it's simplicity, actually.) > >>Carol: > Let me politely ask you for the canon you mentioned about Voldemort > approaching Draco. I searched for it and couldn't find it. > Betsy Hp: You did find it. (Thank goodness, since I'm too lazy to pull out the books right now -- or turn on a light for that matter.) It's right here: > >>Carol: > > And Draco responds, quietly this time: "I've just said, haven't I? > Maybe he doesn't care if I'm qualified. Maybe the job he wants me > to do isn't something that you need to be qualified for" (152). Betsy Hp: Draco's saying that Voldemort gave him a job, a "job *he wants me* to do", not I came up with something brilliant no one else thought of and Voldemort agrees. Which, if Draco had been the one to go to Voldemort and float a plan, I'm pretty confident he'd have hinted as much to his friends. Look at how proud he was to tell Dumbledore all about it on the Tower. > >>Carol: > > If the cabinet isn't important, at least as central as the "suicide > mission" idea that motivates the *adults* in "Spinner's End," why > is so much page time devoted to it? > Betsy Hp: Because it *is* so darn important to Draco. It's his attempt to bypass the "suicide" part of the "suicide mission" he's been assigned. No one's saying the cabinets aren't important. We're just arguing about who they're important to, and why and when they became important. (In regards to the other questions you ask: I agree with Magpie http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157799 ) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I've brought it up before, and it's been routinely ignored, but > > if Voldemort was aware of the cabinets (heck if Draco had thought > > this idea up) *why* would he wait so long, why would Voldemort > > allow him to wait so long, to confirm that the other cabinet is > > available and the cabinet in Hogwarts is even fixable? > >>Mike: > I'm going to answer your question with some questions. > Betsy Hp: Fire away! > >>Mike: > 1) Why does Voldemort wait an entire year and hinge his plan on a > bizarre (from an objective PoV) plot to get Harry's blood for his > rebirthing? Why not tell Crouch!Moody to turn anything into a > portkey and get it over with? > Betsy Hp: Because Voldemort suffers from evil-villain-itis and needs to have hugely complicated plans to compensate for his tiny little, erm... nose. Which is why the complicated and drawn-out "torture the Malfoys" plan is so very in character. Also, please note: Crouch!Moody doesn't show up at Hogwarts until *after* the real Moody has been kidnapped and safely secured. Voldemort does at least try and have his ducks in a row before he puts his plans into action. > >>Mike: > 2) If LV becomes aware that he can reverse the psychic connection > with Harry at Christmastime, that is plant a story into Harry's > mind, why wait another six months to finally implement a plan? > Betsy Hp: See above. And again, Voldemort doesn't send his "I've kidnapped you're dearest Sirius... ooh, I'm going to torture him now..." message until *after* he's established Harry will actually receive same. > >>Mike: > We all know how poorly JKR handles timelines and therefore hanging > any argument on a timeline is iffy at best. > Betsy Hp: True. So why not stick with the simple idea that Draco thought up the cabinet plan shortly before he started implementing the cabinet plan? No need for messy timeline juggling. > >>Mike: > But that does bring up another point. You have presented > LV as irrational in your argument against cabinet first, yet you > want him to have acted rationally in the > checking_up_on_the_cabinets timeline. > Betsy Hp: Have I? I think Voldemort is very rational within his worldview. His worldview is irrational, but he's pretty consistant in it. And Voldemort wouldn't start a plan until he got the necessary parts all lined up. Though I also have issue with Draco going to Voldemort with an idea *before* he's checked to make sure the idea is semi-sound. Swing by Knockturn Alley before hitting Voldemort's. > >>Mike: > Here is where I disagree with both your canon support and your > analysis, sorry. When Draco claims that he was the only one who > understood the implications of Montague's story, it *strongly* > suggests that "everyone" heard this story during Draco's fifth > year. > Betsy Hp: Personally, I like the over-the-summer-hols idea. But okay, let's go with everyone hears the story at Hogwarts. At this point there isn't really any reason for Draco to be worrying about how to get Death Eaters into Hogwarts. So I don't see any reason to think Draco had his "aha" moment at this time (and plenty of reasons to think that he didn't). > So what do we have? > 1. Draco knew about the cabinets before the LV summons. Most > logical canon interpretation. Betsy Hp: Actually, I'd call that the least logical canon interpertation because we don't see Draco checking on the viability of the cabinets until much later. So the most logical canon interpertation is that Draco has his cabinet idea *after* Voldemort summons him. Which leads to: > >>Mike: > 2. LV assigned DEs/ally to infiltrate Hogwarts. Canon. Betsy Hp: Right. Only this happens at some point *after* "Draco's Detour". (Most logical conclusion per canon.) > >>Mike: > Logical extrapolations: > 3. LV was informed of some method of secret infiltration. Betsy Hp: Well, yeah. No one's denying that. > >>Mike: > 4. LV assigned DEs to be available to Draco, at least some from the > beginning. Betsy Hp: I'm pretty sure Bellatrix was either assigned or volunteered to train Draco. He had to learn the Unforgivables from someone, and who better to instill that "glory" and "Snape's out to steal it" crap in Draco's head? But I seriously doubt Voldemort assigned anyone else to Draco at this time. For one, he doesn't reference a team when talking to Snape. For another, neither the mead nor the necklace required a team assist. > >>Mike: > Logical Interpretation: > 5. Draco told LV about the cabinets at the beginning. Betsy Hp: Okay, I'm not following the leap. Why does Voldemort need to know about the cabinets before Spinner's End in order to have some Death Eaters standing by at the end of the school year? Surely it doesn't take him *that* long to call a crew together. I do think Draco (or Bellatrix) told Voldemort about the cabinet plan shortly after Draco realized it was a workable plan. But that occurs after "Draco's Detour". I just don't see anything that suggest the idea was there before "Spinner's End". > >>Mike: > How about a compromise? LV summoned Draco and in that meeting Draco > tells LV about the cabinets. Betsy Hp: I will say this idea is a bit more palatable than the "Draco approached Voldemort" theory, though there's still the problem of Draco putting a plan forward before he checks to see if it's even viable. Also, I don't think Draco would have been that quick on his feet, frankly. There's the awe and terror of facing Voldemort (assuming this was an actual face to face and not a written order or something) and there's the whole holy-crap-ness of the task he gets assigned. Even if the cabinet idea popped into his head, I'm not sure Draco would have been able to articulate it. So yeah, this is a tiny bit better... but I'm still not buying it. > >>Mike: > LV assigns Draco the job of killing DD and includes the job of > fixing the cabinet to infiltrate some DEs. > Betsy Hp: The problem with this idea is the mead and the necklace. If either had worked Dumbledore would have died *way* before Death Eaters could invade. So I think the cabinets really were Draco's baby. He knew that what Voldemort wanted was a dead Dumbledre (method of your choice); his best and favorite and most comfortable plan was the cabinets (nicely removed from actually killing); Voldemort was open to the chance to wreak havoc if it was presented to him, but it wasn't really any biggie to him. That's the only way to explain that when Draco panicked just before Christmas break he made a flailing attempt to kill Dumbledore, not fix the cabinets (or smuggle Death Eaters in to Hogwarts in an as equally desperate way). Betsy Hp (who did enjoy herself, thank you ) From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Sep 3 07:34:01 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 00:34:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <554.63011b0.322b84a4@aol.com> References: <554.63011b0.322b84a4@aol.com> Message-ID: <44FA8569.8090804@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157807 juli17 at aol.com wrote: > > > Snow: > > Well making a secret entrance to the castle can greatly affect the > lives of many including the headmaster. > > Snape being asleep when he is aware that Dumbledore is out of the > castle and the Order is on full guard while all along realizing > what `the plan' is and he is to protect his charge, `is' a bid deal > in either version. > > Julie: > But was Snape asleep, and did Dumbledore really expect him to be > asleep? I know Dumbledore told Harry to go wake Severus, but later > Hermione tells us that she and Ginny stood outside Snape's *office* > door for a period of time, until Flitwick went barging in to tell Snape > that Death Eaters were on the grounds. Snape came out of the office > almost immediately--presumably without time to change his clothes-- > dressed in his standard black robes. What gives? > > It seems like there are three possiblilities- > > 1. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep due to the late hour, > but Snape hadn't even gone to bed yet. Perhaps he was behind on > his exam-grading, or had other things to catch up on, or he had a > sense that he might be needed at a moment's notice. If he did have > such a sense, did he get it from Dumbledore, or Voldemort, or was > it his own inner intuition that things were coming to a head? > > 2. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep because he had > put some sort of sleeping spell on Snape purposely, perhaps to > keep Snape from knowing about or protesting the dangerous > cave expedition. This explains why Snape would be sleeping in > his office still wearing his robes, but leaves the question of how > the spell was removed. If Dumbledore expected Harry to be able > to wake Snape, he must have used a spell he could remove from > a distance, or one that would end if anyone attempted to wake > Snape directly. > > 3. It's a mistake by JKR, and the inconsistency was missed by the > editors. In which case, it will just be another minor red herring that > won't ever be addressed in the story. And that leaves us to choose > for ourselves which alternative above fits our individual perspectives > on the story and both characters... > > Julie, figuring picking one over the other is rather like choosing the > task or the cabinet first ;-) > You forgot the most likely reason. Dumbledore was trying to send Harry away fully knowing Snape was not going to be asleep because Dumbledore KNEW what was coming and was trying to get Harry out of the way. Failing that, he froze Harry instead hoping he would not be noticed and killed. Its CLEARLY obvious that Dumbledore does NOT want Harry there and Harry is disobeying a direct order by not going the momment Dumbledore told him to go. Dumbledore was trying to send him on a wild goose chase for his own safety.. Unless Snape sleeps in his office, its a good chance Harry would have been safely off on a wild goose chase while Snape could slip up to carry out Dumbledore's plans to 'kill him' so as to convince Voldemort and the DEs that Snape was firmly on their side so Snape would be idealy placed to later help in Volde's downfall.... The whole 'Severus Please...." was not begging for his life, but to carry out the plan that Hagrid heard only Snape being upset about being asked to do something... Dumbledore was weakened, sick, old, with a crippled hand and was making a sacrifice move to plant his man deeper in enemy territory. The last thing he needed was Harry as a witness blowing the whole plan. So failing getting him to go wake someone who was not asleep.. he froze him... Jazmyn > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 09:38:19 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:38:19 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157808 Eddie: > There seems to be lots of reasons to have > included Snape -- > I have two reasons this might be: > (1) Jo Rowling has a really good reason but we don't know it > (2) Jo Rowling doesn't, but hey, it's children's literature and it's > exciting anyway even if it doesn't hold up to several years of daily > scrutiny by exacting fanatics on Yahoo. Heck, what other literature > could? Sydney: I have another possible reason. It's crazy, but it just might work. Ready? Here we go: The plan wasn't a kill Dumbledore plan. It was a kill-Draco plan. Just like it says in the book. Carol: As for the scene on the tower, about which I also have a lot of questions, I have a question for you (as a group). Why do the DEs, primarily Brutal-Face, just keep telling Draco to kill Dumbledore without taking any further action? Sydney: Presumably they were confused because they didn't expect Dumbledore to be disarmed and helpless. Suddenly the plan seems like it could actually go Draco's way. As Dumbledore says, he's more defenceless than Draco could have dreamed of finding him. There was no plan beyond Draco being killed in the battle. I mean, what are their 'orders'? "Draco's got to do it". I can't-- I just *can't* picture that Voldemort would have thought Draco Malfoy killing Dumbledore was a viable plan. Surely giving the DE's orders that NO ONE is to attack Dumbledore but Draco is much *more* suggestive of the suicide mission, than of a serious strategy for killing Dumbledore? Carol: Snape would not have been worried about Draco if he thought that DD killing him was the chief danger. He'd know that wasn't going to happen. He and Narcissa, rightly or wrongly, seem to have feared that Draco would be killed by DEs or LV himself if he failed to accomplish his mission. Sydney: Narcissa certainly fears that Draco will be killed *in the course* of his mission. Her mindset is the same (I suppose) as Voldemort's, that faced with a kamikaze kid coming at him Dumbledore would kill him. Snape's fears are more complicated I think. I think he worries, for one thing, that Draco might wind up killing someone else (as he nearly did)-- Snape's described as looking 'afraid' just before he confronts Draco about the necklace. He's got a kid running around making flailing attempts at killing Dumbledore in a school full of other kids (and, off-canon now, I think it drove him nuts that Dumbledore wanted him to stand back and let Draco complete his Journey of Morality). And then there's the fact that he's locked into killing Dumbledore himself (again off-canon, I think that was the plan all along, but he seems to have wanted an out from it in the forest argument). And of course as the year wears on Voldemort puts in the screws by announcing that Draco *will* be killed after all if he fails. I mean, that part *is* canon, isn't it? The DE's don't kill Draco right away when his wand wavers, but then they have this crazy situation where Dumbledore is totally helpless for some bizarre reason and Draco could actually do it. I seriously don't think Voldemort's "kill Draco if he fails" concept included the idea that Draco would be in a position to do it, but be *morally* incapable of killing Dumbledore. Would this really cross Voldemort's mind? Surely the 'if he fails' part is if he chickens out or if the good guys miss him or something, so that, whatever happens, the plan will be accomplished. I mean, of course, the 'kill Draco' plan. There doesn't seem to have *been* a backup plan for the 'kill Dumbledore' plan. Except for Snape doing it at some point in the future, which is carefully separated from all the stuff involving Draco and the cabinets and the Goon Show. "Voldemort is determined that Draco try first". It's *Snape* that puts his oar in and entangles the two plans by taking the UV. What that means is obviously a separate discussion! Oh-- except to say, in reply to any theories that Voldemort used Narcissa to trap Snape with the UV, that *whatever* happened there, Snape wasn't trapped. He clearly made a choice of some kind. But that's another thread! Carol: It's hard to argue when the other side is so sure it's right that it won't even make a concession. Sydney, so sure she's right she won't make a concession, at least unless it's a concession she can honestly make. From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 10:14:02 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:14:02 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <554.63011b0.322b84a4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157809 > Julie: > But was Snape asleep, and did Dumbledore really expect him to be > asleep? 2. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep because he had > put some sort of sleeping spell on Snape purposely, perhaps to > keep Snape from knowing about or protesting the dangerous > cave expedition. Sydney: Ooooh, see, this is the one I hold. To me this is part of the whole, "UV-- argument in the forest-- Severus, please" plotline. My theory is: -- Ring curse. Snape saves Dumbledore, but, either because of the 'stoppered death' theory (Dumbledore is effectively dead but 'held' alive by some crazy potion or something), or because of Eggplant's Horcrux Theory of Genius (the bit of Voldemort's soul glommed onto D-dore's hand when the ring was destroyed), Snape and Dumbledore both know that Dumbledore will die in the near future. This is consistent with Dumbledore's 'wrapping it up' tone throughout the book. -- Snape takes the UV, knowing that he is going to be Dumbledore's executioner anyways(either by stopping whatever treatment he's giving, or because of the horcrux). He takes the UV because, by entangling his fate with Draco's, he hopes to frustrate Voldemort's 'kill Draco' plan. -- Life goes on. -- As the deadline approaches, Snape starts backpedalling from the 'kill Dumbledore' plan. He goes to Dumbledore and says, "I don't want to do it anymore," Dumbledore says, "You promised to do it and you'll do it". Snape says, "Sod it. I'm through. I'm going to break the UV, drop dead, and you won't have Severus Snape to kick around any more, old man." (this is the argument Hagrid overhears, and please please please that we'll get to see in Pensive-o-vision in Book VII) -- Dumbledore awaits developments. -- D-Day. Dumbledore wanders down to Snape's office, where Snape is still saying, "if you think I'm going to kill you, you're crazy. I'm going to collar that Malfoy brat right now, and then zzzzzzzzzzzzz..." Dumbledore puts a mild sleeping spell on him, breakable by anyone entering the room, so he can have him when he needs him. -- S**t hits fan. Dumbledore tells Harry to go wake Snape, but there's no time. Fortunately, Flitwick does it. -- Snape bolts himself up to the Tower like a bat out of hell. Situation normal, all f'd up. He can still just break the Vow but.. -- "Severus... please..." Dumbledore says immediately on Snape entering the scene. They both know there's only one option now. -- Avada Kedavra! That's my theory. -- Sydney From muellem at bc.edu Sun Sep 3 13:50:29 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:50:29 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > Julie: > > But was Snape asleep, and did Dumbledore really expect him to be > > asleep? > > > 2. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep because he had > > put some sort of sleeping spell on Snape purposely, perhaps to > > keep Snape from knowing about or protesting the dangerous > > cave expedition. > > > Sydney: > > Ooooh, see, this is the one I hold. To me this is part of the whole, > "UV-- argument in the forest-- Severus, please" plotline. My theory is: > > -- D-Day. Dumbledore wanders down to Snape's office, where Snape is > still saying, "if you think I'm going to kill you, you're crazy. I'm > going to collar that Malfoy brat right now, and then zzzzzzzzzzzzz..." > Dumbledore puts a mild sleeping spell on him, breakable by anyone > entering the room, so he can have him when he needs him. > > -- S**t hits fan. Dumbledore tells Harry to go wake Snape, but > there's no time. Fortunately, Flitwick does it. > > -- Snape bolts himself up to the Tower like a bat out of hell. > Situation normal, all f'd up. He can still just break the Vow but.. > > -- "Severus... please..." Dumbledore says immediately on Snape > entering the scene. They both know there's only one option now. > > -- Avada Kedavra! > colebiancardi here: I would think that putting a spell on Snape would defeat the whole purpose of Dumbledore's statement of "I trust Severus Snape completely". Snape in the past, has argued with DD, but always, from what we have been told, been loyal and done what DD has wanted. For DD to do a sneaky thing like that to a GROWN man, not a child, a man who is risking his life being a double agent, is not trust. I also think much more highly of Snape & Dumbledore's relationship and their ability to CHOOSE - Dumbledore, as far as we have seen in the books, has never forced anyone thru magic to do his bidding. colebiancardi. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 14:10:50 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:10:50 -0000 Subject: Cabinet first In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157811 Sydney: > Narcissa certainly fears that Draco will be killed *in the course* of his mission. Her mindset is the same (I suppose) as Voldemort's, that faced with a kamikaze kid coming at him Dumbledore would kill him. Ceridwen: I really didn't want to drag out my book. It has been mentioned several times, but only answered once that I noticed, that *we* know Dumbledore won't kill Draco, even if the kid is coming at him with wand blazing (blatant over-the-top paraphrase). But what we know doesn't seem to be what the DEs and LV know, per Dumbledore: "Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after all." ~HBP, The Lightning-Struck Tower, page 592, that portion of Dumbledore's speech that is left out of most editions So, Narcissa fears that Draco will be killed by Dumbledore himself, or by his supporters. The DEs expect such a thing to happen. They also wouldn't be surprised if Narcissa is killed as part of the Order's or Dumbledore's retaliation against Draco, because that is what they would do themselves in a similar situation. We're not talking about moral people who live within society's rules. We're talking about amoral people who make their own rules, out of necessity since they're outside of normal laws. Who would they go to for justice? The DMLE? They make their own rules and laws. Killing the family of an assassin is apparently part of their code. So it is fully within the text that the DEs, and even LV, expect Draco to die by Dumbledore's hand, or the hand of one of his supporters. If that doesn't happen, then it seems likely that Draco will die anyway per his own conversation with Dumbledore, possibly by the DEs sent to back him up, or possibly later on when he faces Voldemort with his failure. He also indicates that his parents are in danger as well if he doesn't do it, lending credence to Dumbledore's speech noted above. Ceridwen. From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 14:26:45 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:26:45 -0000 Subject: Emtional satisfaction and traitors was Re: ACID POPS and Tee In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157812 Sydney (me, some time ago): > > > > Actually, I do think Pippin is wasting her time with ESE Lupin, > > > > because I think there's a reason so few people hold that theory. > > > > Because it's not emotionally satisfying. If it WAS emotionally > > > > satisfying, there would be a lot more people on that bandwagon. wynnleaf: > What exactly do you mean by emotionally satisfying? > > My impression, having read people's thoughts here and also introduced the > theory on the Lexicon Forum, is that people like Lupin so much that the > reaction is basically, "oh no! It *can't* be!" Sydney: Hi Wynn, sorry, I just realized I never replied to this... plus, this is my Procrastination Weekend so I'm talking myself into wasting as much time here as I can (*sigh*). By 'emotionally satisfying' I don't mean so much in terms of the reader's relationship with Lupin. I mean, is Lupin-the-traitor a good emotional vector to pay off in the last book? This is sort of hard to express... by 'emotional satisfaction' with a story, there's a sense that all the stuff that's out of balance at the start of the story resolves or comes to rest into a harmonious whole, and we nod and go, 'yep. It's done. Sad, isn't it?' or 'Great, isn't it?' or whatever but it's the feeling of doneness. Is there some sort of unresolved impetus going on with Lupin that seems to need a resolution? The short answer for me is no, though it's a hard thing to 'prove' on a forum on the text level, which was my point to Neri about why I didn't get into the arguement in the first place. If Harry had more a thing going with Lupin I'd feel differently. If Harry was leaning on Lupin in any way, I'd be the first to say, 'hey, knock that prop out from under Harry!-- it feels shaky!' But Harry doesn't seem to think of Lupin as someone he's going to be leaning on, so a betrayal doesn't have for me that ..*gestures vaguely*.. physical sensation of a force resolving. Harry certainly *likes* Lupin, but that's about it. The revalation of Lupin's original weakness and betrayal in PoA reinforces the fact that he's not... reinforced. His weakness is a known factor and can go on to be a consistent undercurrent in dealings with him to the end of the book and beyond into people's imaginative life for him, as Mr. Micawber will always be a few bob short. JKR uses it as gag (in a manner of speaking) at the end of HBP, in the way she resolved his 'love story'. I mean, *of course* Lupin would only wind up in relationship because he got embarassed into it in a public scene! But it's a consistent, steady wobble, not a stressy one that you keep an eye on because you expect it to blow. No one expects a betrayal from Ron or Hermionie, becuase although Harry's leaning on them, there isn't any undercurrent of... crap, I tend to think in images for this sort of thing, but, you know, trembling or stressing in their support. They've been tested and proven and are rock-solid. So that relationship doesn't exhibit tension or potential for change. Again, if this was an Agatha Chritie book, in being primarily a mystery, I'd say the lack of tension could be cunning plan to conceal the aha! factor. Because in a mystery you want to use the audience's instinctive understanding of story against them. I don't think in the long run this is *mainly* what JKR is doing though, and though the end of a book may be surprising in some way it's not going to be surprising in an 'anti-story' way. Does that make any sense? So, that's what I mean by, most people don't see a Lupin betrayal because it's not emotionally satisfying. I don't mean, because most of us like Lupin (I confess I do, so it might be a point against my argument!) and would be unhappy if he turned out 'bad'. I mean because, most people's 'story instinct' isn't feeling a stress there than needs to pay off. I don't have any huge canon reason except a general feeling, though, so I don't see anything I can really reply to in the ESE!Lupin threads. However, if I'm wrong I'll be the first to take my hat off to Pippin! Sydney From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 14:42:23 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:42:23 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157813 Sydney: > -- Ring curse. Snape saves Dumbledore, but, either because of the 'stoppered death' theory (Dumbledore is effectively dead but 'held' alive by some crazy potion or something), or because of Eggplant's Horcrux Theory of Genius (the bit of Voldemort's soul glommed onto D- dore's hand when the ring was destroyed), Snape and Dumbledore both know that Dumbledore will die in the near future. This is consistent with Dumbledore's 'wrapping it up' tone throughout the book. Ceridwen: I agree with most of your post, so I snipped it. Seems to make sense with everything on the page. I don't see any reason, though, why it should be either 'stoppered death' *or* Eggplant's Horcrux Theory of Genius. It could be both. Snape gives DD the 'stoppered death' to stop the spread of the LV soul-piece, which has already killed his hand. We do know that LV's core soul-piece killed when it possessed animals as he flited through the wilds of Albania. It is possible to assume that a soul-piece which is not the core would do the same thing to any living creature it inhabits. Something that 'stoppers death' would halt that progression, though it wouldn't negate it. Though it is all speculation until we find out the real deal in book 7, it makes sense to me. Ceridwen. From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 14:47:32 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:47:32 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157814 Sydney: > > -- D-Day. Dumbledore wanders down to Snape's office, where Snape is > > still saying, "if you think I'm going to kill you, you're crazy. I'm > > going to collar that Malfoy brat right now, and then zzzzzzzzzzzzz..." > > Dumbledore puts a mild sleeping spell on him, breakable by anyone > > entering the room, so he can have him when he needs him. colebiancardi: I would think that putting a spell on Snape would > defeat the whole purpose of Dumbledore's statement of "I trust Severus > Snape completely". Sydney: I guess I'd say, Dumbledore trusts Severus completely, except on the agonizingly painful choice of having to kill Dumbledore. That Dumbledore didn't think Snape would do it, to me is clear in his "pleading" tone on the tower. I mean, you don't *plead* with someone if you're confident what course of action they'll take. I trust my best friend completely but if they had to kill me for some reason (I don't know, if the Fate of Mankind depended on it), that's the one point at which I'd feel I'd have to plead with them, because, I mean, I hope she really wouldn't want to do it. If Dumbledore was *sure* of what Snape was going to do, he wouldn't be saying "Severus..." the moment Snape shows up, in the pleading tone that Harry found so very shocking. He follows it up with "Severus... please..." just to drive the point home. I'd say, from the pleading tone, that Dumbledore had excellent reason to believe that Snape was going to commit Suicide-by-Vow but hoped that he would carry through with the plan. Either with Evil!Snape or Good!Snape, you run into a contradiction between the 'complete trust' and the pleading. I haven't heard a convicing explanation from the Evil!Snapers on this, but as a Good!Snaper it makes sense to me that Dumbledore is having to plead with Snape to follow through with their agreement and kill him. Colebiancardi: >I also think much more highly of Snape & Dumbledore's > relationship and their ability to CHOOSE - Dumbledore, as far as we > have seen in the books, has never forced anyone thru magic to do his > bidding. Sydney: Weeeeell, Dumbledore might have cheated a little... Snape did still have a choice in the end, after all! And I can see Dumbledore being protective of Snape if he really was suicidal-- and critical to the plan. I'm not completely married to the sleeping spell idea (I mean, it *is* sort of funny, and would be even funnier if Dumbledore snuck up behind him with a baseball bat), but it does strike me as very strange that Dumbledore would say go and *wake* Severus on a night like that. -- Sydney From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 3 15:19:02 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:19:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) References: Message-ID: <004501c6cf6c$4a3b5da0$cc66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157815 Mike: > So what do we have? > 1. Draco knew about the cabinets before the LV summons. Most logical > canon interpretation. > 2. LV assigned DEs/ally to infiltrate Hogwarts. Canon. > Logical extrapolations: > 3. LV was informed of some method of secret infiltration. > 4. LV assigned DEs to be available to Draco, at least some from the > beginning. > Logical Interpretation: > 5. Draco told LV about the cabinets at the beginning. > > How about a compromise? Magpie: Well, I'm not compromising on this thread at all, it seems, so I'll say no, since that's not the way I read the story.:-) I don't think a lot hinged on exactly who was thinking what when at all times. JKR's timelines seem mostly only important in a very general way--X happened first in the story and Y had to happen somewhere after A and before C but we don't know when exactly. The parts in canon that seem to be the important bits read to me as: 1. Draco hears Montague's story, either during fifth year or just after, and figures out what it means at some point during or after that. 2. Voldemort gives Draco the assignment to kill DD. He has some DE help at his disposal, and can use anything he wants. 3. Draco decides to use Montague's Cabinets to get DEs into the castle for back up to help him. He begins this plan when he goes to get his schoolbooks. 4. The Cabinet is hard to fix. He tries other methods of murder and is upset by the results. 5. He concentrates exclusively on working on the Cabinet, which will bring in other people. Although it's not working, he does not try any other murder attempts since the ones he tried before Xmas. That's it for him and direct acts of deadly potential. (Except for he himself almost dying accidentally at Harry's hands.) 6. He gets the Cabinet working on that night towards the end of the year. That covers what I think is all the important parts of the story, including making Draco's Cabinet plan the surprising thing he has up his sleeve that throws a monkey wrench into the plans of all the adults on both sides. Draco's also gaining confidence from a plan of his own rather than completing a plan for Voldemort. Voldemort doesn't have to know all thedetails of what Draco is doing. His only interest in whether he's gotten killed yet trying to kill DD. As for Voldemort: he's not a great planner, as we see in GoF. But this plan is perfectly good (probably because it's not a focus)--as long as you don't try to make it about killing Dumbledore or getting Snape to kill Dumbledore and instead see it as a cruel joke on the Malfoys which winds up having surprising adults because of various reactions to that joke--Snape's, Narcissa's, Dumbledore's and Draco's. Then it's a pretty good story, imo, and one that ultimately will suggest, I think, that love is stronger than fear. Dumbledore's plan, ironically, is the more risky but also fairly straightforward. I agree with Sydney that Snape is probably going crazy sitting back and letting Draco muddle his own way towards moral development, but I suspect he's following DD's orders on that anyway. Snape would probably much rather just step in and neutralize Draco, saving him and other people. I can imagine many conversations where Snape's trying to keep control, like after Ron gets poisoned, and DD reminding him about his own youth and how he had to make a mistake before he was truly able to make the right choice or ask for help. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 3 16:47:11 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:47:11 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: <004501c6cf6c$4a3b5da0$cc66400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157816 > Mike: > > So what do we have? > > 1. Draco knew about the cabinets before the LV summons. Most logical > > canon interpretation. > > 2. LV assigned DEs/ally to infiltrate Hogwarts. Canon. > > Logical extrapolations: > > 3. LV was informed of some method of secret infiltration. > > 4. LV assigned DEs to be available to Draco, at least some from the > > beginning. > > Logical Interpretation: > > 5. Draco told LV about the cabinets at the beginning. > > > > How about a compromise? > > Magpie: > Well, I'm not compromising on this thread at all, it seems, so I'll say no, > since that's not the way I read the story.:-) I don't think a lot hinged on > exactly who was thinking what when at all times. JKR's timelines seem > mostly only important in a very general way--X happened first in the story > and Y had to happen somewhere after A and before C but we don't know when > exactly. The parts in canon that seem to be the important bits read to me > as: > > 1. Draco hears Montague's story, either during fifth year or just after, and > figures out what it means at some point during or after that. > > 2. Voldemort gives Draco the assignment to kill DD. He has some DE help at > his disposal, and can use anything he wants. > > 3. Draco decides to use Montague's Cabinets to get DEs into the castle for > back up to help him. He begins this plan when he goes to get his > schoolbooks. Pippin: The trouble is, if Voldemort just told Draco to kill Dumbledore in some way and left the means up to him, then Draco would have come up with some half-baked plan like the necklace and gotten himself caught (and killed, as Voldemort would expect) immediately. That would be efficient, but that's not what a sociopath like Voldemort would want. Volemort wants drama. He wants Draco to struggle with his task and slowly realize that it's hopeless. He wants Draco to sweat and even more, he wants Lucius sweat for him (we know that Ministry officials are always going out to Azkaban, so Voldemort can let Lucius know what Draco is up to.) Fixing the cabinets is ideal for Voldemort's purposes, assuming that he thinks it can't be done. Draco will struggle forever, which means Voldemort can keep the game going as long as he likes, or end it whenever he chooses. It isn't in Draco's hands at all. Support for this is the step both Mike and Magpie have left out: Bella teaches Draco occlumency. That must have taken place before Draco's visit to Borgin and Burkes, and could be the reason Sydney wants for Draco not going there sooner. IMO, if Voldemort wanted the cabinet fixed, he would certainly have instructed Snape to help Draco fix it. Snape was bound by the vow to do it, too. But Voldemort wanted Draco to struggle uselessly, so he fed Draco a story about Snape wanting to steal his glory, and made sure Draco learned enough occlumency to keep Snape in the dark. Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 3 17:01:16 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 3 Sep 2006 17:01:16 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/3/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1157302876.21.90595.m21@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157817 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 3, 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 3 17:26:56 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:26:56 -0000 Subject: Emtional satisfaction and traitors was Re: ACID POPS and Tee In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157818 Sydney: > Again, if this was an Agatha Chritie book, in being primarily a > mystery, I'd say the lack of tension could be cunning plan to conceal > the aha! factor. Because in a mystery you want to use the audience's > instinctive understanding of story against them. I don't think in the > long run this is *mainly* what JKR is doing though, and though the end > of a book may be surprising in some way it's not going to be > surprising in an 'anti-story' way. Does that make any sense? > > So, that's what I mean by, most people don't see a Lupin betrayal > because it's not emotionally satisfying. I don't mean, because most > of us like Lupin (I confess I do, so it might be a point against my > argument!) and would be unhappy if he turned out 'bad'. I mean > because, most people's 'story instinct' isn't feeling a stress there > than needs to pay off. I don't have any huge canon reason except a > general feeling, though, so I don't see anything I can really reply to > in the ESE!Lupin threads. > > However, if I'm wrong I'll be the first to take my hat off to Pippin! > Pippin: PS/SS wasn't primarily a mystery either. You could have resolved it with Snape as the villain and it wouldn't have made any great difference except to remove a layer of complexity from the plot. Of course because it wasn't primarily a mystery, none of us were expecting an Aha! moment. But some of us were thinking that Snape was *such* a cliche children's book villain and the book could use a bit more complexity. You mentioned earlier that HP is a child savior story. I think that's right. You gave Scooby as an example. But in Scooby stories the monster always turns out to be a fake, and the real villain is a traitor who's using the fear of the monster to get what he wants. He's not a traitor the kids are leaning on, he's a traitor that the people they're trying to help are leaning on. Now, if you wanted to add a layer of complexity to a Scooby story, you might make the monster real. Then you could resolve the situation with the monster not by revealing it as a fake but by showing that it wouldn't have had such power if the traitor weren't helping it, and if the good guys hadn't trusted the traitor so blindly. It's true Harry hasn't been leaning on Lupin. But Sirius did, Dumbledore did, and they're both dead. Hmmm. In 157732, you mentioned that Voldemort doesn't have the psychology of a real world terrorist. It's kind of a gap in the story that deals with terrorism that we don't seem to have a villain who does. They all seem to be sociopaths or seeking personal gain, with the possible exception of Regulus and Draco. Regulus believed in the cause but seems to have backed out when he found out he'd be expected to kill for it. Draco would have killed, only he found that killing was harder than he thought. But what would happen to a person who found that killing was, after all, easier than he thought it would be? Who flirted with murder as Harry has flirted with the cruciatus curse, until one day he found that he had done it? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 17:36:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:36:32 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <015901c6cf0e$8d21c450$87ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157819 Carol earlier: > Surely, if it's a suicide mission, [the DEs in the Tower's] orders wouldn't be to let the boy kill Dumbledore. > > Magpie: > Why wouldn't they be? Voldemort wants Draco to try first. It's a suicide mission because the idea of this kid killing Dumbledore is ridiculous. Ultimately everyone's surprised to find the kid standing over a wandless, weak Dumbledore. It's not a suicide mission due to the orders being "Tell Draco to kill Dumbledore, but make sure he doesn't do it." If Draco fails to kill Dumbledore and is still alive and free he can be killed as punishment any time (I'd imagine Voldemort would do it along with his mother to make it more fun.) > > You seem to think "suicide mission" refers to Draco thinking he's supposed to kill DD but really he's ordered to fix the cabinets and the DEs will show up and kill him and DD. But the idea actually seems to be that it's suicide because it's impossible and Draco will be killed by somebody else. Then there's the added fact that if he fails as punishment he can be killed with Narcissa at any time after that. Carol responds: I see. Thank you for finally explaining your interpretation. However, as I've said, we don't know Voldemort's motivation, and I've never denied Draco's character arc though I see a larger role for Dumbledore's mercy than you seem to. However, IMO, this business about the job being to kill Dumbledore by any means possible is inaccurate. It's definitely about killing Dumbldore with the DEs as backup, which is only possible if he fixes the cabinets. The meas and the necklace are not part of the plan; they are desperation measures, and once Snape warns him off using such clumsy and amateurish measures and lets him know that he's already suspected in the necklac incident, he stops. He can't do anything about the mead, which doesn't appear until March 1, but he doesn't try anything else of the sort. He concentrates on the cabinet. Why? Because that's the plan. that's what Voldemort expects him to do. And here's the canon. The "Sectumsempra" chapter takes place in May (not April 21, as I said earlier, sorry), at least two months after Ron's recovery and seven months after Katie's encounter with the necklace. Katie has just returned to school. Draco has no reason to be concerned with either of them. The cabinet is still broken after all these months. Harry passes it on his way to hide the HBP's Potions book, but of course, its importance doesn't register. (Nice ironic touch, by the way. He's been trying all this time to get into the RoR the way it looks when Draco is in there, and here he is, but he doesn't know it. Lovely the way JKR works.) Draco is crying in the bathroom. Here's what he says to Moaning Myrtle: "No one can help me. I can't do it. . . . I can't. . . . It won't work. . . and unless I do it soon . . . . he says he'll kill me" (HBP Am. ed., italics in original). Read those words any way you like to fit your theory. I read them as, "I can't fix the cabinet and Voldemort says that if I don't fix it soon, he'll kill me." Voldemort's motives are open to interpretation. At the moment, he's probably enjoying torturing the boy. But as I said, he very likely wants to have his cake and eat it, too. Here's this possibly workable plan with the cabinets, a chance to get DEs into Hogwarts and just possibly succeed in killing Dumbledore once he's caught off guard and wandless, and, if not, he can kill the boy for failing. (I do think that the DE's orders were botched, whatever Voldemort's plan.) But regardless of how we interpret Voldemort's motives, my point is that Voldemort not only knows about Draco's cabinet plan, he's in on it and is pressuring Draco to keep up his end of the bargain. Nothing about killing Dumbledore by any means possible. I'm surprised that he gave Draco till may before he started personally issuing death threats. (I realize that I'm interpreting here, but there's a lot of difference between crying hysterically in the bathroom and defying Professor Snape. He was under pressure before, but it couldn't have been death threats from Voldemort himself or he'd have broken a lot sooner. Just IMO.) Anyway, I really am dropping the subject now as I'm tired of the "more canonical than thou" tone of this thread From kjones at telus.net Sun Sep 3 17:43:00 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:43:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FB1424.8030902@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157820 colebiancardi wrote: > colebiancardi here: I would think that putting a spell on Snape would > defeat the whole purpose of Dumbledore's statement of "I trust Severus > Snape completely". Snape in the past, has argued with DD, but > always, from what we have been told, been loyal and done what DD has > wanted. For DD to do a sneaky thing like that to a GROWN man, not a > child, a man who is risking his life being a double agent, is not > trust. I also think much more highly of Snape & Dumbledore's > relationship and their ability to CHOOSE - Dumbledore, as far as we > have seen in the books, has never forced anyone thru magic to do his > bidding. > > colebiancardi. KJ writes: Wait a minute. Are we talking about the Dumbledore who hexed Dawlish twice? Is this the man who sneaks a time turner into Harry's and Hermione's room so that they can save Sirius and make Snape look like an utter idiot? Is this the same man that hired fourteen years worth of DADA teachers knowing that they were going to come to an uncertain end? Is this the same man who failed to warn those same DADA teachers? Dumbledore doesn't use Imperious, but I think he is the sneakiest bugger in the book! He could absolutely trust that Snape would do his bidding when forced into the situation, but he might not be able to trust that Snape would not take matters into his own hands at the wrong time. A little nighty-night until the right time would not be beyond Dumbledore. Why would he think that Snape would be asleep so early? KJ From muellem at bc.edu Sun Sep 3 17:37:57 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:37:57 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > colebiancardi: > > I would think that putting a spell on Snape would > > defeat the whole purpose of Dumbledore's statement of "I trust Severus > > Snape completely". > > > Sydney: > > I guess I'd say, Dumbledore trusts Severus completely, except on the > agonizingly painful choice of having to kill Dumbledore. > > That Dumbledore didn't think Snape would do it, to me is clear in his > "pleading" tone on the tower. I mean, you don't *plead* with someone > if you're confident what course of action they'll take. I trust my > best friend completely but if they had to kill me for some reason (I > don't know, if the Fate of Mankind depended on it), that's the one > point at which I'd feel I'd have to plead with them, because, I mean, > I hope she really wouldn't want to do it. > If Dumbledore was *sure* of what Snape was going to do, he wouldn't be > saying "Severus..." the moment Snape shows up, in the pleading tone > that Harry found so very shocking. He follows it up with "Severus... > please..." just to drive the point home. I'd say, from the pleading > tone, that Dumbledore had excellent reason to believe that Snape was > going to commit Suicide-by-Vow but hoped that he would carry through > with the plan. colebiancardi: Yes, I am sure that DDM!Snape(whose camp I have firmly put up my tent years ago) would be conflicted about killing his mentor, his leader. I think DD's pleading was to remind Snape of the goals in this war. Harry even balked with the force feeding of the liquid and DD had to remind him "Your word, Harry". So, I believe DD was telling Snape about "his word" of loyality to the cause. Bot that he wasn't "sure" of Snape's loyalities, but that he needed Snape to act and act now. I am not in the Snape-is-suicidal camp at all. I think Snape wants to live very much, not die. I haven't seen anything in the books to point that Snape is suicidal at all. > > > Either with Evil!Snape or Good!Snape, you run into a contradiction > between the 'complete trust' and the pleading. I haven't heard a > convicing explanation from the Evil!Snapers on this, but as a > Good!Snaper it makes sense to me that Dumbledore is having to plead > with Snape to follow through with their agreement and kill him. > colebiancardi: I don't have any contradictions about the complete trust and the pleading. Snape had to do what he had to do - DD was pleading with him because DD knew this was very hard for Snape. Not that Snape wouldn't do it in the end. > but it does strike me as very strange that > Dumbledore would say go and *wake* Severus on a night like that. > colebiancardi: Has anyone ever thought that Snape didn't know that DD & Harry would be out of the castle that evening? Also, I think that DD had TO PUSH Harry to get Snape, as Harry mentioned Madam Pomfrey a couple of times . And DD only mentioned the wake bit once; other times he states "It is...Professor Snape whom I need...", "Severus," said Dumbledore clearly. "I need Severus" and then we get the "go and wake Severus" comment. But it would not be unusual that late at night that Snape would be sleeping. I didn't read too much into it - DD thought that Snape would be sleeping & Snape was not. so what? colebiancardi. From muellem at bc.edu Sun Sep 3 18:13:07 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:13:07 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <44FB1424.8030902@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157823 Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > > Wait a minute. Are we talking about the Dumbledore who hexed > Dawlish twice? Is this the man who sneaks a time turner into Harry's > and Hermione's room so that they can save Sirius and make Snape look > like an utter idiot? Is this the same man that hired fourteen years > worth of DADA teachers knowing that they were going to come to an > uncertain end? Is this the same man who failed to warn those same DADA > teachers? Dumbledore doesn't use Imperious, but I think he is the > sneakiest bugger in the book! He could absolutely trust that Snape would > do his bidding when forced into the situation, but he might not be able > to trust that Snape would not take matters into his own hands at the > wrong time. A little nighty-night until the right time would not be > beyond Dumbledore. Why would he think that Snape would be asleep so early? > > colebiancardi: big difference between those examples and knocking Snape out to sleep in HBP. I don't think Snape looked like an utter idiot in POA, just angry and mad. How do we know that DD didn't tell the teachers - I believe Lupin knew, and MadEye only took it for one year. I am sure Umbridge didn't know. Why would DD tell anyone outside the OotP about the curse? Sure, DD can be sneaky, but it isn't, IMHO, his MO. Snape is his right hand man and I doubt he would betray Snape in that manner. Because that would be betrayal. It wasn't early - the students, outside of those fighting, were wearing PJ's. Snape has been known to sleep - re: GoF. Also, someone mentioned upthread that Snape was fully dressed - I glanced over the passages again and there is nothing I can find that talks about Snape's clothing. For all we know, he could have thrown a robe over his jammies as well. colebiancardi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 18:11:14 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:11:14 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157824 I don't know about anyone else, but I feel as if Hogwarts is a character in the HP books and HP won't be HP without Hogwarts. What's going to happen to her? I don't mean that I expect Voldemort to blow up the school so that it's really a ruin. I doubt that could happen, and besides, he'd find other uses for the building. But Hogwarts is more than a building. It has a history, literal and figurative ghosts. (What is that bloody axe blade doing hidden in the RoR? Was Walden Macnair killing Thestrals at an early age?) It's full of hidden chambers and passages and other mysteries. And, AFAWK, it still holds the Sword of Gryffindor, the last relic of Godric Gryffindor. If Nagini isn't a Horcrux (and if Harry is one, Voldemort doesn't know about it), then Voldemort is still one Horcrux short of six (the diary, the ring, the cup, the locket, and something from Ravenclaw makes five). Wouldn't he want to steal that sword and make it a Horcrux? and if the tiara in the RoR is the Ravenclaw Horcrux (not saying that it is), wouldn't he want to retrieve it? What about the protections on Hogwarts? I thought as I was reading the broom scene in HBP that Dumbledore was only temporarily clearing away the anti-flying protection so that he and Harry could land on the tower, but if that's the case, how did Madame Maxime's carriage land on the Hogwarts grounds for the funeral? And what about the Vanishing Cabinet connection? We never heard about it being closed off or the RoR cabinet being destroyed or deactivated. And even if those protections are in place, a certain rat named Peter Pettigrew knows about seven secret passages. If the school is closed, it would be very easy to invade. True, the Shrieking Shack one would only get the DEs onto the grounds and one is blocked (not that being blocked would make much difference to a rat--Peter himself could get in through it) and Filch knows about four of them, but if he's in the castle by himself, he's not going to be able to watch all four at once (though the ghosts could alert him), nor could he fight off the DEs by himself if they got in. And the Honeydukes passage wouldn't even be watched because Filch doesn't know about it. I suppose that there are other magical defenses--those suits of armor, for example, and the ghosts might be able to do something though I don't know what. And we haven't seen the last of the house-elves. Peeves could wreak a little havoc dropping inkwells on the heads of the invading DEs--they can't kill him--and Hagrid would still be living on the grounds. (Imagine Hagrid coming to Filch's aid and Peeves fighting alongside them. The Sorting Hat's exhortation to unity acted upon and no one there to see it!) I rather expect both Filch and Hagrid to be killed (no, I don't think Filch will ever do magic, but he might throw furniture polish in someone's eyes before he's AK'd.) Of course, if Hogwarts isn't closed, the teachers and staff could join in the battle, if it occurs during the school year. And Harry could just happen to be present to witness it, either because he wants to talk to DD's portrait or because he wants to retrieve the HBP's Potions book from the RoR despite its being Snape's. What does everyone think? Will there be a battle of Hogwarts? Are the protections in place? Are there other protections we don't know about? Will help still be given to those who ask for it even though Dumbledore is dead? Carol, who really hopes that Hogwarts reopens, with McGonagall as headmistress and Ginny as Harry's Hogwarts liaison, using Sirius's and James's (repaired) mirrors to communicate From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 3 17:18:54 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 13:18:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) References: Message-ID: <006701c6cf7d$08f678f0$cc66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157825 > Pippin: > The trouble is, if Voldemort just told Draco to kill Dumbledore in some > way and left the means up to him, then Draco would have come up with > some half-baked plan like the necklace and gotten himself caught (and > killed, as Voldemort would expect) immediately. Magpie: Why would Draco have done that? (Especially when Canon, imo, suggets he doesn't.) The Cabinets are something Draco realized were a secret way into the castle when Montague told the story, so why doesn't it follow that he thought to use that in his plan to kill DD? That's the way I thought he presented it in the Tower. Pippin: > Fixing the cabinets is ideal for Voldemort's purposes, assuming that > he thinks it can't be done. Draco will struggle forever, which means > Voldemort can keep the game going as long as he likes, or end it > whenever he chooses. It isn't in Draco's hands at all. Magpie: Which gets back to the main point of the Cabinet First theory, which is to always take as much out of Draco's hands as possible and make Voldemort's strategic planning dominate events. But to me this is the opposite of what the story is suggesting. I think the Cabinets need to be Draco's thing because they are what throws all the adults for a loop. They are also the thing that gives Draco confidence when he completes them--he is not able to do what Voldemort wants him to do, but he completed an impressive feat with this plan that was all his. I think that's why Dumbledore praises him for that. He was the one who realized what Montague's story meant, he was the one using it to his own ends, he was the one fixing it. If you give that to Voldemort it becomes less about Draco thinking of himself as an individual with something to offer and a more about Draco being able to fulfill some of Voldemort's impossible orders, just not all. I believe, as I said, that this is why Dumbledore instinctively praises the Cabinet plan, because it's a great way of driving home to Draco that he's worth something outside of being able to fulfill Voldemort's wishes. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 19:13:33 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:13:33 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157826 --- "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > ... > > Volemort wants drama. He wants Draco to struggle with > his task and slowly realize that it's hopeless. ... > > Fixing the cabinets is ideal for Voldemort's purposes, > assuming that he thinks it can't be done. Draco will > struggle forever, which means Voldemort can keep the > game going as long as he likes, or end it whenever he > chooses. It isn't in Draco's hands at all. > bboyminn: I'm not sure I buy this theory 100% but it does have some intriguing aspects. For example, as I have pointed out before, the cabinet will always be there. If we assume for a moment that Voldemort knows about the cabinet, even if he send Draco on a wholly doomed mission, all is not lost. Whether Draco lives or dies, whether the Cabinet plan succeeds or fails, the Cabinet will always be there and will always be a resource that Voldemort can fall back on. True, if we assume the whole Draco plot is now out of the picture, the Cabinet will need fixing. But that is an obstical that can be overcome. Voldemort still has Slughorn at the school, whom he could threaten, Imperious, or blackmail. He still has Severus at the school, and he still has the option to plant someone new at the school. So, again, it may be that Voldemort was willing to waste this 'Draco Scheme' and the time it involved knowing that regardless of the outcome, he would probably still have an 'ace in the hole' at Hogwarts. > Pippin: > > Support for this is the step both Mike and Magpie have > left out: Bella teaches Draco occlumency. That must have > taken place before Draco's visit to Borgin and Burkes, > and could be the reason Sydney wants for Draco not going > there sooner. > > IMO, if Voldemort wanted the cabinet fixed, he would > certainly have instructed Snape to help Draco fix it. > ... But Voldemort wanted Draco to struggle uselessly, > so he fed Draco a story about Snape wanting to steal his > glory, and made sure Draco learned enough occlumency to > keep Snape in the dark. > > > Pippin > bboyminn: OK, I really like this part. One of the objections to my original theory was that it left a gap at this point in the timeline. However, if we assume that this was the time in which Bella was giving Draco Occlumency lessons then that explains it nicely. The gap in time exists because Draco was in training for his mission in that time span. Additional factor in the timeline at this point, Narcissa is extremely worried about Draco as we see clearly in Spinner's End. It is possible her motherly instincts were kicking in and she wasn't letting Draco out of her sight which in turn made it difficult for Draco to accomplish much of anything. Remember there are aspect of the Plan that Narcissa doesn't know, and to maintain the standard level of secrecy, that's how Draco had to keep it. So his mother was really a hinderance to him. We see when he finally did manage to work on the 'plan', he had to sneak away from his mother. One last bit on 'Glory', though more related to other aspects of this thread, it was touched on here. I suspect when Voldemort laid this plan (kill Dumbledore) on Draco, he did it as if he were bestowing a great honor on Draco, and that success would mean that Draco would have what all DE's seek, he would be 'honored above all others'. So, while I can't prove it, I suspect it was Voldemort who psyched Draco up for the 'honor and glory' thing. I can just picture Voldie laughing under his breath as he fill Draco's head with these grand vision of glory. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Voldemort made it painfully clear that as a Death Eater, Voldemort expected undying obedience and faithfullness from Draco, and that any failure would be dealt with extremely harshly. I'm sure the 'do or die' message was made crystal clear to Draco, but I think that was probably part of being inducted into the inner circle. The 'honor and glory' came with the specific assignment. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 19:20:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:20:32 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux theory In-Reply-To: <44FA67AD.1020703@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157827 KJ wrote: > My feeling is that Dumbledore had suspicions that Harry might be carrying a piece of Voldemort. We have Harry missing for several hours after the attack on Godric's Hollow, and we have conversation between Hagrid and Minerva at Hogwarts. It seems likely that Harry was taken to Madam Pomfrey to be checked out, at least for injuries before being taken to the Dursleys. Dumbledore was the only one who had heard the entire prophesy, assuming, of course, that we have heard the entire prophesy. He knew that Harry had been "marked as his equal." Carol responds: Yes, we know from CoS and the Parseltongue business that there's a "bit" of Voldemort in Harry--not necessarily a soul bit, but certainly some of Voldemort's powers. But would Dumbledore have taken Harry to Madam Pomfrey? Given the next step in the process you outline (Snape and his Dark Mark), wouldn't DD have had his young Dark Arts expert examine Baby!Harry? ("Professor Snape knows a lot more about the Dark Arts than Madam Pomfrey, Harry," HBP, quoted from memory). Not only would Snape know what to look for, he'd be right there on the scene, having already showed up to tell DD about the fading Dark Mark. And we'd have an ironclad reason for DD to trust snape. they'd have been working together to save Harry and figure out how to fight Voldemort from the beginning. > KJ: > Dumbledore would have known very quickly that Voldemort wasn't > precisely dead and gone because of Snape's Dark Mark. (of course I am a DDM believer). I believe that Snape would have been able to tell that the mark was faded but still active. In fact, Snape's mark has been important to the plot all along. He would have suspected Voldemort's use of a horcux at that time, and begun his search for information. Carol responds: Yes, I agree that Snape must have shown DD his Dark Mark, as I've stated in other posts. Otherwise, I don't see how DD could have arrived at the conclusion that Voldemort wasn't dead. And I think that both of them would have suspected the existence of a Horcrux at this point. (Only one Horcrux would have been needed; the idea that there was more than one Horcrux would have occurred after the diary was destroyed.) By "he" do you mean snape or DD? I think they've been working together all along. (Needless to say, I also believe in DDM!Snape. But you know that already.) > KJ: > We also don't know if Voldemort has any idea what might be causing the connection between himself and Harry. We do know from HBP that he occludes against Harry to prevent him knowing what is being plotted. I suspect that Snape was kept out of the loop because of his contact with Dumbledore. If Voldemort is convinced that Snape is not an Occlumens, he would not want to risk Dumbledore discovering the plan in Snape's mind. Carol responds: I'm not quite sure what you mean here. However, I don't think that Voldemort know Snape is an Occlumens who's so good at it that he can lie without being detected. Otherwise, LV would never say anything in front of Snape or believe anything he says. And it would be suicide, IMO, for DDM!Snape to tell Voldemort that he was giving Harry Occlumency lessons because that would give away Snape's great secret. I'm not talking about the ordinary, easily detectable Occlumency that even Draco can do. I'm talking about snape as "superb Occlumens" who can conceal memories and emotions without being detected. KJ (out of sequence--sorry): So, in Book 7, we know that Harry has some horcruxes to get rid of, we know that Snape is going to play a part somehow, and we know that Voldemort has to be stopped, because that is basically the challenge facing the heroes. We know that Snape has obeyed Dumbledore implicitly throughout the books but we do not know if that is going to continue. > So, on that basis I can see the book ending in several ways: > > 1. Voldemort kills Harry, the last "horcrux" and Snape kills Voldemort while he is dancing a jig over Harry. > > 2. Harry kills Voldemort, a lucky accident, and Snape snuffs Harry. > > 3. Harry and Snape kill Voldemort, Snape knows he is a horcrux but can't > bring himself to obey Dumbledore's last orders. We are left wondering if Voldemort returns. > > 4. The Prime Minister advises the British military that there is a terrorist cell operating out of the old Riddle house, and they > obligingly blow all three of our characters out of existance.:-) Carol responds: I take it that the last suggestion is a joke. the third seems too inconclusive but at least consistent with DDM!Snape. But I don't see how you can reconcile the first two with DDM!Snape unless Snape is both DDM! and evil. Maybe the problem is the Harry!Horcrux idea itself, which does seem unresolvable. I agree that Snape has an important role to play, that he's DDM!, that Harry needs Snape's Dark Arts expertise to deal with the Horcruxes (which Snape has known about or suspected all along), and that Snape probably had a role in examining and protecting Harry after GH and in figuring out what happened there. But I don't think that Harry will die (this is a kids' series, after all) or that Snape would kill him. And I don't see a reasonable way out of the Harry!Horcrux problem if that's what he is. (Surely Dumbledore, who supposedly told Harry everything he needs to know to defeat LV [except why he trusts Severus Snape, which would have been helpful!] would have told Harry that he could be an accidental Horcrux, if such a thing were possible, and I'm not at all convinced that it is?) If we look at other *powers* that Harry acquired when Voldemort "marked him as his equal," for example, possession, maybe we have our answer. Carol, who agrees with Quirrell that Snape hates Harry but doesn't want him dead From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 3 20:09:37 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:09:37 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157828 Some of you will know from my previous posts that I am a dyed-in-the-wool, unregenerate, pig-headed, obsessive believer that Harry is not a Horcrux as well as being a fully paid-up member of the IWHTLC (I want Harry to Live Club). If I might reiterate some of my thoughts on the topic of Harry being a Non-crux ? why do I want to believe this? Because I believe that Harry as a Horcrux flies in the face of Dumbledore's oft-quoted comment: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) It has been observed by many contributors to the group that Dumbledore is echoing JKR who, as the author, makes much of choice. Dumbledore again makes the matter clear: "Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good and kind and brave because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort" (GOF "The Beginning" p.628 UK edition). This for me also ties in with the question of whether Harry will still be alive at the end. If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. He could make the choice of running away and hiding; unfortunately, this does not draw a line under the future of the wizarding world because he would have to be constantly on the run. The alternative is to face Voldemort knowing that he will go down with him. And that places him on a hiding to nothing. He has got no real choice in that eventuality. OK, in the real world, that situation occurs. As the anniversary of 11th September is almost on us again, I remember that some of our US friends were faced with that choice when they opted to tackle the terrorists on the fourth plane and brought it down. But I do believe that the way in which Jo Rowling has constructed her story has encouraged folk of all ages; for Harry not to emerge alive from a final encounter would undo the integrity of the themes in the eyes of many people. What I have written are obviously subjective, personal views and not everyone will agree with me but I shall be deeply disappointed if Harry failed to reach the end of Book 7. Final thought. Now, if Harry is a Horcrux - or carrying a Horcrux ? depending on your view, and if Voldemort knows that he is, why has he attempted to kill Harry on several occasions which would not do the soul fragment in him a lot of good? There are times when I frequently wish that JKR hadn't invented the damned things. Perhaps I should return to reading my Oxford Latin Dictionary for light relief.... :-) From elanor.isolda at googlemail.com Sun Sep 3 19:47:29 2006 From: elanor.isolda at googlemail.com (Elanor Isolda) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:47:29 +0100 Subject: Announcement: Sectus 2007 Message-ID: <6493bc80609031247w5b8e211bmcfac6f2ae758c890@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157829 Sectus 2007 is an unofficial Harry Potter conference being held in London from 19-22 July 2007. This is a unique opportunity to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Harry Potter books in the country where it all began. Sectus will be held in the heart of the capital, close to Regent's Park and within easy walking distance of Oxford Circus, Madame Tussaud's and King's Cross. Sectus will comprise a varied mixture of academic papers, panels, informal discussions and workshops. We already have Steve Vander Ark, creator of the Harry Potter Lexicon, confirmed as a guest speaker, and some exciting proposals lined up from all areas of fandom. Call for Papers For the academic side of the programming, we're seeking papers on a wide range of topics - the following are just some suggested themes: * - Science and technology.* Can science be said to exist in the Wizarding World, and if so, how far does it reflect our real-world knowledge? Is magic bound by the laws of physics *- Mythology, alchemy and symbolism.* How myths and legends support Rowling's storytelling, and how an examination of alchemical theory and symbolism can help us unravel the secrets within the text *- Education*. The portrayal of education in the Wizarding World, the effective use of Rowling's books in real-world education and is the 'reading revolution' a myth? *- Social and political issues*. Explorations of class, race, gender and sexuality in the narrative, the Wizarding World and/or derived fan works. - *Fandom history*. From paper to screen - how would the HP fandom have fared without the internet, and what lies ahead for the fandom after the publication of the seventh book? *- Fandom issues. * Staying on the right side of international law, fan fiction vs. fan art, gender and the fan community. Proposals for papers on these or other topics, or for any other events, should be sent to submissions at sectus.org. Full guidelines for submission can be found at http://www.sectus.org/programme.php The deadline for submitting proposals is 31st January 2007. Extra-curricular activities: As well as the academic side of the conference, we will be running a unique Wizarding Tournament. This is open to all attendees, and will consist of three tasks, culminating in a treasure hunt around London. At the centre of the tournament will be Not the Yule Ball, a formal dinner and opportunity for some well-mannered frivolity. Entertainment will be provided by ZHL Strings, a string quartet renowned for their energetic performances. Tickets are not included in the registration price, and will be on sale soon. Outside the conference: For those who want to extend their trip into a full holiday, we're offering two options. Starting on 14th July 2007, we will be running a series of sighseeing trips and activities designed to help you make the most out of your stay in London. As well as the usual sights, we're planning a themed medieval banquet and a cruise down the Thames. All suggestions are accepted: please email info at sectus.org with your preferences. Also in the works is a trip to Alnwick Castle, better known as Hogwarts from the first two films. This trip is to be held on Wednesday July 18th, and will include a tour of all the filming locations in the castle, lunch in the castle restaurant, organised games and a themed gift bag. Tickets for this trip will be on sale shortly: please watch the website and/or LJ community (sectus_2007) for details. All pre-conference events will be organised on an informal basis, and are subject to availability and demand. Payment for some events may be required in advance. If you're looking for a way to relax after a busy conference weekend in London, you might be interested in our Residential Course. >From Monday 23rd July until Sunday 29th, we will have exclusive use of a bunkhouse in an isolated part of Snowdonia, North Wales. As well as the academic programming, which will consist of presentations and roundtable-style discussions, there will be plenty of opportunity to relax and explore your surroundings in one of the most unspoiled areas of Britain. The cost of the Residential Course is ?250 (payable in installments), which includes travel to and from London, six nights' accommodation and all meals for the duration of our stay. Further details and a booking form are available at http://www.sectus.org/residential.php Please note that places on the Residential Course are extremely limited, so book early to avoid disappointment. Where your money goes Sectus is completely non-profit and run entirely by volunteers. Unlike other conferences, everyone involved in running Sectus pays the same registration, accommodation and travel as everyone else. Any surplus resulting from the event, as well as any proceeds from our Charity Auction, will go directly to Book Aid International, an organisation who work to provide books to libraries, hospitals, refugee camps and schools in the developing world. We hope you will join us in supporting this worthy cause. Registration and where to find out more You can book for Sectus on our website, at http://www.sectus.org/registration.php Our special early booking rate of ?45 is available only until 31st October 2006. We have the following options for those wanting to be kept informed of updates: Our website: www.sectus.org LJ announcements community: sectus_2007 LJ discussion community: sectus_chat Additionally, all major announcements will be made to the HPfGU lists and distributed to the major websites. If you run a website and would like to receive press releases, please email chair at sectus.org. Everyone registered for the conference will receive our newsletter, The Snake's Quill, direct to their inbox. If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me directly, off-list. I look forward to welcoming you to London next summer! 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 kjones at telus.net Sun Sep 3 20:37:21 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:37:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as a Horcrux theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FB3D01.8070602@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157830 justcarol67 wrote: > Carol responds: But would Dumbledore have taken Harry to > Madam Pomfrey? Given the next step in the process you outline (Snape > and his Dark Mark), wouldn't DD have had his young Dark Arts expert > examine Baby!Harry? ("Professor Snape knows a lot more about the Dark > Arts than Madam Pomfrey, Harry," HBP, quoted from memory). Not only > would Snape know what to look for, he'd be right there on the scene, > having already showed up to tell DD about the fading Dark Mark. And > we'd have an ironclad reason for DD to trust snape. they'd have been > working together to save Harry and figure out how to fight Voldemort > from the beginning. Kj writes: We can safely agree to disagree on the horcrux theory. I have been wrong before and will be again.:-) The last book will sort everything out. I don't think that DD would have necessarily relied on Snape's abilities in the Dark Arts at that point in time as he would have been too young to know all that much. I don't know if DD even confided his suspicions to Snape at that time, or if Snape knew enough to suspect all on his own. I am thinking that DD would have taken Harry to Pomfrey for medical treatment, but not necessarily to confirm whether or not Harry had an addition. It would be easy for Hagrid to pick him up there and take him to Dursleys. It's just a possibility, and not necessarily important to the plot. > Carol responds: I think they've been > working together all along. (Needless to say, I also believe in > DDM!Snape. But you know that already.) KJ writes: I am also firmly in the DDM! Snape camp. > KJ: >> We also don't know if Voldemort has any idea what might be > causing the connection between himself and Harry. We do know from HBP > that he occludes against Harry to prevent him knowing what is being > plotted. I suspect that Snape was kept out of the loop because of his > contact with Dumbledore. If Voldemort is convinced that Snape is not > an Occlumens, he would not want to risk Dumbledore discovering the > plan in Snape's mind. > > Carol responds: > I'm not quite sure what you mean here. However, I don't think that > Voldemort know Snape is an Occlumens who's so good at it that he can > lie without being detected. Otherwise, LV would never say anything in > front of Snape or believe anything he says. And it would be suicide, > IMO, for DDM!Snape to tell Voldemort that he was giving Harry > Occlumency lessons because that would give away Snape's great secret. > I'm not talking about the ordinary, easily detectable Occlumency that > even Draco can do. I'm talking about snape as "superb Occlumens" who > can conceal memories and emotions without being detected. KJ writes: Sorry, I wasn't clear here. I'm sure that Voldemort has no idea that Snape is an Occlumens. That seemed to be what was making Snape so nervous when DD insisted that Harry be taught Occlumency. That always bothered me that DD set Snape that task knowing full well that Harry was an open conduit to Voldemort. I think it is also suggestive that DD told Harry that he thought it was too dangerous to open Harry's mind further while in DD's presence. So this tells us that the Occlumency lessons did open Harry's mind to further attack. I wonder what DD meant by it being too dangerous for him to be in Harry's presence. What danger? For which of them, Harry or Dumbledore would it have been dangerous? What might have happened? > Carol responds: > I take it that the last suggestion is a joke. the third seems too > inconclusive but at least consistent with DDM!Snape. But I don't see > how you can reconcile the first two with DDM!Snape unless Snape is > both DDM! and evil. KJ writes: I don't have any more of a problem with Snape continuing to do things that he would REALLY rather not do, in the interest of ending the threat to the wizarding world. You are able to reconcile the murder of Dumbledore with DDM! Snape, as am I. So either of the first two alternatives seem reasonable to me and explain why it was so necessary in DD's mind that Snape be in a position close to Voldemort. I don't believe that DD sacrificed himself only for Draco. I think these scenarios less likely because Snape would take the hero's place instead of Harry. I think the real ending will come down to Harry choosing to make a choice. I won't even go into what choice that might be because it just irritates you. As far as ending 3 is concerned, you and I have both torn our hair out over unsatisfactory, and ambiguous endings. There is nothing to say that JKR won't do it to us. The fourth ending is, yes, a joke. However, being a Capricorn, and in the interests of sheer practicality, if I were the PM that's what I would do. Capricorns possibly do not make the best writers.:-) KJ From random832 at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 20:46:49 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 16:46:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609031346l70dfe71at73961af4d183add6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157831 On 9/3/06, Geoff Bannister wrote: > If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have > to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. No, we don't. We know neither that Harry's death would be necessary nor that it would be sufficient to dispose of a soul fragment embedded in him or in his scar. And DD has already spoken on the danger of making a horcrux out of something that is alive. Geoff: > Final thought. Now, if Harry is a Horcrux - or carrying a Horcrux > ? depending on your view, and if Voldemort knows that he is, > why has he attempted to kill Harry on several occasions which > would not do the soul fragment in him a lot of good? Random832: Well, I don't think that Voldemort knows that he is. I also don't think that killing him would destroy the horcrux. Most ways of killing someone leave a body. (this is also another reason to think that the curse that rebounded on Voldemort was not the killing curse) -- Random832 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 20:56:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:56:00 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157832 --- "Sydney" wrote: > > Steve: > > > In the /reality/ of the theory, Draco simply makes > > it known through a set of inconsequential circumstances > > (condensed version) that he knows a secret way into > > Hogwarts. Once that information reachs Voldemort, by > > whatever means, he calls Draco to a confab. In that > > conference, Voldemort makes his assignments. > > Sydney: > > This does indeed make sense and would make a good plot... > but it's just plain not in the book. Despite endless > opportunities to have someone mention it. It's not like > this is a documentary, and JKR just didn't have the > footage! > bboyminn: Tremendous amounts of the story are not in the book. The author is aways expecting us to fill in the backstory with references she makes in the fore-story. In fact the story at ('at' not 'of') Spinners End is not in the book. Spinners End is NOT Draco and Voldemort face-to-face, and it is not an eye witness account of the Draco/Voldemort meeting, which means we can't actually know what happened there. We are both (you and I) filling in the backstory with assumptions made from our read of the fore-story. What Spinners End is is characters, primarily a near hysterically distraught mother, giving a second-hand account and personal interpretation of what happened in the Draco/Voldemort meeting. It is what the author wants us to know in that time and place in the story, but when we have the whole story, we reasonably fill in the missing pieces. Further, it is clear that all the character, all the players, at Spinners End know something, but it is equally clear that none of them knows everything. Each has been told what Voldemort saw fit for them to know. We don't know that Voldemort gave Narcissa the whole truth, in fact we know for a fact that he didn't. It is possible that in his conversation with Narcissa Voldemort emphasized that he had given Draco an impossible task as a means of getting back at Lucius, and I've agreed that was probably an aspect of it. But all Narcissa knows and the impressions she formed were forced on her by Voldemort (likely), and Voldemort's agenda with Narcissa may be different than his agenda with Draco. Remember, I've never denied the 'Voldemort's revenge' aspect, in fact, it plays a major role in my theory. Like it or not there is a huge off-page backstory here, so what is it? Draco and Voldemort had a meeting, how and why did that come about? Revenge for revenge sake falls short for me, Revenge as a nice juicy bonus of a real plan to accomplish something makes more sense. > Sydney: > > But there is no fig, or a corner of a fig, or even a > fig-leaf hinting at a fig. Neither, for that matter, > is there a bowl of fruit. .. > bboyminn: Yes, but I will remind you that you can't see the painting either. You are taking as absolute fact someone's fear that there might be an apple in a painting that you can't personally see, and in a painting that the 'fearful' person has never seen in it's entirety. It may be a strong indicator of what is likely to be in the painting, but it is not proof. Keep in mind that I've never denied that there was an apple in the painting. I've just said that there is more to the painting than we know, and there absolutely is. There is absolutely something hiding behind the bowl of fruit, and there are clues that it might be a fig. > > Steve: > > > I've said before, that my theory does not alter the > > plot in any way. > > > Sydney: > > Well, I'm afraid it does. The plot as presented in > the book, is Voldemort has a plan to punish Lucius > by killing Draco. bboyminn: If your interpretation hinges on the 'Draco killing Dumbledore' task and my interpretation hinges on 'Draco killing Dumbledore' task then why would either scenario play out any different? You seem to keep forgetting, that I'm sure Voldemort asked Draco to kill Dumbledore as a way of making the entire Malfoy family squirm. But if all he wants to do is kill Draco, then why doesn't he just kill him? Or why doesn't he just torture him? Again, why waste all the time and resources on a do nothing plan? Unless as a secondary benefit, the plan actually is a plan and actually does have the potential accomplish something beyond annoying the Malfoys? > > Steve: > > > Why Draco? Why not someone else? Well, secrecy for > > one. Also, who better than Draco to fix the cabinet. > > ... If not Draco, then, realistically, who? > > Sydney: > > It's not "and of course the juicy revenge aspect" The > juicy revenge aspect IS THE PLOT. This is the part where > you alter the plot. > bboyminn: I take your point here as you've made it several times before, but you are ignoring the context. The question is /if/ Voldemort knows then why does Draco fix the Cabinet instead of someone else? The answer is because Draco is already there and he already knows the secret. Since you claim, apparently, that only Draco knows about the cabinet, it's understandable why you would question the question. > > Steve: > > > Finally, you keep asking for canon, but before I > > give it let me point out that Spinner's End does > > not confirm Betsy's or Magpie's view. I think their > > interpretation is the way that JKR wanted us to > > interpret the books ... But Spinner's End only > > expresses Narcissa's views, it doesn't confirm > > them. > > > Sydney: > > ... > > But what's going on here, is that we're shown a drawing > JKR has labelled 'Rabbit' ... and you're saying, "it's > not a rabbit, it's a.... lesser variegated Welsh *HARE*! > See how she's cunningly not revealed the characteristic > stripe of dark fur that normally tips the ears of this > species!" > > ... > bboyminn: I'm sure you'll be surprised to find that I agree with this analogy 100%. The picture is labeled 'Rabbit', and so you accept that it is a rabbit. I say it is a 'Welch Hare' which, as you pointed out, is a rabbit. So, my version doesn't contradict your, as I have been saying all along, my version is simply your version with details. > > Steve: > > > Neither is Spinner's End confirmed. We are made to > > think Narcissa is expressing Voldemort's motivation. > > But she is an extremely distraught mother worried > > about her husband's screw up and her son involvement > > way over his head. She has ever reason to worry, but > > we have no proof that her version is the correct > > version. > > Sydney: > > JKR has a very limited set of means to convey plot > points. She either sticks tightly to what Harry knows, > or she shows us a scene 'cold', without any helpful > narrative additions. She doesn't have any way to > express Voldemort's motivation, except through dialogue. > bboyminn: Surprisingly, I agree. I'm not challenging what Narcissa said at Spinners End, what I am challenging is your absolute assertion that it is the whole and complete story based on the ramblings of a distraught mother who has second-hand information that was probably conveyed with a separate agenda of it's own. Again, I've never denied that your interpretation is the story, just that it isn't the /whole/ story. > Steve: > > > Admittedly, I am filling in a little of the off-page > > backstory, but that back story fits my interpretation > > of the book to a tee. > > Sydney: > > But, it's still a fig that's not the bowl. ... > bboyminn: And all you know is that someone who has not seen the whole picture is afraid that there is an apple in the bowl. I'm not denying there is an apple, I'm denying your absolute certainty that there are ONLY apples. Who knows there might be a pear. > > Steve: > > > Still, it has been a hell of a fun discussion and a very > > nice break from Horcruxes and Snape. > > Sydney: > > Yay! I'm having fun with this one, I hope everyone else > is too... > bboyminn; I see now that this thread is winding down, a Snape thread is taking over as the dominate post. Well, I guess it keeps the Snape fans off the streets. Steve/bboyminn From CliffVDY at juno.com Sun Sep 3 20:29:57 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:29:57 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157833 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" Carol wrote: >I don't know about anyone else, but I feel as if Hogwarts is a >character in the HP books and HP won't be HP without Hogwarts. What's >going to happen to her? Him! Or are buildings feminine? Yes, I agree that Hogwarts not only must remain, but Harry will attend for #7. >Wouldn't he want to >steal that sword and make it a Horcrux? and if the tiara in the RoR is >theRavenclaw Horcrux (not saying that it is), wouldn't he want to >retrieve it? There are many items in these books which will never be disclosed. JKR has spun a very wide web to catch a small fly. Not all of the web is needed, but makes for delightful reading. Filch doesn't know about it. Also, the web is full of holes as is Hogwarts. > I rather expect both Filch and >Hagrid to be killed (no, I don't think Filch will ever do magic, but >he might throw furniture polish in someone's eyes before he's AK'd.) Filch isn't a wizard, but he may be able to do *some* magic. I'm a Muggle that does a bit. >What does everyone think? Will there be a battle of Hogwarts? Are the >protections in place? Are there other protections we don't know about? >Will help still be given to those who ask for it even though >Dumbledore is dead? When you want information, you must carefully weigh it. Often, what isn't said is more important than what is. The same may be true of JKR. She may be a defective detective author. Cliff, who hopes Hogwarts reopens, Arthur Weasley becomes headmaster, and Harry kills Voldemort almost be accident. I'll let the romantics vie for the rest. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 3 21:10:26 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:10:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... References: Message-ID: <00ba01c6cf9d$6195a510$cc66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157834 Carol responds: > I see. Thank you for finally explaining your interpretation. However, > as I've said, we don't know Voldemort's motivation, and I've never > denied Draco's character arc though I see a larger role for > Dumbledore's mercy than you seem to. Magpie: Yes, in your version, as I read it when you described it, Draco is a Jr. DE would-be murderer going along in his task (to fix the cabinet in order to kill DD), his only anxiety being that Voldemort will kill him if he fails to get that Cabinet fixed and it's hard. He almost kills two people but has little reaction to that because he doesn't have a problem having the blood of two Gryffindors, especially a blood traitor, on his hands. He'd kill more bystanders if Snape didn't warn him off it for purely utilitarian reasons. He shows up on the Tower as ready to kill as he was in September, and is shocked to discover he's not doing it. Dumbledore's mercy, as I understood it, is almost like a magical spell or gift (metaphorically, not literally). It reminded me--and I don't mean this sarcastically--somewhat of the turnaround of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas." In my version, the arc is about Draco's growing realization he's not that DE and never was, and that killing is actually not as easy as he, an innocent, believed (and not just for practical reasons). Former allies like Snape become threats because he is not one of them. He shows up on the Tower on the edge of a breakdown already, and meets with a Dumbledore who understands and offers him help he's only earned the ability to understand and appreciate through what he's been through. I think the storyline over the course of the year prepares Draco for being able to accept and understand Dumbledore's mercy. Carol: > > However, IMO, this business about the job being to kill Dumbledore by > any means possible is inaccurate. It's definitely about killing > Dumbldore with the DEs as backup, which is only possible if he fixes > the cabinets. The meas and the necklace are not part of the plan; they > are desperation measures, and once Snape warns him off using such > clumsy and amateurish measures and lets him know that he's already > suspected in the necklac incident, he stops. Magpie: See, but why not take the fact that the mead and the necklace happen as proof that they are part of the plan? That way you don't have to explain them away. It just seems completely backwards. I also don't think Draco stops these kinds of measures because Snape warns him off them because the necklace was poorly done. That gets again to the heart of the arc--my version looks to Draco himself for a reason not to continue to try these kinds of things despite threats from Voldemort. In your version he stops because Snape told him not to in a conversation where Draco was openly defying Snape. And there was no reason for him to try them anyway because it's supposed to be about fixing the cabinet. Also as I said in the other post to Pippin, the Voldemort Cabinet Plot means Draco's drawing confidence from fulfilling Voldemort's orders rather than being an individual responding uniquely to Voldemort's orders in a way that Dumbledore can praise. Carol: He concentrates on the cabinet. Why? > Because that's the plan. that's what Voldemort expects him to do. Magpie: I disagree completely. If Voldemort is expecting him to do it via Cabinet he had no reason to try the mead and necklace to begin with. I think he stops trying these things because he really didn't like the results. That's why DD can confidently tell Draco he's not a killer from the beginning of the Tower scene and Draco is already defensive about it. Carol: > > And here's the canon. The "Sectumsempra" chapter takes place in May > (not April 21, as I said earlier, sorry), at least two months after > Ron's recovery and seven months after Katie's encounter with the > necklace. Katie has just returned to school. Draco has no reason to be > concerned with either of them. The cabinet is still broken after all > these months. Harry passes it on his way to hide the HBP's Potions > book, but of course, its importance doesn't register. (Nice ironic > touch, by the way. He's been trying all this time to get into the RoR > the way it looks when Draco is in there, and here he is, but he > doesn't know it. Lovely the way JKR works.) Draco is crying in the > bathroom. Here's what he says to Moaning Myrtle: > > "No one can help me. I can't do it. . . . I can't. . . . It won't > work. . . and unless I do it soon . . . . he says he'll kill me" (HBP > Am. ed., italics in original). > > Read those words any way you like to fit your theory. I read them as, > "I can't fix the cabinet and Voldemort says that if I don't fix it > soon, he'll kill me." Magpie: I read them, as "I can't fix the Cabinet and this is what I have fastened my hopes on as a way of killing Dumbledore because I'm not doing anything else. If I don't kill Dumbledore soon, Voldemort says he'll kill me." It fits with everything we see in canon. He's got to kill Dumbledore. Carol: > > Voldemort's motives are open to interpretation. Here's this possibly workable > plan with the cabinets, a chance to get DEs into Hogwarts and just > possibly succeed in killing Dumbledore once he's caught off guard and > wandless, and, if not, he can kill the boy for failing. (I do think > that the DE's orders were botched, whatever Voldemort's plan.) Magpie: Voldemort's motives are open to interpretation if you reject the only motives we're given in the text. But the version where Voldemort's focused on his plan to kill DD via the Cabinets is acknowledged even here to be flawed: the DEs orders have to be botched somehow to explain how what happens really doesn't make it look like Voldemort's focused on a great plan to kill Dumbledore by getting his DEs into the castle. It fits fine with the idea that he just said Draco had to kill DD, and Draco came up with the Cabinet plan, which surprised Dumbledore, who'd been aware of the orders to kill him all along. Carol:> > But regardless of how we interpret Voldemort's motives, my point is > that Voldemort not only knows about Draco's cabinet plan, he's in on > it and is pressuring Draco to keep up his end of the bargain. Nothing > about killing Dumbledore by any means possible. Magpie: But I just don't understand why you would want to make this point when we see Draco attempting to kill Dumbledore via other means. Those plot developments wind up just dangling from the story as a mistake on somebody's part instead of directly leading towards the climax. Carol: I'm surprised that he > gave Draco till may before he started personally issuing death > threats. (I realize that I'm interpreting here, but there's a lot of > difference between crying hysterically in the bathroom and defying > Professor Snape. He was under pressure before, but it couldn't have > been death threats from Voldemort himself or he'd have broken a lot > sooner. Just IMO.) Magpie: I think the pressure he felt earlier was his growing awareness that he didn't have the nature for this sort of work--Voldemort's threats may have started in earnest once Draco was beginning to see things more realistically. This fits both why Draco makes the attempts with the mead and the necklace and also why he makes no more attempts after that and concentrates on the cabinets. -m From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 3 20:59:24 2006 From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:59:24 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157835 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > If I might reiterate some of my thoughts on the topic of > Harry being a Non-crux > This for me also ties in with the question of whether Harry will > still be alive at the end. > > If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have > to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. > The alternative is to face Voldemort knowing that he will go > down with him. And that places him on a hiding to nothing. > He has got no real choice in that eventuality. > But I do believe that the way in which Jo Rowling has constructed > her story has encouraged folk of all ages; for Harry not to > emerge alive from a final encounter would undo the integrity > of the themes in the eyes of many people. What I have written > are obviously subjective, personal views and not everyone will > agree with me but I shall be deeply disappointed if Harry failed > to reach the end of Book 7. > > Final thought. Now, if Harry is a Horcrux - or carrying a Horcrux > ? depending on your view, and if Voldemort knows that he is, > why has he attempted to kill Harry on several occasions which > would not do the soul fragment in him a lot of good? Sally: Just to say I totally agree that Harry is not a horcrux, and even though I'm not sure where, I am certain that I have read JKR totally denying the rumour that Harry is a horcrux. I am also pretty certain that in HBP, DD does say that if Nagini is a horcrux, then it is very strange that LV would place part of soul inside another living soul, as it would have more chance of being destroyed through being killed. If LV meant Harry to be a horcrux in the first place, then why did he try to kill him in Godric's Hollow? Harry's death was meant to be the murder that would make the next horcrux. We know that LV must not have made Horcruxes with every murder, only with particually special ones. Harry was meant to die because LV immediately saw him as a threat, and so would have been the only other person in his way (other than DD). This would have been an important and significant murder, and so he would have isolated it for the making of a horcrux. Of course, this is not particularly canon, however, if you read between the lines of what DD instructs Harry, then it does make sense. All though as we know, there is a bit of LV in Harry, DD does say that it was unintentional. I think LV would have to intend to make Harry a horcrux. Sorry if this is repeating what everyone else has been saying, it's just that the info is there in the canon, and IMO the conspiracy theorists have taken the whole horcrux spell on a murder too far. Sally, who is probably way off the mark, but wanted to get that off her chest anyway!! From mros at xs4all.nl Sun Sep 3 22:21:32 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:21:32 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... References: Message-ID: <000a01c6cfa7$4f88eee0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 157836 Carol: >>>However, IMO, this business about the job being to kill Dumbledore by any means possible is inaccurate. It's definitely about killing Dumbldore with the DEs as backup, which is only possible if he fixes the cabinets. The meas and the necklace are not part of the plan; they are desperation measures, and once Snape warns him off using such clumsy and amateurish measures and lets him know that he's already suspected in the necklac incident, he stops. He can't do anything about the mead, which doesn't appear until March 1, but he doesn't try anything else of the sort. He concentrates on the cabinet. Why? Because that's the plan. that's what Voldemort expects him to do.<<< Marion: My 2 cents on the thing: I think killing Dumbledore *is* the job. An impossible job: how is a sixteen year old boy, who doesn't even have his Apparation license yet, to kill the greatest wizard alive? In a duel? Not a chance. So he tries poison and the necklace. Amateurish? I should hope so! He's a *boy*. He's never been exposed to *death* before (he couldn't see the Thestrals). So he tries poison and that necklace. What are the great advantages off poison and a device like that necklace? You don't have to be up close and personal for it to work. It's anonymous. It's difficult to kill. It is very Voldemort to come up with such a win-win scenario. If Draco fails to kill Dumbledore, he kills the boy thus getting revenge against Lucius. If Draco succeeds, then he has blood on his hands, a situation that Lucius seems to have tried to protect his only son from. Marion, who wonders if Lucius really knew what he was doing slipping that diary into Ginny's bag. For all we know he just wanted to get rid off the evidence before Arthur Weasley and his Ministry buddies raided his house, looking for Dark objects. What better way to get rid of a thing that once belonged to a Dark Lord you joined when you were young and foolish (which you might regret now that you're happily married and a pillar of society and a *father*) then to plant in on your nemesis' youngest child. Oh, yes, Voldemort is mightely pissed off at Lucius and not just because of a botched job at the MoM.... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 3 22:21:56 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:21:56 EDT Subject: Harry as a Horcrux theory Message-ID: <3b2.91ee938.322caf84@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157837 KJ wrote: My feeling is that Dumbledore had suspicions that Harry might be carrying a piece of Voldemort. We have Harry missing for several hours after the attack on Godric's Hollow, and we have conversation between Hagrid and Minerva at Hogwarts. It seems likely that Harry was taken to Madam Pomfrey to be checked out, at least for injuries before being taken to the Dursleys. Dumbledore was the only one who had heard the entire prophesy, assuming, of course, that we have heard the entire prophesy. He knew that Harry had been "marked as his equal." Julie: I agree that this is a good possibility, but I suspect Harry was taken to *Snape* to be checked out. We learned from HBP that Snape is the goto man for maladies related to the Dark Arts. This would also add toward explaining why Hagrid seems to unconditionally support Snape (a Slytherin no less) up to and including refusing to believe Snape had killed Dumbledore. (Yes, some others like McGonagall seemed shocked, but they didn't go into flat out denial like Hagrid did.) KJ: So, in Book 7, we know that Harry has some horcruxes to get rid of, we know that Snape is going to play a part somehow, and we know that Voldemort has to be stopped, because that is basically the challenge facing the heroes. We know that Snape has obeyed Dumbledore implicitly throughout the books but we do not know if that is going to continue. We also don't know if Voldemort has any idea what might be causing the connection between himself and Harry. We do know from HBP that he occludes against Harry to prevent him knowing what is being plotted. I suspect that Snape was kept out of the loop because of his contact with Dumbledore. If Voldemort is convinced that Snape is not an Occlumens, he would not want to risk Dumbledore discovering the plan in Snape's mind. Dumbledore had little or no contact with Draco, so the risk was not the same. Julie: If Snape did have contact with baby!Harry right after Godric's Hollow, he may know more about horcruxes than we suspect. In fact, I feel certain Snape does know about the horcruxes, if not from the beginning then from the moment he had to stop the damage to Dumbledore's hand from the ring horcrux. I can't quite buy that a Potions Master like Snape would not recognize exactly what would have caused the deadly curse destroying Dumbledore's hand. KJ: So, on that basis I can see the book ending in several ways: 1. Voldemort kills Harry, the last "horcrux" and Snape kills Voldemort while he is dancing a jig over Harry. 2. Harry kills Voldemort, a lucky accident, and Snape snuffs Harry. 3. Harry and Snape kill Voldemort, Snape knows he is a horcrux but can't bring himself to obey Dumbledore's last orders. We are left wondering if Voldemort returns. 4. The Prime Minister advises the British military that there is a terrorist cell operating out of the old Riddle house, and they obligingly blow all three of our characters out of existance.:-) Julie: 5. Voldemort and Harry end up behind the veil, where if Harry is a horcrux or has part of Voldemort's soul in him by some other accidental method, that soul piece would separate from Harry's body (and soul) and glom onto Voldy's other soul bits, forming one complete (if severely shredded) soul. Thus Voldemort dies, and is left with whatever patched together souls get. Snape does play a role, perhaps takingout one or more horcruxes, or helping Harry manipulate Voldemort behind the veil. (Or Snape goes with them and also stays as he has no way back out?) Meanwhile, our beloved hero Harry deservedly returns to the living by some as yet unknown method (which will surely make sense once we read it ;-) Julie, determined that Harry should live [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 23:09:59 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 23:09:59 -0000 Subject: Was Snape asleep? (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <554.63011b0.322b84a4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157838 > Julie: > It seems like there are three possiblilities- > > 1. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep due to the late hour, > but Snape hadn't even gone to bed yet. Perhaps he was behind on > his exam-grading, or had other things to catch up on, or he had a > sense that he might be needed at a moment's notice. If he did have > such a sense, did he get it from Dumbledore, or Voldemort, or was > it his own inner intuition that things were coming to a head? > > 2. Dumbledore expected Snape to be asleep because he had > put some sort of sleeping spell on Snape purposely, perhaps to > keep Snape from knowing about or protesting the dangerous > cave expedition. This explains why Snape would be sleeping in > his office still wearing his robes, but leaves the question of how > the spell was removed. If Dumbledore expected Harry to be able > to wake Snape, he must have used a spell he could remove from > a distance, or one that would end if anyone attempted to wake > Snape directly. > > 3. It's a mistake by JKR, and the inconsistency was missed by the > editors. In which case, it will just be another minor red herring that > won't ever be addressed in the story. And that leaves us to choose > for ourselves which alternative above fits our individual perspectives > on the story and both characters... zgirnius: I would like to suggest 4. Like Dumbledore's comment that he did not believe it possible that Death Eaters could be gotten into the castle, this could serve as a clue that Dumbledore and Snape were not expecting Draco's plan to come to a head as it did that night. So, Dumbledore assumed Snape was asleep because it was late, he was not on guard duty while Dumbledore was away from the school, and there was no other particular reason for Snape to stay aware. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 23:32:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 23:32:15 -0000 Subject: Draco's arc (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: <00ba01c6cf9d$6195a510$cc66400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157839 Carol earlier: > > I see. Thank you for finally explaining your interpretation. However, as I've said, we don't know Voldemort's motivation, and I've never denied Draco's character arc though I see a larger role for Dumbledore's mercy than you seem to. > > Magpie: > Yes, in your version, as I read it when you described it, Draco is a Jr. DE would-be murderer going along in his task (to fix the cabinet in order to kill DD), his only anxiety being that Voldemort will kill him if he fails to get that Cabinet fixed and it's hard. He almost kills two people but has little reaction to that because he doesn't have a problem having the blood of two Gryffindors, especially a blood traitor, on his hands. He'd kill more bystanders if Snape didn't warn him off it for purely utilitarian reasons. He shows up on the Tower as ready to kill as he was in September, and is shocked to discover he's not doing it. Dumbledore's mercy, as I understood it, is almost like a magical spell or gift (metaphorically, not literally). It reminded me--and I don't mean this sarcastically--somewhat > of the turnaround of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas." Carol responds: That's a bit harsher and colder than my actual view of Draco. I certainly never said that he'd kill more bystanders if Snape hadn't warned him off (though Snape *does* present purely utilitarian reasons to protect his cover). Nor do I think he's as ready to kill as he was in September (though he's not consciously aware of the change in himself) or that Dumbledore's mercy operates like a spell (it's more that he's receptive to it, as he would not have been at the beginning of the year). I think that the experience on the tower is an epiphany for Draco, in which he realizes what Dumbledore already knew, that he's not a killer. I'm not sure whether I wasn't clear or whether you're reading in something that I didn't say. Let me try again (and I'm not arguing with you or saying that I'm right; just trying to clarify my own position). I do think that Draco is "a junior DE" on the train. He's always idealized his father and he's angry about his father's arrest (and is still angry at Christmastime--note the point at which he walks out on Snape), and someone, either Bellatrix or Voldemort, has presented him with the idea that killing Dumbledore will win him "glory." He's proud of his cabinet plan (as indicated by the tower scene), tough of course he doesn't speak of it to his friends, and of being given an important job by Voldemort. But there's already an important change in him that we see again in the confrontation with Snape--he's lost his interest in education. He no longer sees it as important. His future, he thinks, is with the Dark Lord, who is going to take over. He's no longer even interested in throwing his authority around as a Prefect. By the time we see him with Snape, he's still contemptuous of school but now he's getting a bit desperate--pale with bags under his eyes as if he's losing sleep, and he's already given up Quidditch. Someone is pressuring him to get on with the cabinet plan or kill DD in some other way--hence, the ill-judged attempts at killing him using the necklace and the mead. I don't see any remorse for these actions. He keeps quiet about the mead and denies involvement with the necklace "that Bell girl must have an enemy." His relationship with Snape has changed for reasons we've already discussed. He seems to view him as a rival determined to thwart his efforts, to interfere and "steal his glory," rather than as a respected teacher and concerned Head of House. He lies, talks back, resists all Snape's efforts to help (though I do think he listens to the practical advice not to resort to amateurish tactics that could get him in trouble). His relationship with Harry doesn't seem to have changed, however-- it's still antagonistic in the few encounters we see (Draco with the two "girls" before the Quidditch match and the Apparition lessons, not to mention the Sectumsempra incident). I don't see any concern for what happened to Katie or to Ron at any point in the books (maybe not because "Weasley" is a Blood Traitor so much as because his mind is on other things). Still, the reaction to Katie seems both indifferent to her fate and irresponsible, not to mention dishonest in denying involvement. By the time we see him crying in the bathroom, those incidents are long past (and since both Ron and Katie have fully recovered, he has no reason to think about them or to feel remorse). His tears relate, not to them, but to his very real fear that he'll fail to fix the cabinet and be killed. (See his words to Moaning Myrtle that I quoted upthread). By this time, his eyes have been opened about what it means to be a DE. I don't know whether his loyalties have shifted--he still thinks Dumbledore is a "stupid old man"--but he certainly sees now that serving the Dark Lord is a dangerous business and that Voldemort has no more concern for his followers than for his enemies. But Draco is still perfectly willing to Crucio Harry (Harry still needs to learn to leave that particular curse alone, too. I realize). But then Draco gets another dose of reality--Harry nearly kills him (unintentionally, of course), and he's only saved because Snape and no one else happened to find him. (I wonder if, now that it's over, Draco has thought about that.) But now Draco has had a taste of death. It's a very important lesson, but at the moment it only serves, I think, to intensify his *own* fear of death. And the pressure also intensifies. We learn on the tower that his family is being threatened, too. (It's interesting that we learn in HBP that even Death Eater families love each other. Narcissa loves her son and he loves his parents.) So Draco is no longer the confident, pro-Voldemort junior Death Eater that we saw at the beginning of the book, but IMO, he's not remorseful or concerned about having to commit murder, either. What we see in the bathroom where he's white, shaking, and crying, is pure fear bordering on despair. But Draco isn't the coward he's depicted as being in the films, nor is he as helpless and clueless as the adults think he is. He's resourceful and determined and he pulls himself together, returns to his work on the cabinet, and succeeds in repairing it, whooping with joy and triumph as if his mission is accomplished. He's succeeded in his plan, or at least what he considers to be the hard part of it. Now all he has to do is call in the Death Eaters, lead them to the tower, and dispatch the foolish old Muggle lover after the DEs have lured him there with a Drk Mark. He'll get the glory and Snape will wake up disappointed, as Draco tells DD on the tower. So, for the moment, Draco is reveling in his triumph, forgetting the lessons that he's learned--that the Dark Lord is a harsh master who views his followers as expendable and is quicker to Crucio them than reward them and that death is a terrible and scary thing (unless you're Dumbledore, and he doesn't know about DD's "next great adventure" view of the subject). Getting onto the tower isn't quite as easy as he expected (the Order members weren't supposed to be there) and he's not particularly happy that Fenrir Greyback is one of the crowd, but still, when he gets to the top of the tower, he thinks he's going to do the job, and the first thing he does is cast a disarming spell. And there he is, faced with an unarmed, helpless Dumbledore, who's unexpectedly weak and at his mercy. But something has happened. He's not the person he thought he was. He doesn't cast the AK and gloat in triumph. He hesitates. He procrastinates. He listens to Dumbledore and answers his questions, even seeming happy to receive his praise for the cabinet idea that he's been so proud of and worked so hard on. Dumbledore is still, in his view, a foolish old man who doesn't know that Snape is a double agent (I, of course, think that DD is right to trust Snape but that's another topic), but, like Harry in the Shrieking Shack, he finds that killing isn't as easy as he thought even though, unlike Harry, he knows the proper curse. Draco has reached a turning point. If the DEs hadn't come in, Dumbledore might have persuaded him to go into hiding. (As it is, he'll have to choose on his own, later, whether to hide or to fight and whose side to fight on.) They pressure Draco, but he can't act. Killing isn't as easy as he thought. Not even fear for his life can make him do it. He doesn't put the wand down, but he lowers it a fraction of an inch. And then Snape comes in and takes matters out of his hands, pushing him out of the way, killing DD himself (stealing his "glory" after all), grabbing him by the scruff of the neck like a mother cat with her kitten, and in general, reducing him to the level of a child again when he's just days from his seventeenth birthday. Draco obeys Snape and runs out the gate, Apparating--where? To Voldemort? To his mother? We don't know. His fate and his choices are an open question until Book 7. Draco has, I agree with you, come a long way, if not to manhood then very close to it, much closer than he was at the beginning of the book. He's reached a crucial fork in the road. Unfortunately for him, he's also a fugitive and a criminal, guilty at the least of criminal endangerment, attempted murder, and accessory to murder even if he didn't Imperio Rosmerta himself, in which case he's also guilty of an Unforgiveable Curse. (I think he had a DE accomplice, but again, we don't know.) He's still underage, but only for a few days. What will happen? Will he be killed? Will he be given a chance to choose? Where does Snape fit in? Carol, hoping that Snape will show Draco what it means to be Dumbledore's man, even though Dumbledore is dead and they, together, brought about that death From carodave92 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 00:15:47 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:15:47 -0000 Subject: Draco's arc (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157840 Carol : > > I do think that Draco is "a junior DE" on the train. He's always > idealized his father and he's angry about his father's arrest (and is > still angry at Christmastime--note the point at which he walks out on > Snape), and someone, either Bellatrix or Voldemort, has presented him > with the idea that killing Dumbledore will win him "glory." He's proud > of his cabinet plan (as indicated by the tower scene), tough of course > he doesn't speak of it to his friends, and of being given an important > job by Voldemort. > > By the time we see him crying in the bathroom, those incidents are > long past (and since both Ron and Katie have fully recovered, he has > no reason to think about them or to feel remorse). His tears relate, > not to them, but to his very real fear that he'll fail to fix the > cabinet and be killed. (See his words to Moaning Myrtle that I quoted > upthread). By this time, his eyes have been opened about what it means > to be a DE. I don't know whether his loyalties have shifted--he still > thinks Dumbledore is a "stupid old man"--but he certainly sees now > that serving the Dark Lord is a dangerous business and that Voldemort > has no more concern for his followers than for his enemies. So, for the > moment, Draco is reveling in his triumph, forgetting the lessons that > he's learned--that the Dark Lord is a harsh master who views his > followers as expendable and is quicker to Crucio them than reward them > and that death is a terrible and scary thing > Draco has reached a turning point. If the DEs hadn't come in, > Dumbledore might have persuaded him to go into hiding. (As it is, > he'll have to choose on his own, later, whether to hide or to fight > and whose side to fight on.) Carodave: Interesting post - sorry I snipped so much, but as I was reading it, I realized in how many places you could substitute the name "Regulus" for the name "Draco". I never was a supporter of the'Regulus is in hiding'theories that passed a while back, but this post opened my eyes to the possibilities. Regulus was described as a young DE, similar to the way Carol describes Draco as a Jr. DE in her post. Both are looking for glory and to prove their family worth - Regulus as the good son in a Dark family, and Draco to avenge his father's arrest. At some point, both Regulus and Draco have their eyes opened to Voldemort's world - what it means to support him, and how dangerous and frightening it really is. Both learn what death really means, and how literal the name 'Death Eater' is. So it's not a big leap to say that maybe as they each reach a turning point and make a real decision about which side they want to fight for. We know by his note in the locket that Regulus comes to the conclusion that he's on the wrong side and wants to fight against Voldemort. Maybe he also had an encounter with Dumbledore and was offered protection in the form of a new identity, hiding, etc. Oh, awful thought, what if the protection was extended to his mum as well and that screaming spitting maniac in the portrait went into hiding with her son??? Well I guess that would make Kreacher happy...and it would be great to see that scary woman fighting against the DEs at the Battle of Hogwarts! Carodave From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 4 02:49:03 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 02:49:03 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: <006701c6cf7d$08f678f0$cc66400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157841 > > Pippin: > > The trouble is, if Voldemort just told Draco to kill Dumbledore in some > > way and left the means up to him, then Draco would have come up with > > some half-baked plan like the necklace and gotten himself caught (and > > killed, as Voldemort would expect) immediately. > > Magpie: > Why would Draco have done that? Pippin: Because that's what he does, in canon, when the cabinet plan doesn't work. The plans he comes up with are to kill Dumbledore, not to get backup in some other way. That suggests to me that the need for backup didn't originate with Draco. Nor do I think he would have made panicky feints like the necklace and the mead if he'd been cooly planning to do away with his Headmaster since the beginning of the summer. To me, he acts like he expected he wouldn't have to think about killing Dumbledore till he'd fixed the cabinets, so he wasn't troubled about it. Then he chose methods that would let him kill at a distance, so he wouldn't have to trouble about it. He didn't have to think about what it would really mean to kill until he was face to face with Dumbledore on the Tower. Then everything he'd been through caught up to him. The way I see it, Voldemort gave him the task of killing DD, supposedly as a way to recoup the family's honor, but actually to punish him, just as all the characters at Spinner's End agree. The fact that they're unanimous says to me that we don't need to go looking for other reasons. Magpie: The Cabinets are something Draco realized were a secret way into > the castle when Montague told the story, so why doesn't it follow that he > thought to use that in his plan to kill DD? That's the way I thought he > presented it in the Tower. Pippin: I agree with you that it was Draco, all by himself, who realized that the cabinets were a secret way into the school. But I think it was Voldemort who decided that Draco should be set to fixing the cabinet as a gateway for the DE's. IMO, Voldemort never expected the cabinets would actually work. Draco was told he needed backup to keep him from trying to do what he eventually did -- make an actual attempt on DD's life. Voldemort expected that if Draco did that, he would be discovered and killed and the game would be over. Of course Voldemort intended that to happen eventually, but he wanted it to be on his timetable, not Draco's. Voldemort is doing all this to amuse himself -- just crucio-ing Draco to insanity, for example, wouldn't be nearly so much fun. You could write a book where the villain was a psychopath who knew what he was and tried to outwit his psychosis, I suppose, but Voldemort is not that guy. Like Sauron, the only measure that he knows is desire. He desires to punish the Malfoys and therefore that is a project just as worthy of his attention as taking over the wizarding world. > Pippin: > > Fixing the cabinets is ideal for Voldemort's purposes, assuming that > > he thinks it can't be done. Draco will struggle forever, which means > > Voldemort can keep the game going as long as he likes, or end it > > whenever he chooses. It isn't in Draco's hands at all. > > Magpie: > Which gets back to the main point of the Cabinet First theory, which is to > always take as much out of Draco's hands as possible and make Voldemort's strategic planning dominate events. Pippin: Erm, Voldemort is the villain. His strategic planning is *supposed* to dominate events. Voldemort didn't and wouldn't, IMO, mean to leave anything in Draco's hands. But the plot of the book is IMO about Draco discovering that being a Death Eater is not the path to the attention and glory that he craves, that he is he is not as worthless and incapable as Voldemort thinks, that there is such a thing as mercy in the world, and that he does not want to be a killer. IMO, Draco conceived the plan to fix the cabinets and carried it through, despite what I see as his growing realization that Voldemort never expected him to do it. For that, he won Dumbledore's praise. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 02:52:33 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 02:52:33 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157842 > >>Sydney: > > This does indeed make sense and would make a good plot... > > but it's just plain not in the book. Despite endless > > opportunities to have someone mention it. It's not like > > this is a documentary, and JKR just didn't have the > > footage! > >>bboyminn: > Tremendous amounts of the story are not in the book. The > author is aways expecting us to fill in the backstory > with references she makes in the fore-story. Betsy Hp: Exactly. And there is nothing - not one single solitary thing that points to the cabinets coming first. JKR gives us nothing to work with. > >>bboymin: > In fact the story at ('at' not 'of') Spinners End is not in the > book. > Spinners End is NOT Draco and Voldemort face-to-face, and > it is not an eye witness account of the Draco/Voldemort > meeting, which means we can't actually know what happened > there. We are both (you and I) filling in the backstory > with assumptions made from our read of the fore-story. Betsy Hp: Right. And the reader doesn't know what task Draco has been assigned at that point in time. But we do know when the story is done because Dumbledore explains it all. And once again, there is nothing, nothing at all, to suggest that the cabinet is was started this whole ball rolling. And there's certainly nothing to suggest that Draco approached Voldemort. > >>bboyminn: > Like it or not there is a huge off-page backstory here, > so what is it? Draco and Voldemort had a meeting, how > and why did that come about? Betsy Hp: Well, yeah. And those questions get answered at the end of the book. As per usual. Voldemort told Draco to kill Dumbledore with the thought that Draco would die in the attempt. That's all we need to know. There certainly isn't anything hinting that there's more to the story -- which if there were more to the story we'd get. (Witness Snape's tale.) > >>bboyminn: > Revenge for revenge sake falls short for me, Revenge as a nice > juicy bonus of a real plan to accomplish something makes more > sense. Betsy Hp: And that's a personal issue. Voldemort isn't a satisfying villain for you. So you're making up this AU plot. But it *is* AU. Just like folks unsatisfied with the Harry/Ginny story in HBP make up stories about Ginny still being possessed or something. Which is fine. But it's not canon. > >>bboyminn: > Yes, but I will remind you that you can't see the > painting either. You are taking as absolute fact > someone's fear that there might be an apple in a > painting that you can't personally see, and in a > painting that the 'fearful' person has never seen > in it's entirety. Betsy Hp: Which means HBP was a waste of a story that will be thrown out completely when JKR tells us what *really* happened in book 7. Which could happen, but I doubt it. Dumbledore has summed up. It's like the fat lady singing. This part of Draco's story is done and we won't be revisiting it. Everything we need to know we've been told. There is no fig. :-) > >>Pippin: > > Bella teaches Draco occlumency. That must have taken place before > Draco's visit to Borgin and Burkes, and could be the reason Sydney > wants for Draco not going there sooner. > Betsy Hp: Why? Draco pretty much tells Borgin that he's doing this for Voldemort. What would Draco be protecting? Do we even have reason to suspect Borgin is a legilimens? It seems like a really weak excuse for waiting so long to check that the second cabinet was still avalible and the first cabinet even fixable. > >>Pippin: > IMO, if Voldemort wanted the cabinet fixed, he would certainly have > instructed Snape to help Draco fix it. > Betsy Hp: Yes. Combine that with the lack of big mission attached to the Death Eaters who actually invade Hogwarts and it goes a long way to suggesting the cabinets really weren't a big deal to Voldemort in the first place. (I mean, come on. It's not like Hogwarts is impregnable. Anyone who's wished to has managed to find their way inside.) Betsy Hp From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 4 03:46:49 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 03:46:49 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157843 zeroirregardless: > Maybe he doesn't want it, but Voldemort ordered him to try to get > it. Voldemort could presumably lift the curse -- or at least tell > Snape that he would. Potioncat: As Carol has pointed out, you've approached this from an ESE!Snape, and I can't fault you for that. But, consider. We know LV had a loyal DE in the DADA position--Barty Crouch. Yet it appears LV did not suspend the curse for him. I wonder if Crouch knew about the curse? Of course, we don't know if LV can remove the curse. Maybe LV has to actually be at Hogwarts to do that. Maybe he wasn't strong enough when he was part of Quirrellmort. > Having a DE as DADA teacher would have several benefits for > Voldemort. Yet we don't see Barty or Severus doing any of the things I snipped. Both seem to be teaching the course. Snape seems adamant that Harry learn the skills. >> Of course, Snape could want the job, and Voldemort could want him > to take it. Snape doesn't seem like someone who has that kind > of luck, though. Potioncat: Young Severus Snape might have wanted the job--or wanted recognition for his DADA knowlege and LV could have used that to get at him. Then LV could have urged Snape to apply for the job to get into Hogwarts. There is a little bit of disagreement about when the curse was placed on the DADA position. As early as 1955--as late as 1970s. At any rate, I would suspect there was a rumor of a curse without the verification of it. We don't really know what Snape thinks of it, or if he knows of it. We've seen a new DADA teacher each year, but I'm not sure it's canon that there has been a new one every single year since LV's visit (or does DD say something about it?) To my real point. I no longer think that Snape and DD had a firm understanding about the position. I used to think that Snape didn't want it, but pretended to so that LV would think he tried to get it. I used to think that Snape had full knowledge of the situation. I'm no longer so sure. DD doesn't really seem to tell very much to anyone. So I think we've had the red herring of Snape wanting the DADA, along with something of a red herring that Snape had cursed the position. (Prior to HBP) We may never know if he really wanted it or not. He certainly seemed to appreciate Potion Making. I am starting to feel more strongly that many of the characters are carrying out their own plans for their own reasons and not all or even many of them have anything to do with DD's plans. They are of course, plot driven, and determined by their own rich back stories. JKR decided what they say and how they act on page, and we have the fun of working out whether a character's actions are driven by personal goals or the ultimate goal. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Sep 4 04:09:19 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:09:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's arc (was Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?... References: Message-ID: <014301c6cfd7$e5e3aee0$cc66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157845 > Carol responds: > By the time we see him with Snape, he's still contemptuous of school > but now he's getting a bit desperate--pale with bags under his eyes as > if he's losing sleep, and he's already given up Quidditch. Someone is > pressuring him to get on with the cabinet plan or kill DD in some > other way--hence, the ill-judged attempts at killing him using the > necklace and the mead. I don't see any remorse for these actions. He > keeps quiet about the mead and denies involvement with the necklace > "that Bell girl must have an enemy." His relationship with Snape has > changed for reasons we've already discussed. He seems to view him as a > rival determined to thwart his efforts, to interfere and "steal his > glory," rather than as a respected teacher and concerned Head of > House. He lies, talks back, resists all Snape's efforts to help > (though I do think he listens to the practical advice not to resort to > amateurish tactics that could get him in trouble). Magpie: Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsher. So it seems you are describing him as not remorseful about the necklace in this scene, which to me sounds like the results didn't effect him emotionally. And you see his relationship with Snape changed by the real resentment of Snape as someone trying to steal his glory. Unless, regarding the murders, you mean that he's just not ready to admit or deal with remorse, which is how I read the scene. I think Draco's physical state is somewhat like Tonks' physical deterioration is linked to her emotional state. Draco's attitude towards Snape is I think more complex than just his thinking he wants to steal his glory (though DE Snape would presumably want to do that)--that's something he can say that doesn't hint he's got a real problem. I think that scene has Draco lashing out at previous authority and beliefs all over the place, and running from Snape as the DE mentor he looked up to--and he doesn't even want to talk about Lucius. Carol: > His relationship with Harry doesn't seem to have changed, however-- > it's still antagonistic in the few encounters we see (Draco with the > two "girls" before the Quidditch match and the Apparition lessons, not > to mention the Sectumsempra incident). Magpie: I think he's no longer so focused on Harry now that he's been given an important task himself. He responds snarkily to Harry's demand to tell him what he's doing and jumps at Harry surprising him in Apparition lessons, but he's not putting effort into bugging Harry the way he has before that I can remember. Carol: I don't see any concern for > what happened to Katie or to Ron at any point in the books (maybe not > because "Weasley" is a Blood Traitor so much as because his mind is on > other things). Still, the reaction to Katie seems both indifferent to > her fate and irresponsible, not to mention dishonest in denying > involvement. Magpie: I thought his not being indifferent was important to the arc. If he's truly indifferent he seems a lot closer to having what it takes than I read him as--and that also surprises me given the character as I read him over previous books. Carol: > By the time we see him crying in the bathroom, those incidents are > long past (and since both Ron and Katie have fully recovered, he has > no reason to think about them or to feel remorse). His tears relate, > not to them, but to his very real fear that he'll fail to fix the > cabinet and be killed. Magpie: I think his tears relate to the whole overwhelming situation. His words refer, imo, some to the problems with the Cabinet ("It won't work"), some to the threat in general ("If I don't do it soon he'll kill me") and some to the entirety of his position ("Nobody can help me."). Carol: I don't know whether his loyalties have shifted--he still > thinks Dumbledore is a "stupid old man"--but he certainly sees now > that serving the Dark Lord is a dangerous business and that Voldemort > has no more concern for his followers than for his enemies. But Draco > is still perfectly willing to Crucio Harry (Harry still needs to learn > to leave that particular curse alone, too. I realize). Magpie: And I think it's more than just Voldemort not caring about him. I think it's also that he's not cut out for what he's expected to do. Carol: But then Draco > gets another dose of reality--Harry nearly kills him (unintentionally, > of course), and he's only saved because Snape and no one else happened > to find him. (I wonder if, now that it's over, Draco has thought about > that.) But now Draco has had a taste of death. It's a very important > lesson, but at the moment it only serves, I think, to intensify his > *own* fear of death. And the pressure also intensifies. Magpie: Just jumping in at this point to say it's interesting that we see no reaction about Sectumsempra from Draco at all. It certainly seems like it should be an important lesson in death, one that could both intensify his own fear of death (though it could actually help him deal with it as well since it's no longer completely unknown) and also make murder even more difficult. I like to think Sectumsempra just hasn't been truly dealt with yet, because Draco pretty much ceases to be a character as soon as Snape enters and only reappears again in the unrelated scene on the Tower. Carol: > So Draco is no longer the confident, pro-Voldemort junior Death Eater > that we saw at the beginning of the book, but IMO, he's not remorseful > or concerned about having to commit murder, either. Magpie: I think he is very concerned about having to commit murder, and trying to quash it. Carol: > Getting onto the tower isn't quite as easy as he expected (the Order > members weren't supposed to be there) and he's not particularly happy > that Fenrir Greyback is one of the crowd, but still, when he gets to > the top of the tower, he thinks he's going to do the job, and the > first thing he does is cast a disarming spell. And there he is, faced > with an unarmed, helpless Dumbledore, who's unexpectedly weak and at > his mercy. But something has happened. He's not the person he thought > he was. Magpie: I don't think he was confident when he got up to the Tower, or that he's surprised at all when he can't do it and that was why he kept insisting he was going to do it, trying to get himself to do it. I don't have the book in front of me, but I just don't really remember an emotional beat of Draco being surprised, and everything about the scene read to me as DD greeting a boy he knew was already broken. It's definitely not a surprise to the reader--Dumbledore confidently says it's never going to happen right away, and there's no moment where it's ever on the verge of happening--I mean with Draco really making himself try. He's avoiding throughout the scene. It read to me not as this being the place where Draco realizes he's not the person he thought he was, but as if this was his last hope of forcing himself into being the person he is supposed to be. He's been acting all this time, and the act ends here, because here's where he has to do the deed or not. So he's stuck just repeating that he's going to do something with little hope he will do it, and seeing the DD can see it too. I just think the Tower scene is more his frantically trying to deny what his not being a killer more than being genuinely surprised when it turns out that's the case. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Sep 4 04:16:11 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:16:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) References: Message-ID: <015001c6cfd8$db595c30$cc66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157846 Pippin: > Because that's what he does, in canon, when the cabinet plan doesn't > work. The plans he comes up with are to kill Dumbledore, not to > get backup in some other way. That suggests to me that the need for > backup didn't originate with Draco. Magpie: Why does it lead logically to the plan for backup not originating with Draco just because Draco turns to an attempt at individual murder when he can't get the Cabinet working? He can think of alternate murder methods, he can't think of alternate methods of getting back-up into the castle. It makes total sense--more sense than trying to fit the necklace and mead into the plan where Voldemort told Draco to get DEs into the castle via the Cabinets. Pippin: > Nor do I think he would have made panicky feints like the necklace > and the mead if he'd been cooly planning to do away with his > Headmaster since the beginning of the summer. To me, he acts > like he expected he wouldn't have to think about killing > Dumbledore till he'd fixed the cabinets, so he wasn't troubled about > it. Magpie: I think that's because his own idea is the Cabinets, he's concentrating on that. He'd rather do that. When it doesn't work he tries other methods to just kill DD, also his own. > Pippin: > Erm, Voldemort is the villain. His strategic planning is *supposed* to > dominate events. Voldemort didn't and wouldn't, IMO, mean to leave > anything in Draco's hands. But the plot of the book Magpie: Voldemort has one plan that sets things in motion, but he's not the most important character. He's put the ball rolling by giving Draco this assignment. haracters we actually care about are reacting to it in their own ways. Voldemort is behind Harry in the TWT, he's not controlling Harry's story, forcing Harry to deal with the TWT exactly the way he does, getting credit for anything that comes from Harry. The times Voldemort is interfering, like through Moody giving him hints, are ultimately revealed at the end. Which I think this would be, if it happened. Pippin: IMO, Draco conceived the plan to fix the cabinets and carried it through, despite what I see as his growing realization that Voldemort never expected him to do it. For that, he won Dumbledore's praise. Magpie: I think Dumbledore's got more reason to praise Draco's coming up with a creative thing that's not fulfilling Voldemort's orders. It's already less of a thing to praise since he's just doing what Voldemort told him. So we're left with basically the book starting out with us being told Draco's been given an impossible task, one his mother thinks he might be killed doing. Snape takes a vow to do it if Draco looks like he'll fail, and says he thinks he's expected to do it "in the end." At the end Snape kills Dumbledore. Dumbledore speaks of how he knows Draco was assigned to kill him and expected Draco to die in the attempt. Draco isn't described as completing half the plan by getting the DEs in--he's stuck there not doing what he's supposed to do, as if killing DD is what he's been ordered. All the stuff about the Cabinets is spoken about in connection Draco, with no mention of Voldemort caring about them, or telling him to do it, or caring about it. Draco tries to other methods that don't involve Cabinets when they take too long, as if he can pick any method. Which is why to me the book still seems to be saying Draco was assigned to kill DD any way he could. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 06:04:12 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:04:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157847 > Potioncat: > We've seen a new DADA teacher each year, but I'm > not sure it's canon that there has been a new one every single year > since LV's visit (or does DD say something about it?) zgirnius: Yes, in the chapter "Lord Voldemort's Request", Dumbledore tells Harry Voldemort must have really wanted the job, because ever since they have been unable to keep a DADA teacher past a year. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 06:06:52 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:06:52 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157848 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Have I? I think Voldemort is very rational within his worldview. > His worldview is irrational, but he's pretty consistant in it. > And Voldemort wouldn't start a plan until he got the necessary > parts all lined up. > > Though I also have issue with Draco going to Voldemort with an > idea *before* he's checked to make sure the idea is semi-sound. > Swing by Knockturn Alley before hitting Voldemort's. Mike: You know I went back to lot's of your previous posts and I agree, you didn't. I must have attributed others PoV to you, my bad, sorry once again. And you've summarized exactly what my opinion of LV's mindset is, you have my compliments. :) > Betsy Hp: > Personally, I like the over-the-summer-hols idea. But okay, let's > go with everyone hears the story at Hogwarts. At this point there > isn't really any reason for Draco to be worrying about how to get > Death Eaters into Hogwarts. So I don't see any reason to think > Draco had his "aha" moment at this time (and plenty of reasons to > think that he didn't). Mike: See, I think Draco heard the story and it clicked in his head that there is possibility of a secretive, undocumented entryway into Hogwarts. No more than that, a simple recognition. Then, WHAM, his father gets caught and thrown in prison. Now Draco's mind starts racing with half-formed, unsupportable, and totally ridiculous ideas. From somewhere in the recesses of his mind Montague's story pushes it's way to the front and Draco revisits it. This time, instead of hitting the delete button, he pauses to think about it and says to himself 'maybe I can use that somehow'. That's how I pictured it happening for Draco and that's as far as I think he had advanced when he was summoned by LV. > > Mike, previously: > > So what do we have? > > 1. Draco knew about the cabinets before the LV summons. > > Most logical canon interpretation. > > Betsy Hp: > Actually, I'd call that the least logical canon interpertation > because we don't see Draco checking on the viability of the > cabinets until much later. So the most logical canon > interpertation is that Draco has his cabinet idea *after* > Voldemort summons him. Mike now: See, you're misinterpreting my approach. Notice I didn't say Draco formed the Cabinet plan before the LV meeting, only that Draco knew about the cabinets. I think that *is* the most logical canon interpretation. It fits much better than to have Draco visiting his Slytherin pals, learn of the cabinets from Montague, remark how no one but him realized the implications of the story, form the plan and begin acting on it, all within an approx 3 week period between getting the assignment and "Draco's Detour". > > >>Mike previous: > > 2. LV assigned DEs/ally to infiltrate Hogwarts. Canon. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. Only this happens at some point *after* "Draco's Detour". > (Most logical conclusion per canon.) > > >>Mike previous: > > 4. LV assigned DEs to be available to Draco, at least some from > > the beginning. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm pretty sure Bellatrix was either assigned or volunteered to > train Draco. He had to learn the Unforgivables from someone, and > who better to instill that "glory" and "Snape's out to steal it" > crap in Draco's head? But I seriously doubt Voldemort assigned > anyone else to Draco at this time. For one, he doesn't reference > a team when talking to Snape. For another, neither the mead nor > the necklace required a team assist. > > > >>Mike previous: > > Logical Interpretation: > > 5. Draco told LV about the cabinets at the beginning. > > Betsy Hp: > Okay, I'm not following the leap. Why does Voldemort need to know > about the cabinets before Spinner's End in order to have some > Death Eaters standing by at the end of the school year? Surely > it doesn't take him *that* long to call a crew together. Mike now: These darn posts are getting too long, I'm going to cut to the chase. Draco has hitched his wagon to fixing the cabinet, in order to introduce DEs into Hogwarts. Why? What on earth made him think that Voldemort would lend him some DEs to complete his plan? This is an integral part of the Cabinet plan and this must come to him before "Draco's Detour", the first Saturday in August. How does Draco make the leap of kill D-dore to fix cabinet without the added piece of introducing DEs? And if Voldemort doesn't know about the cabinets and therefore Draco's Cabinet plan, who told Draco he gets DEs to secret into Hogwarts? >From Voldemort's perspective, since when is he in the habit of making *his* DEs available for use to a sixteen year old kid? More especially, if he doesn't have any idea what this sixteen year old is planning with them. For that matter, if the LV's only plan is to get Draco killed, why on earth is he lending him any DEs at all, at any time? One more piece of canon. As Carol pointed out, Voldemort is a powerful legilimens. No way Draco with his limited occlumency abilities could stop LV and no way would he try. In fact, when Snape asks "What thoughts are you trying to conceal from your master, Draco?" Draco responds: "I'm not trying to conceal anything from *him*, ..." Well, damn right he's not, nor could he. The topic of conversation here is Draco's Cabinet plan, although Snape *probably* doesn't know about the cabinets, yet. Even if Draco doesn't have the ba!!$ to speak up to Voldemort it doesn't matter. Voldemort doesn't need him to, if Draco is just thinking about the cabinets, LV will see this. And Draco has just admitted that he isn't hiding his Cabinet plan from LV. If Voldemort has no more invested in this whole "kill Dumbledore" scheme than the probable death of Draco, and he doesn't know about Draco's Cabinet plan, why is he putting DEs at Draco's disposal? And if Voldemort hasn't already told Draco that he gets DE backup what's the point of fixing the stupid cabinet? We both agree that JKR just writes C to follow A and that's as much effort as she puts into timeline. So, how does 'kill Dumbledore' follow 'fix the cabinet' without the "B" of 'I get DE support'? Likewise, how does 'give the kid DEs' follow 'assign the kid a suicide mission' without the interceding idea of 'getting the DEs into Hogwarts'? These are two interlocking questions. They cannot be answered seperately. Draco doesn't get DEs without LV giving them and LV doesn't give them unless he knows why Draco needs them. Also, Draco doesn't have a plan without their assignment and LV doesn't assign them if the only plan is "suicide Draco". Without LV knowing about the cabinets, he has no motivation to assign DEs to the plan. Without the assignment of DEs, Draco has no motivation to fix the cabinets. I offered the compromise that Draco didn't initiate this whole interaction, but that the cabinet did come up at the time of the kill_DD assignment. And it was *not* because I found Steve's idea that Draco thought he was just dipping in his toe and instead got pulled completely under, was implausible. It's just too hard to back up with canon, so I thought, what's the point? But in these last two posts, I've presented quite a bit of canon support for Voldemort knowing the cabinet plan from the beginning. You're turn to provide canon that refutes my canon. > Betsy Hp (who did enjoy herself, thank you ) Mike, who hopefully made it harder this time PS Betsy, even when your posts are arguing against me they still give me a chuckle, thanks :)) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 4 06:12:40 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:12:40 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157849 > > Pippin: > I agree with you that it was Draco, all by himself, who > realized that the cabinets were a secret way into the school. But I > think it was Voldemort who decided that Draco should be set to > fixing the cabinet as a gateway for the DE's. IMO, Voldemort never > expected the cabinets would actually work. Draco was told he needed > backup to keep him from trying to do what he eventually did -- > make an actual attempt on DD's life. > > Voldemort expected that if Draco did that, he would be discovered and > killed and the game would be over. Of course Voldemort intended that > to happen eventually, but he wanted it to be on his timetable, not > Draco's. Voldemort is doing all this to amuse himself -- just > crucio-ing Draco to insanity, for example, wouldn't be nearly so much fun. > Julie: The cabinet being Draco's main assignment always falls apart for me at the same point, and that is when Draco tries to kill Dumbledore *twice* without using the cabinet (which he hasn't yet fixed). If Draco thinks the cabinet is the main thing, and he only slowly realizes he'll be expected to kill Dumbledore once the cabinet is in place, then why he is *prematurely* trying to kill Dumbledore? And why isn't Voldemort, after Draco does this twice, not crucioing the little prat within an inch of his life? I mean, if Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead on *his* timetable, wants the DEs there when Draco attempts the murder, and instead Draco goes off making reckless and very feeble attempts to kill Dumbledore, why oh WHY isn't Voldemort really, *really* peeved? Draco should be looking all bent and mutilated like Wormtail by the time he finally gets with the real program and gets the stupid cabinet fixed, shouldn't he? Julie, still unable to reconcile Draco's half-assed attempts on Dumbledore's life with the cabinet first theory. From tiomotzz at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 03:33:18 2006 From: tiomotzz at yahoo.com (robin) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 03:33:18 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157850 Geoff wrote: > Some of you will know from my previous posts that I am a > dyed-in-the-wool, unregenerate, pig-headed, obsessive > believer that Harry is not a Horcrux as well as being a fully > paid-up member of the IWHTLC (I want Harry to Live Club). > > I believe that Harry as a Horcrux flies in the face of > Dumbledore's oft-quoted comment: > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far > more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK > edition) > > It has been observed by many contributors to the group that > Dumbledore is echoing JKR who, as the author, makes much > of choice. Robin: Well, my idea is that if Harry is a Horcrux he is an UNINTENDED Horcrux and Voldy doesn't realilze it. If that is the case perhaps his position as a horcrux is a bit different and there are aspects that don't apply to intended Horcruxes....I do like your idea about free choice and it contradicting the idea of being a Horcrux. Hmmmm....I will have to ponder on this... Robin From lilyp at superig.com.br Mon Sep 4 06:12:57 2006 From: lilyp at superig.com.br (lilypo2007) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:12:57 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sally Altass" wrote: > > > Sally: > > Just to say I totally agree that Harry is not a horcrux, and even > though I'm not sure where, I am certain that I have read JKR totally > denying the rumour that Harry is a horcrux. I am also pretty > certain that in HBP, DD does say that if Nagini is a horcrux, then > it is very strange that LV would place part of soul inside another > living soul, as it would have more chance of being destroyed through > being killed. > > If LV meant Harry to be a horcrux in the first place, then why did > he try to kill him in Godric's Hollow? Harry's death was meant to > be the murder that would make the next horcrux. We know that LV > must not have made Horcruxes with every murder, only with > particually special ones. Harry was meant to die because LV > immediately saw him as a threat, and so would have been the only > other person in his way (other than DD). This would have been an > important and significant murder, and so he would have isolated it > for the making of a horcrux. > > Of course, this is not particularly canon, however, if you read > between the lines of what DD instructs Harry, then it does make > sense. All though as we know, there is a bit of LV in Harry, DD > does say that it was unintentional. I think LV would have to intend > to make Harry a horcrux. Lilyp: Hello, I'm "delurking" after two years I'm Brazilian and writing in English is not very easy to me, but I've been debating this stuff at LJ and I thought I could say something. First: I've read all recent interviews of Jo and she hasn't addressesd the issue of Harry as a Horcrux. Second, just for you to know: Many people that think Harry is a Horcrux (which is not exactly my case) think that he will survive, discovering a way of destroying the Horcrux without being killed. Now, a brief summary of my own theory. There is a Horcrux inside Harry's scar. This Horcrux was made by Voldemort with James' death (Which has to do with why Voldemort wanted to kill James and not Lily). Dumbledore says to Harry Voldemort was "at least" one Horcrux short of his goal. Why did DD and Jo use these words? What do they mean? I think Voldemort was two Horcruxes short and made one with James' death. With the explosion or something that followed the rebounded AK (the hose was destroyed, according to Hagrid), this Horcrux was thrown toward Harry and it penetrated his skull, leaving a scar. This theory doesn't have the usual flaws "Harry as a Horcrux" has. The Horcrux is not accidental and Voldemort doesn't know it is inside Harry until he tries to possess the boy in the MoM. That's why he repeatedly tried to kill the boy until then and didn't attack the boy anymore (and forbid his DEs to do so) after that. And it explains more stuff: the words "at least", Harry' having a scar, why James and not Lily. You can see the full details of it in my LJ(liriop.livejournal.com). And, like "Harry as a Horcrux" it explains how Voldemort put a bit of him in Harry, without making him a Horcrux. And with it, the wording of the prophecy makes much more sense than any "Harry is not a Horcrux" theory I've read. Just a last point. I don't think Harry will die, I think he will go beyond the veil and come back. There are a lot of references to this possibility in the books (Fluffy and pomegranate seeds are some I remember without doing research). But before doing that he will be desperate because he won't know what to do. How can he kill Voldemort if he has to die before? I think Harry's dilemma will be a much more important part of book 7 (and it is more interesting, in my opinion) than Horcrux hunting. Lilyp From lilyp at superig.com.br Mon Sep 4 06:29:39 2006 From: lilyp at superig.com.br (lilypo2007) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:29:39 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157852 > Carol, who really hopes that Hogwarts reopens, with McGonagall as > headmistress and Ginny as Harry's Hogwarts liaison, using Sirius's and > James's (repaired) mirrors to communicate Lilyp. Some quotes from JKR: July, 1999: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/0799-booklinks-omalley.html As I imagine it, there will be seven years at wizard's school, then Harry is a fully qualified wizard and it is then that he's allowed to use magic outside school. So, you'll see him into his final year at Hogwarts. The final chapter of the seventh book is written. That's for my own satisfaction, so that I know where I'm going as I write the other books. And that last chapter deals with what happens to the survivors afterward. Because there will be deaths. December 1999:http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1299-wamu-rehm.htm I always planned that we would see Harry from starting at Hogwarts to finishing at Hogwarts, which is... In my world wizards come of age at 17 - age 17. So in book 7 you'll see Harry come of age, which means he's allowed to use magic outside school, and you'll see the end of that school year. So it will be 7 years in his life. It seems Harry will return to Hogwarts, at least for some part of hte school year. Lilyp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 4 06:58:02 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:58:02 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609031346l70dfe71at73961af4d183add6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: Geoff: > > If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have > > to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. Random832: > No, we don't. We know neither that Harry's death would be necessary > nor that it would be sufficient to dispose of a soul fragment embedded > in him or in his scar. And DD has already spoken on the danger of > making a horcrux out of something that is alive. Geoff: Dumbledore's comment was to highlight the risk - to Voldemort - of making a "live" Horcrux: '"The snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as Horcruxes?" "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.473 UK edition) Voldemort may have decided to take that risk either knowingly or blundered into it unknowingly. However, on this general question of destroying Horcruxes, I offer into evidence the following quotes from canon: '"Quite correct," said Dumbledore, nodding. "But don't you see, Harry, that if he intended the diary to be passed to, or planted on, some future Hogwarts student, he was being remarkably blas? about that precious fragment of his soul concealed within it. The point of a Horcrux is, as Professor Slughorn expiained, to keep part of the self hidden and not to fling it into somebody else's path and run the risk that they might destroy it - as indeed happened: that particular fragment of soul is no more; you saw to that." (ibid. p.468) '"I am glad to see you appreciate the magnitude of the problem," said Dumbledore calmly. "But firstly. no, Harry, not seven Horcruxes, six. The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, remains inside his regenerated body... ...That seventh piece of soul will be the last that anybody wishing to k ill Voldemort must attack - the piece that lives in his body." "But the six Horcruxes, then," said Harry, a little desperately, "how are we supposed to find them?" "You are forgetting... you have already destroyed one of them. And I have destroyed another."' (ibid. 470) This, to me, supports my hypothesis that IF Harry is a Horcrux, then he has to die for them all to be destroyed- and hence Voldemort is finished once and for all. And I do not subscribe to this no-win situation - unless when the final whistle blows for time, we find that JKR has gone down that route, which I do not believe at this present moment. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Sep 4 07:27:10 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:27:10 -0000 Subject: ESE!Lupin/AnimeMovie/ChapDisc/Lav-Lav/Squib/DADA/Filch/3 on Neville/Lucius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157854 sydney wrote in : << Actually, I do think Pippin is wasting her time with ESE Lupin, because I think there's a reason so few people hold that theory. Because it's not emotionally satisfying. If it WAS emotionally satisfying, there would be a lot more people on that bandwagon. >> Um. Rowling is a very good writer, as proved by the fact that kazillions of people totally get into the books she's written so far. But she is also executing a seven-book plot outline that she developed when she was a very new writer. I cannot accept it as axiomatic that her plot outline doesn't include any duds. Pippin pointed out that ESE!Lupin matches an Agatha Christie cliche. How was the young author to know in advance that something that worked so well for Agatha Christie (LONG-time bestseller) would be a dud for her? It comforts me to recall that Rowling said: "It's when people get really off the wall - it's when people devote hours of their time to proving that Snape is a vampire that I feel it's time to step in, because there's really nothing in the canon that supports that." , Randy wrote in , : << >> << what is it about Youths losing their parents and getting scars in battles? >> But it says that in the Japanese movie, it was the Villain (who killed the hero's parents and tried to kill the hero as a baby) that got a Scar on his Forehead. Kathryn Jones summarized chapter 19 in : << There is a possibility that the school might be closed if they do not catch the perpetrator soon. >> There was the same worry in CoS. The school has been around for a thousand years and it's always been full of dangers, so if there really was a real chance of the school being closed any time there was a couple of students injured (or Petrified) by possibly fatal attacks by an unknown perpetrator (or ONE student killed, in CoS flashback), I don't think it would still be around after a thousand years. Is this an example of wizard folk engaging in panickly loose talk or a sign that the wizard folk became more risk-averse in the twentieth century? << During the match, as Harry is attempting to stop McLaggen from demonstrating how to hit a bludger, Harry is struck and knocked unconscious. >> I *LOVE* Luna's commentary: "And Harry Potter's now having an argument with his Keeper," said Luna serenely, while both Hufflepuffs and Slytherins below in the crowd cheered and jeered. "I don't think that'll help him find the Snitch, but maybe it's a clever ruse. ..." << Would Harry have recognized other students from Slytherin >> He already failed to recognize another student from GRYFFINDOR -- for five years he shared a common room with the obnoxious McLaggen without ever meeting him until sixth year Quidditch try-outs. I think Harry being so extremely bad at noticing people is for plot purposes, not plausibility. Neri wrote in : << Considerable page time in HBP is spent on the Ron/Lavender SHIP. This SHIP doesn't have any significant effect on the rest of the plot. >> It has already been speculated that Harry will have to get help from people whom he has alienated: Draco Malfoy, Smith of Hufflepuff, Marietta Edgecombe, and that obnoxious McLaggen -- further speculation is he will have to get help from those people because they are the Heirs of Slytherin, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor respectively. Perhaps also Ron will have to get help from Lavender. whom he has throughly alienated... From Lavender AND Parvati... Mike Crudele wrote in : << Also notice how Squib is capitalized like it is a proper name. Which other bigoted or racial slurs have you noticed being afforded the dignity of being treated as proper names? >> I've noticed that it's Rowling's style to capitalize words that she thinks she has invented, like Muggle and Mudblood and Squib but not wizard or witch or warlock, like Apparate but not broomstick. Sydney quoted in : << "What does it matter" said Malfoy, "Defence against the Dark Arts-- it's all just a joke, isn't it, an act? Like any of us need protecting against the Dark Arts--" >> That always strikes me as *amazingly* stupid of Draco. Does he really believes that no Death Eater is going to use his/her Dark Arts to attack another Death Eater? Aussie Hagrid wrote in : << Not only did Hagrid call Filch "that old git" after Harry's 1st week, but he told Filch off for lecturing the students in detention that were going into the forest that night. >> En route to the famous Forbidden Forest detention. Filch to Harry: "I suppose you think you'll be enjoying yourself with that oaf?" and Hagrid to Filch: ""That's why yer late, is it?" said Hagrid, frowning at Filch. "Bin lecturin' them, eh? 'Snot your place ter do that. Yeh've done yer bit, I'll take over from here." << Hagrid and Filch have had an on-going dislike/distrust for one another since WAY before book 1. >> I don't know whether the issue between them is merely that they disagree on how students should be treated (Filch: violently. Hagrid: friendily) or if there's some back story starting in Hagrid's student days (was Filch already the caretaker then?). I think Hagrid was the kind of student who would have earned many detentions, and he physically could have taken a great deal of flogging and so on; Filch could have gloated over Hagrid's expulsion, been disappointed that Hagrid was allowed to stay on as gamekeeper, and rubbed it in that Hagrid's wand had been broken... AnnR wrote in : << I can't remember the core of Neville's wand and I do not have HBP with me at the moment. >> "Cherry and unicorn hair". It sounds very virginal, as someone already pointed out. But I am not aware of any canon that all the wands that might suit a particular person are all the same core or all the same wood. Like, 3 x 8 = 24 and 4 x 6 = 24 but 3 x 9 = 27. so if the 3 x 8 wand suited a person, the 4 x 6 would be more likely to suit them than the 3 x 9, even tho' both have '3'. << Also I would suspect that Alice would have died protecting her child also as most mothers would, >> Melissa and Emerson's interview at http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview.shtml says JKR: [silence] Can't tell you. But he did offer; you're absolutely right. Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? There's your answer - you've just answered your own question - because she could have lived - and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway. Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying James wasn't ready to; he died trying to protect his family, but he was going to be murdered anyway. He had no - he wasn't given a choice, so he rushed into it in a kind of animal way. I think there are distinctions in courage. James was immensely brave. But the caliber of Lily's bravery was, I think in this instance, higher because she could have saved herself. Now any mother, any normal mother would have done what Lily did. So in that sense, her courage too was of an animal quality but she was given time to choose. James wasn't. It's like an intruder entering your house, isn't it? You would instinctively rush them. But if in cold blood you were told, "Get out of the way," you know, what would you do? I mean, I don't think any mother would stand aside from their child. But does that answer it? She did very consciously lay down her life. She had a clear choice. - >> I really believe that I read somewhere, but I can't find it in Quick Quotes Quill, that Alice or Frank throwing themselves between Neville and LV wouldn't have had the effect that Lily did, because LV wouldn't have given Alice or Frank a choice. And we *still* don't know what is the big deal about Lily that would cause LV to give her, only her, that choice. Just Carol wrote in : << I've always thought that Neville would become the Herbology teacher when Professor Sprout retires, but I wouldn't mind his becoming a Healer >> I would have liked Neville to become a Healer, but if he does, he will have to do so in some unconventional way, as the conventional way requires "at least an E at N.E.W.T. level in Potions, Herbology, Transfiguration, Charms, and Defense Against the Dark Arts" (p656 of US ed OoP), and Neville is not continuing with Potions and Transfiguration. Marion Ros wrote in : << If Draco succeeds, then he has blood on his hands, a situation that Lucius seems to have tried to protect his only son from. >> I really don't see Lucius as having any moral qualms about murder. I think, if he tried to shield Draco from blood on his hands, it was more from fear of Draco being incompetent than from fear of Draco's soul being torn. << wonders if Lucius really knew what he was doing slipping that diary into Ginny's bag. (snip) What better way to get rid of a thing that once belonged to a Dark Lord you joined when you were young and foolish (which you might regret now that you're happily married and a pillar of society and a *father*) >> Well, Dobby knew that "There is a plot, Harry Potter. A plot to make most terrible things happen at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry this year," and I think somewhere JKR said Dobby knew only what he had overheard Malfoys talking about. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 4 12:43:30 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:43:30 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "robin" wrote: Geoff : > > I believe that Harry as a Horcrux flies in the face of > > Dumbledore's oft-quoted comment: > > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far > > more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK > > edition) > > > > It has been observed by many contributors to the group that > > Dumbledore is echoing JKR who, as the author, makes much > > of choice. > > > Robin: > Well, my idea is that if Harry is a Horcrux he is an UNINTENDED > Horcrux and Voldy doesn't realilze it. If that is the case perhaps > his position as a horcrux is a bit different and there are aspects > that don't apply to intended Horcruxes....I do like your idea about > free choice and it contradicting the idea of being a Horcrux. > Hmmmm....I will have to ponder on this... Geoff: Just to digress slightly from Robin's topic, I have noticed that a few posters are getting confused about what a Horcrux is: '"Well," said Slughorn, "....A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition) Using the analogy of a tin of biscuits, the biscuits are a person's soul fragment, the tin is the Horcrux. Returning to Robin's comment above, I do not believe personally that an accidental Horcrux can occur. We know that when a murder is committed, the murderer's soul is ripped. But that does not automatically create a Horcrux. Looking at the list of Voldemort's possible victims which was being discussed a few weeks ago, he must have a few bits of torn soul still kicking around inside him. Presumably, the act of encasing a soul fragment involves a powerful spell which needs to be cast by the wizard committing the act and, by extension, would be spoken by him at some point after after the murder. I think that, at Godric's Hollow, even if Voldemort had, as Dumbledore believed, intended to make Harry into a Horcrux, he would have had no opportunity after his killing curse rebounded to perform the spell to create a Horcrux. It couldn't "just happen". So I still firmly believe that Harry ain't a Horcrux, not nohow! From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 14:36:37 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:36:37 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157856 lilypo2007" wrote: > It seems Harry will return to Hogwarts, > at least for some part of hte school year. Yes, JKR made the remarks you quote about Harry being in school in his 7th year, but she said that 7 years and 4 books ago; I know she's known the general outline of the Potter saga for many years but not all the little details. I think she changed her mind. I can't see why she'd tell us that Harry won't be going back to school in book 6 if she didn't intend him to go back. Because it is the last I think she wants book 7 to be a little different from the other 6 and show us things we haven't seen before, like a Harry Potter who is not a school boy. However I do believe Harry will return to Hogwarts, he just won't return to school. We will see Hogwarts as we have never seen it before, largely deserted with just Hagrid Dobby and the ghosts still there. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the last battle Harry has with the Dark Lord takes place in the deserted spooky corroders of Hogwarts. And after that Harry will have his Next Great Adventure. Eggplant From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Sep 4 15:03:43 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 08:03:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What about Hogwarts?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157857 Eggplant However I do believe Harry will return to Hogwarts, he just won't return to school. We will see Hogwarts as we have never seen it before, largely deserted with just Hagrid Dobby and the ghosts still there. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the last battle Harry has with the Dark Lord takes place in the deserted spooky corroders of Hogwarts. And after that Harry will have his Next Great Adventure. Eggplant Sherry: I actually think it would be kind of silly for Harry to return to Hogwarts to attend school in the last book. He can't very well chase down horcruxes if he's diligently studying for his NEWTS! It would almost seem irresponsible, because he has to vanquish Riddle by the end of the book. So, he's going to have to be outside the protective walls of Hogwarts. I do believe, however, that he will go there occasionally, to ask questions, to consult portraits, to check in the library or something. I don't think we've seen the last of Hogwarts, but I expect we've seen the last of Harry as a student there. Sherry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 15:38:37 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:38:37 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157858 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > I shall be deeply disappointed if Harry failed > to reach the end of Book 7. I wouldn't. I predicted 2 chapter titles of the last book "The Man Who Died" and "The Next Great Adventure". Although I am convinced Harry will die I don't think he is a Horcrux, I think it far more likely Dumbledore was, it's about the only way I know that JKR can still engineer a good Snape that most people seem to want. And even if Harry is not a Horcrux I'll bet at some point he will think he is. Of course regarding the entire Harry living or dieing thing, there is a third alternative, JKR may decide for ambiguity and have us arguing about what really happened for years. Picture a scene many years from now when one of Hagrid's grandchildren ask the great old man "What happened to Harry?" and Hagrid responds: "Good question. 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 klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 4 15:47:06 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:47:06 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609031346l70dfe71at73961af4d183add6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157859 > > On 9/3/06, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have > > to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. > > Jordan: > No, we don't. We know neither that Harry's death would be necessary > nor that it would be sufficient to dispose of a soul fragment embedded > in him or in his scar. And DD has already spoken on the danger of > making a horcrux out of something that is alive. > I agree 100%, Jordan. Goeff compared a horcrux to a cookie tin and I agree with the comparison. Does opening the tin and removing the cookie destroy the tin? No, not if you open the tin by the normal means. Does crushing the tin into a little metal ball remove the cookie? No it is still inside the now destroyed tin. We know that a horcrux allows its owner to survive an otherwise fatal attack or accident. We know that a murder is needed to rip off a soul fragment which can be put into the horcrux. We know that a spell is involved. That is all we know folks. Everything else that has been written here about them is an assumption or a theory. Slughorn and DD even disagree on what happens to the soul when a horcurx owner is "killed". Slughorn says *part* of the soul remains earthbound, DD says *all* of it remains earthbound. LV wanted an object from Gryffindor to make a horcurx. LV strikes me as the sort who would use a human skull for a horcrux. Harry is in a sense something "of Gryffindor's" because of who his parents were. Having the skull of the Chosen One sitting on his mantle, a secret horcrux, would have tremendous appeal to LV as I see him. IF as many of us expect the horcrux spell can be cast before the murder and simply does not take effect until after it is commited and if LV wanted Harry's skull as a horcrux as I outlined above, it is quite possible that Harry's scar is a horcrux. I see no reason to believe that this would contaminate Harry's soul. I see no reason to belive that it means that Harry will die, or that Harry's death would destroy the soul bit in his scar. Yes, I understand that canon does not require Harry to be a horcrux. I also understand that it does not deny the possibility. However it turns out I hope we see Harry and Ginny riding into the sunset on that motorbike at the end. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 17:48:29 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:48:29 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157860 > Julie: > The cabinet being Draco's main assignment always falls > apart for me at the same point, and that is when Draco > tries to kill Dumbledore *twice* without using the > cabinet (which he hasn't yet fixed). If Draco thinks > the cabinet is the main thing, and he only slowly > realizes he'll be expected to kill Dumbledore once > the cabinet is in place, then why he is *prematurely* > trying to kill Dumbledore? And why isn't Voldemort, > after Draco does this twice, not crucioing the little > prat within an inch of his life? I mean, if Voldemort > wants Dumbledore dead on *his* timetable, wants the DEs > there when Draco attempts the murder, and instead Draco > goes off making reckless and very feeble attempts to > kill Dumbledore, why oh WHY isn't Voldemort really, > *really* peeved? Draco should be looking all bent and > mutilated like Wormtail by the time he finally gets > with the real program and gets the stupid cabinet fixed, > shouldn't he? > > Julie, still unable to reconcile Draco's half-assed > attempts on Dumbledore's life with the cabinet first > theory. > Carol responds: I wanted to stay out of this thread, but I'll just make one last comment. (I know. I said that before. Sigh!). Draco is being pressured, apparently by the DEs rather than Voldemort himself at this point (October for the necklace and December for the mead. He doesn't start crying in the bathroom till April or May, and it's May when he obliquely informs Myrtle that LV himself has threatened to kill him). I think the DE in charge, possibly Brutal Face (Yaxley?), has told him to get on with fixing the cabinets or kill Dumbledore some other way. Draco panics, thinks of the necklace at Borgin and Burke's, and has whoever Imperio'd Rosmerta deliver it to her. (Your guess as to where Draco got 1500 galleons is as good as mine.) And when that backfires, he tries the mead idea. Note that once he's talked to Snape, who points out that he's already suspected of involvement with the necklace, he goes back to the cabinet plan, which is definitely the primary plan, to which he has devoted all those hours and all that work. He just thought it would be much easier to fix and panics when he finds he's having difficulty. Just because the cabinet is the main *plan*, the one for which he requires DE knowledge and cooperation, doesn't mean he can't use other means to do the *job* (kill DD) if that fails. BTW, I think it was Pippin who said that all the adults in "Spinner's End" agree that Voldemort expects Draco to fail. Only Narcissa expresses that view as a certainty; Snape seems to suspect it (which is not to say that he views the assignment as a suicide mission per se; he knows that LV really wants DD dead); and Bellatrix views the assignment as an honor--no mention of expected or even possible failure from her. It's all assumptions on their part. All of them have limited knowledge and none of them knows about the cabinet, which I believe is the primary plan for getting the job accomplished from the beginning. That doesn't mean Draco can't fall back on some other means of killing DD if the plan fails. I also think that Bellatrix teaching Draco Occlumency is intended to keep Snape from "stealing Draco's glory" by taking over the cabinet plan, including the actual killing of DD with the DEs as back up. What "glory" would there be in killing DD with a cursed necklace or poisoned mead? That's just my view, of course. but as I pointed out elsewhere, Draco's comment to Moaning Myrtle (essentially "I can't do it and he says he's going to kill me") almost certainly refers to the cabinet. Voldemort wants it repaired and Draco still hasn't done it after seven months. I don't think Draco is even thinking about the killing part yet. He just thought, as he tells Snape months before, that it would take much less time to accomplish his plan. BTW, I'm not arguing at this point that the cabinet plan came first. I'll go with Mike's compromise view that it came up and was worked out in Draco's initial interview with Voldemort, regardless of why Draco was summoned. (I see nothing to disagree with in Mike's response to Betsy.) Carol, wondering how Draco and the DEs communicate with Draco (do they use coins, too?) and how the necklace got to Rosmerta From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 4 18:13:58 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:13:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What about Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <1157372502.1409.75192.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20060904181358.50261.qmail@web25607.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157861 Lilyp wrote: >Some quotes from JKR: >{snipped} >It seems Harry will return to Hogwarts, at least for some part of hte >school year. Or perhaps not. Apologies to the elves for mentioning the films, but I remember some discussion a while ago around the fact that Robbie Coltrane was only contracted as Hagrid for the first 6 films. There was much discussion as to whether that meant he was going to be killed off. But perhaps it just means that Hogwarts will not form part of the 7th film, because the final book sees Harry out and about in the WW as he searches out Voldemort and his horcruces. But JKR alone knows all... Cheers Ffred From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Mon Sep 4 18:26:57 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:26:57 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Confessions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157862 Abergoat says: Love Red Hen...Red Hen is the reason I joined HPForGrownUps. Is there a new essay? I'll have to look. Lilygale wrote: > Dumbledore is not even close to full strength on the Tower. > Yes, LV only sends a few DEs, > but they are depraved and a, to use Red Hen's word, "vicious" > bunch. So LV could assume that these DEs could do the job. > > And if they don't succeed in murdering DD? They could still murder > Draco. Abergoat writes: Per Snape, Voldemort may have intended for Snape to perform the task (seems reasonable - all evidence points to LV wanting someone Harry hated to kill DD so Harry's hatred is increased). But LV is perceptive enough to realize Snape might be reluctant to leave his feathered Hogwarts nest. Other Death Eaters may have been there to, just has you say, make sure Snape had a choice of a dead Draco or a dead Dumbledore. Lilygale wrote: > We don't know that Snape wasn't part of LV plans to back up Draco > (as the person to murder Dumbledore if Draco fails). At some point > Snape will become aware of the doings, even if its Dumbledore who > summons him. I can see LV assuming that, even if DD ropes and ties > his DEs (after they murder Draco) Snape will be summoned by the > Headmaster and could leisurely finish off the job. For LV, its a > win-win situation. Abergoat writes: Seems reasonable. Even if Snape didn't kill Dumbledore then LV would know he had a weak link in Snape. And the unbreakable vow would make it a dead link. One is suspicious that LV told Narcissa Draco's task knowing she'd run to Snape for help. And Snape knew this too hence his stated belief that LV intends for him to do it in the end. Why tell Narcissa otherwise? Doesn't it just endanger the plan? Not if the real plan was to force Snape into an unbreakable vow. I'm interested where Narcissa got the idea. Abergoat From kennclark at btinternet.com Mon Sep 4 12:28:44 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:28:44 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157863 How could Harry possibly be a Horcrux? Voldemort was going to kill him. If he had made him a Horcrux BEFORE he killed him he would have destroyed his Horcrux when he killed him. If he was going to make Harry a Horcrux AFTER he killed him then: 1. If he had successfully killed him we have Voldemort putting his Horcrux into a corpse! 2. Voldemort didn't manage to kill Harry and wasn't in any kind of position to create any kind of horcrux until he was "back" at the end of HPOP. So how could Harry possibly be a horcrux? BTW how do we know all seven horcruxes exist? Dumbledore was merely surmising that Voldemort had managed to create all 6 new ones. He assumes that Nagini was used when the old caretaker was killed but we have no evidence that this is the case. Given that Voldemort would want Harry's death to make a horcrux and that he has tried now three times to kill Harry personally and that all the deatheaters have strict instructions to leave Harry for Voldemort to deal with personally it seems more than likely to me that Voldemort still has at least one horcrux to create, the one he hopes to create when he kills Harry. Kenneth From bobhawkins at rcn.com Mon Sep 4 12:39:11 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:39:11 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux theory In-Reply-To: <3b2.91ee938.322caf84@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157864 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > Julie: > 5. Voldemort and Harry end up behind the veil, where if Harry > is a horcrux or has part of Voldemort's soul in him by some > other accidental method, that soul piece would separate from > Harry's body (and soul) and glom onto Voldy's other soul bits, > forming one complete (if severely shredded) soul. Thus Voldemort > dies, and is left with whatever patched together souls get. > Meanwhile, our beloved hero Harry deservedly returns to > the living by some as yet unknown method (which will surely make > sense once we read it ;-) Zero Irregardless: If Harry is a Horcrux, he would very likely be the first person to pass through the Veil with more than 1.0 soul. (One and one-seventh of a soul, perhaps.) The fact that no one before had returned from Beyond the Veil, would not necessarily apply. If the murmurs that Harry and Luna hear are in fact the voices of the departed, as Luna says, then *something* can pass through the Veil backwards. Sound, at least. Perhaps whole people can pass back, but it requires a toll, with souls the coinage. The reason no one has returned, is that no one would choose to leave their soul behind. But Harry might have some spare change.... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 19:14:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:14:48 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157865 Geoff wrote: > I have noticed that a few posters are getting confused about what a Horcrux is: > > '"Well," said Slughorn, "....A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul."' > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition) > > Using the analogy of a tin of biscuits, the biscuits are a person's > soul fragment, the tin is the Horcrux. > > Returning to Robin's comment above, I do not believe personally > that an accidental Horcrux can occur. > > We know that when a murder is committed, the murderer's soul > is ripped. But that does not automatically create a Horcrux. Looking > at the list of Voldemort's possible victims which was being discussed a few weeks ago, he must have a few bits of torn soul still kicking around inside him. Presumably, the act of encasing a soul fragment involves a powerful spell which needs to be cast by the wizard committing the act and, by extension, would be spoken by him at > some point after after the murder. > > I think that, at Godric's Hollow, even if Voldemort had, as Dumbledore believed, intended to make Harry into a Horcrux, he would have had no opportunity after his killing curse rebounded to perform the spell to create a Horcrux. It couldn't "just happen". > > So I still firmly believe that Harry ain't a Horcrux, not nohow! > Carol responds: I agree with everything you've said except the part about intending to make Harry into a Horcrux. DD actually said that he believed Voldemort intended to *use Harry's mureder to create a Horcrux*--that is, to enclose the soul bit created by Harry's murder in an object (possibly the sword of Gryffindor, which he could acquire by killing the next person on his hit list, Dumbledore). At any rate, Dumbledore's actual words strengthen your argument. We *know* that Voldemort wanted the Prophecy Boy dead and that the spell which rebounded was a killing curse, not a Horcrux-creating spell: 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? http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm So we know that Harry isn't a deliberately created Horcrux, even if Voldemort were foolish enough to want him to be one. As I said, he was trying to kill Harry and, if DD is right, would have used that important murder (as opposed to the death in battle of James and the unintended murder of Lily) to make a Horcrux. (Which, BTW, may explain why he wanted Lily to step aside. He wouldn't have considered James's death a murder, but Lily's would have been. Maybe he didn't want to use the "wrong" soul fragment for that last Horcrux?) As for Harry's being an accidental Horcrux, I agree that since a spell is required to encase the soul bit in an object and no such spell was performed at GH, it's probably impossible for a Horcrux to be created accidentally. Harry could have acquired some of Voldemort's *powers*, as we know he did, through a drop of Voldemort's blood entering the scar. (There's all sorts of canon evidence for magic being in the blood, but I won't go into that now.) Also, I see no way around the complications that would arise from Harry being a Horcrux, since the only way to destroy that last Horcrux would be to destroy the container (Harry himself) and that would make it impossible for Harry to kill or otherwise permanently destroy Voldemort. I concede, though, that the last objection (only the last) would be overcome if the scar rather than Harry were the Horcrux. Carol, imagining Snape bursting open Harry's scar and releasing the soul bit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 19:40:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:40:53 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157866 > Zero Irregardless: > If Harry is a Horcrux, he would very likely be the first > person to pass through the Veil with more than 1.0 soul. (One and > one-seventh of a soul, perhaps.) The fact that no one before had > returned from Beyond the Veil, would not necessarily apply. > > If the murmurs that Harry and Luna hear are in fact the voices > of the departed, as Luna says, then *something* can pass through the > Veil backwards. Sound, at least. Perhaps whole people can pass back, > but it requires a toll, with souls the coinage. The reason no one > has returned, is that no one would choose to leave their soul behind. > > But Harry might have some spare change.... > Carol responds: Or Harry could have the Voldemortian power of possession and not know it yet, in which case he could possess Voldemort (who would be in intense pain from the sacrificial love impulse that drove Harry to possess him and will him to rush through the Veil). Harry's body would be left behind, the reverse of the situation with Sirius Black. And the spirit of Sirius could lend Harry his body. ("Harry, take my body back," as foreshadowed by Cedric.) Harry's spirit could then reenter his own body, leaving Black's available for burial. Carol, who hopes people won't get so attached to the Harry!Horcrux theory that they start confusing it with canon From kjones at telus.net Mon Sep 4 21:00:30 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:00:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FC93EE.2010206@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157867 Kenneth Clark wrote: > How could Harry possibly be a Horcrux? Voldemort was going to kill > him. > > If he had made him a Horcrux BEFORE he killed him he would have > destroyed his Horcrux when he killed him. If he was going to make > Harry a Horcrux AFTER he killed him then: > > 1. If he had successfully killed him we have Voldemort putting his > Horcrux into a corpse! > 2. Voldemort didn't manage to kill Harry and wasn't in any kind of > position to create any kind of horcrux until he was "back" at the end > of HPOP. So how could Harry possibly be a horcrux? > > BTW how do we know all seven horcruxes exist? Dumbledore was merely > surmising that Voldemort had managed to create all 6 new ones. He > assumes that Nagini was used when the old caretaker was killed but we > have no evidence that this is the case. Given that Voldemort would > want Harry's death to make a horcrux and that he has tried now three > times to kill Harry personally and that all the deatheaters have > strict instructions to leave Harry for Voldemort to deal with > personally it seems more than likely to me that Voldemort still has > at least one horcrux to create, the one he hopes to create when he > kills Harry. > > Kenneth KJ writes: Let me explain a little better where those of us who believe Harry is Packing a piece of Voldemort. Keeping in mind of course that it may not be correct. 1. Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow to kill Harry. His intention was to make a horcrux using Harry's death to split his soul. Harry was important due to the prophecy, as having the power to defeat the Dark Lord. Harry's death would have been used to make his final horcrux. 2. Voldemort killed James in battle which may or may not have caused a soul split. Hard to say, and probably not important. 3. Voldemort killed Lily, an unarmed witch defending her son. This did cause a soul split. 4. Voldemort then cast his curse at Harry, which rebounded due to Lily's sacrifice and blew him into a million pieces. 5. One of the fragments, possibly the previously split part of soul from killing Lily struck Harry in the head and was embedded there. One wonders if the piece of soul as a result of Lily's death might explain Harry's green eyes, which are supposed to be important in book 7. 6. Voldemort did not know what happened to him, although he may have figured it out since. He may not want Harry killed for that reason, or he has still made up his mind to use Harry's death as his final horcrux. So there we have it. If this is what happened, somewhere in book 7 this has to be figured out. If Harry lives, the soul piece will have to be removed, (I like the Dementor idea), or Harry will die to defeat Voldemort.(everybody hates this idea) KJ: thinking that if we stop considering Harry as a Horcrux, it might make more sense. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Sep 4 21:16:37 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 17:16:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! References: Message-ID: <008c01c6d067$69689bb0$3c80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157868 > Mike: What on earth made him think > that Voldemort would lend him some DEs to complete his plan? This is > an integral part of the Cabinet plan and this must come to him > before "Draco's Detour", the first Saturday in August. How does > Draco make the leap of kill D-dore to fix cabinet without the added > piece of introducing DEs? And if Voldemort doesn't know about the > cabinets and therefore Draco's Cabinet plan, who told Draco he gets > DEs to secret into Hogwarts? Magpie: He's quite possibly using DE backup for the necklace plan too--he wasn't in Hogsmeade that day so somebody else was involved. Maybe the mead as well, perhaps someone else is Imperius-ing Rosemerta. If he's just been given DE help regardless that fits with the way Draco is in charge of the DEs when they get to the school. Mike: We both agree that JKR just writes C to follow A and that's as much effort as she puts into timeline. So, how does 'kill Dumbledore' follow 'fix the cabinet' without the "B" of 'I get DE support'? Likewise, how does 'give the kid DEs' follow 'assign the kid a suicide mission' without the interceding idea of 'getting the DEs into Hogwarts'? These are two interlocking questions. They cannot be answered seperately. Magpie: They don't have to be answered separately if we go to the simple answer (conveniently provided for us in canon) that it's all part of fulfilling Voldemort's original order to kill Dumbledore. A DE can Imperio Rosemerta, Imperio Katie or provide backup at the end. So LV does have motive to assign the DEs without the Cabinets specifically. Whether Voldemort *knows* about the Cabinet plot as a possibility doesn't matter. He can know about the possibility, it's just, imo, not Voldemort's big plan that he's forcing Draco to do. If Draco never gets the Cabinet fixed he's got to do something else. Carol: Draco's comment to Moaning Myrtle (essentially "I can't do it and he says he's going to kill me") almost certainly refers to the cabinet. Voldemort wants it repaired and Draco still hasn't done it after seven months Magpie: I think it just as almost certainly refers to LV killing Draco if he doesn't kill Dumbledore by any means and that LV couldn't care less if a Cabinet gets fixed in the process or not. -m From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 22:43:15 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:43:15 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: <008c01c6d067$69689bb0$3c80400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157869 I'm really out of things to say without starting to repeat myself (I can't even remember how I wound up writing so much on a subject I confess I don't find that interesting!)-- but there's just one thing I want to be clear on in terms of how people are thinking of this Cabinet First plot: IF, when book VII comes out, we don't hear anything further about what Draco was doing in HBP-- I mean, nothing material one way or another to this debate-- will it then be agreed that actually the basic story is as expressed by Narcissa and obliquely by Snape? By this I mean that: -- Voldemort was enraged at Lucius and so approached Draco and sent him on a suicide mission; that is, to kill Dumbledore by whatever means he could think of, which in Voldemort's head was a thousand times likelier to result in a dead Draco than a dead Dumbledore. The End. Because my position, essentially, is that unless we get something to contradict what is set up in Spinner's End, that JKR was using the dialogue and everyone's actions in that scene as exposition and not as misdirection, at least regarding Voldemort's actions and mindset. -- Sydney, who just can't seem to help herself posting From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 23:24:04 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:24:04 -0000 Subject: DE Communication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157870 Carol: > Carol, wondering how Draco and the DEs communicate with Draco (do they > use coins, too?) and how the necklace got to Rosmerta zgirnius: Well, Hermione got the idea of the coins from the Dark Mark tattoos of the Death Eaters in the first place. Perhaps they can be used in some analogous way? From Sherry at PebTech.net Mon Sep 4 23:29:54 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:29:54 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Eggplant > However I do believe Harry will return to Hogwarts, he just won't return to > school. .... > > Sherry: > > ... So, [Harry]'s going to have to be outside the protective walls of Hogwarts. I do > believe, however, that he will go there occasionally, to ask questions, to > consult portraits, to check in the library or something. Amontillada: That's what I expect, too. Besides searching for Horcrux(es), I can think of at least two reasons Harry might need to go there: 1. To search for whatever knowledge/ideas/information Dumbledore may have left; 2. To find valuable information in the library--after all, Hogwarts is probably one of the two or three MOST important libraries or archives of wizarding in Great Britain. Sherry: > I don't think > we've seen the last of Hogwarts, but I expect we've seen the last of Harry > as a student there. > Amontillada: I'm not quite as sure about that. The last chapter may show Harry returning to Hogwarts as a student, for his delayed 7th year and to pursue more knowledge about wizarding studies. (Since finally defeating Voldemort, he's learned that "he knows all he needs to know," but that there is a great deal about wizarding which he can now more fully appreciate. Of course, that's speculation. Maybe the last chapter will show Harry returning to Hogwarts to speak to the advanced Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and he reflects that he was hardly a stereotypical hero.... Like Carol, I want to see Headmistress McGonagall, and Ginny as the liaison between Harry and Hogwarts. I think that would be the natural part for her to play, since she's specifically younger than Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Amontillada, feeling speculative... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 23:33:04 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:33:04 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157872 Betsy Hp: So Mike Smith is reviewing another Potter book. (If you've not heard about Mr. Smith, he took up the task of reviewing HBP last year. He was singularly unimpressed, but also side-splittingly funny and refreshingly non-political about the whole thing. He doesn't have a dog in the race, whether character or plot theory, so there's no bias to influence him. Plus, he's from Kentucky.) He's doing PoA now, and as usual is providing some cool insights (and much amusement). And he sums up beautifully exactly why I'm not bothered at all by Snape telling Neville to feed his potion to Trevor. > >>Mike Smith (see link): http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/125565.html#cutid1 "The chapter's a decent improvement from before, simply for using Neville's confidence issues to tie everything together into a little story. Snape breaks him down because fear is critical to good laboratory practice, even if the lab is for something as melodramatic and absurd as Potions. Fear leads to caution. Caution leads to accuracy. Accuracy leads to progress. Conversely, Lupin builds Neville back up again, since Lupin's course concerns self- defense, where fear can only become a hinderance, even when the enemy doesn't feed upon it. Fear leads to hesitation, hesitation leads to getting eaten by a flying shark. It's a precarious balance Neville has to strike, but he has to strike it if he's going to get through life. I complain about these books for failing to provide any sort of moral guidance to the characters, but just this once it might have gotten it right. Can't fault that." Betsy Hp: So Snape is making an important point. Neville needs to learn to pay attention and follow directions, or someone might get hurt. Snape is doing the best he can to reach him. I think it's especially telling that Snape expresses a bit of frustration before he comes up with using Trevor as a guinea pig. Snape has been trying to get that message across, and this is one way he's thought of for doing so. Mike's reviews have also given me a thought about the Sorting Hat and whether it will survive the end of the series. He was discussing how Batman would break the Sorting Hat because Batman is unsortable. And that's when I realized... You don't need to have the Hat to have the Houses. See, my problem with the end of Sorting forever is that I much prefer the idea of students being in Houses, with various ages intermingling, than in dorms based on age. But you can have the Houses and just sort students *randomly* into them. That way being a Gryffindor doesn't mean anything more than the color of your school tie. It doesn't say anything about your personality. So you still have the logistical sense of the Houses without the psychological test that in many ways justifies cut-throat House rivalry. It's win, win! (Okay, all of you "end Sorting now!" had probably figured that all out, but it's a new idea for me, so I'm kind of excited. ) Betsy Hp (glad to have thought of something having nothing whatsoever to do with cabinets ) PS Here are some links for those who want to check out Mike's reviews. The HBP stuff: (Done) http://pages.prodigy.net/mike_p_smith/hbp/intro.html The PoA stuff: (1/2 way through) http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/tag/prisonerofazkaban From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Sep 4 23:55:58 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:55:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157873 Betsy Hp: So Snape is making an important point. Neville needs to learn to pay attention and follow directions, or someone might get hurt. Snape is doing the best he can to reach him. I think it's especially telling that Snape expresses a bit of frustration before he comes up with using Trevor as a guinea pig. Snape has been trying to get that message across, and this is one way he's thought of for doing so. Sherry now: Perhaps Snape should have used a pet of his own for the experiment then. There is no way to make threatening to poison a timid boy's beloved pet justifiable in my opinion. It is just a cruel twisted thing to do. I find it one of the most telling things about Snape's character that he could sink to such a mean bullying act. And it isn't telling in a positive light for me. Sherry who really, really hates that scene and could never forgive Snape for it, if the incident was a real life experience. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 23:59:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:59:47 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157874 > > >>Mike Smith (see link): > http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/125565.html#cutid1 >> Betsy Hp: > So Snape is making an important point. Neville needs to learn to > pay attention and follow directions, or someone might get hurt. > Snape is doing the best he can to reach him. I think it's > especially telling that Snape expresses a bit of frustration before > he comes up with using Trevor as a guinea pig. Snape has been > trying to get that message across, and this is one way he's thought > of for doing so. Alla: I thought about cutting this part of your post entirely, since I've said many times what I think about Snape um... "teaching" Neville ( sorry, there is absolutely no way I would call what Snape does here as teaching :)), but then I could not help myself with giving piece of advise for Severus dearest, if this is indeed his mindset in this scene. Um, Snape, you taught this boy for three years by now. Think harder as to how reach him. Talk to the teacher who was succesful in reaching him without threatening to poison his pet. Sorry, I just cannot view this scene as humorous, I find to be well... you know. As to Mike Smith, somebody recently mentioned him to me. I take your word for it that he is funny, but honestly I could never understand if person dislikes the books that much, why bother writing so much about it. No, I have not read him yet, if he is truly funny I may or if he is just trashing the books, I probably won't. Betsy Hp: > See, my problem with the end of Sorting forever is that I much > prefer the idea of students being in Houses, with various ages > intermingling, than in dorms based on age. But you can have the > Houses and just sort students *randomly* into them. That way being > a Gryffindor doesn't mean anything more than the color of your > school tie. It doesn't say anything about your personality. > > So you still have the logistical sense of the Houses without the > psychological test that in many ways justifies cut-throat House > rivalry. It's win, win! Alla: Right, this is the part of your post I am truly curious about. :) ( The other one was just discussed so often, not because I want to disregard your words). Yes, I am one of the people who thinks that "end the sorting" is the most likely answer and the most logical answer to house rivalry and especially to ending the poisonous Slytherin mmentality (pureblood mentality, I mean, but again, so far I had been given nothing to show that it does not equal Slytherin mentality, therefore in my mind they are pretty much the same). The solution you just gave I find very cool, in a sense that indeed random sorting would not put students of the same personalities together, and they will have a chance to socialise with those whose values are truly different from theirs, learn the best, get rid of the worst, etc. To make a long story short, I love it, but the question to you is why would you want it? I mean, you seem to like House system, but wouldn't the Houses be truly houses anymore? Would you just prefer for the names to be there? What if the students be just sorting in four different dormitories with no names? What is the significance left in House system? Just Quidditch? But then couldn't the teams be randomly formed? > (Okay, all of you "end Sorting now!" had probably figured that all > out, but it's a new idea for me, so I'm kind of excited. ) > > Betsy Hp (glad to have thought of something having nothing > whatsoever to do with cabinets ) Alla: Mmmm, not me, I did not think about it and yeah, ditto about cabinets. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 00:22:21 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:22:21 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: <008c01c6d067$69689bb0$3c80400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157875 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Mike previously: > > We both agree that JKR just writes C to follow A and that's as > > much effort as she puts into timeline. So, how does 'kill > > Dumbledore' follow 'fix the cabinet' without the "B" of 'I get > > DE support'? Likewise, how does 'give the kid DEs' follow > > 'assign the kid a suicide mission' without the interceding > > idea of 'getting the DEs into Hogwarts'? These are two > > interlocking questions. They cannot be answered seperately. > > Magpie: > They don't have to be answered separately if we go to the simple > answer (conveniently provided for us in canon) that it's all part > of fulfilling Voldemort's original order to kill Dumbledore. A > DE can Imperio Rosemerta, Imperio Katie or provide backup at the > end. So LV does have motive to assign the DEs without the Cabinets > specifically. Whether Voldemort *knows* about the Cabinet plot as > a possibility doesn't matter. He can know about the possibility, > it's just, imo, not Voldemort's big plan that he's forcing Draco > to do. If Draco never gets the Cabinet fixed he's got to do > something else. Mike now: Sorry, not an answer to my question. Let's try this with role playing. You are Voldemort with your premise, that is, this is simply, specifically and ONLY a 'suicide mission' for Draco. You summon Draco in and give him the "kill Dumbledore" mission and tell him to do it any way he wants, you don't care. Why do you give him any DE support, now or ever? You have to stay within your premise when you answer, which is that you expect the boy to die in the attempt and you *expect* NOTHING else to come of this mission. According to your premise, this is exactly where we are at the beginning of HBP. Once again, the question is why do you give Draco any support, now or ever? As a matter of netiquette, I thought we were suppose to put in a "" if we truncated another poster's paragraph. I don't have a problem if you leave out entire paragraphs without putting a snip in as long as what you leave in conveys the essence of the poster's remarks for which you are responding. Thank you for your support Mike From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 00:39:11 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:39:11 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > IF, when book VII comes out, we don't hear anything further about > what Draco was doing in HBP-- I mean, nothing material one way or > another to this debate-- will it then be agreed that actually the > basic story is as expressed by Narcissa and obliquely by Snape? > By this I mean that: > > -- Voldemort was enraged at Lucius and so approached Draco and sent > him on a suicide mission; that is, to kill Dumbledore by whatever > means he could think of, which in Voldemort's head was a thousand > times likelier to result in a dead Draco than a dead Dumbledore. > The End. > Mike: I must have read close to 100 posts on this subject. Did you realize that it spread over six threads? Other than some Montague timeline research that I added for clarification (and I admit, to egg on the argument ) I essentially stayed out until the end. My analysis of the whole debate, in simple terms: The "suicide mission only" crowd were arguing that you can't put the cart before the horse. The "cabinet firsters" argued that they were putting the horse in front but they just wanted to know how many horses were pulling this cart. So, sorry Sydney, but the Cabinet firsters never had a problem with the direction your cart took, they (and that includes me) said they were going in that direction too, just getting there with more horsepower. Mike From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 00:52:56 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:52:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157877 > >> Betsy Hp: > > So Snape is making an important point. Neville needs to learn to > > pay attention and follow directions, or someone might get hurt. > > Snape is doing the best he can to reach him. I think it's > > especially telling that Snape expresses a bit of frustration >before > > he comes up with using Trevor as a guinea pig. Snape has been > > trying to get that message across, and this is one way he's >thought > > of for doing so. wynnleaf, I think is that Snape is the type of person to habitually make over-the-top threats. They are soooo over-the-top, I'm always amazed that Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville all believe them. Apparently all the Gryffindors believe Snape's threats. And when the Slytherins think they're funny, Harry assumes it's because the Slytherins want to see terrible things happen to the Gryffindors. But here's a real-life example. I actually spend a great deal of time around some people who make those kinds of over-the-top amazingly terrible threats, and as I watch children's reactions, this is what I see. The kids that really understand the person making the threats -- a certain personality type, I'll grant you -- are not particularly worried about the threats. They generally think they're sort of funny and recognize those threats as an indicator that the person making them really, really wants the kid's to pay attention. 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. How many examples do we hear from the Hogwarts students of the past times people have died from Snape poisoning them? How many times do students discuss a time Snape killed somebody's familiar? How many cases do we hear of past students injured by Snape's evil detentions? What about the huge number of students who fail his classes? Hm? In fact, a much larger number of students seem to do well in Snape's class than in other classes. And we have no reported incidences of Snape poisoning or injuring anyone or their familiar. This seems to completely pass the Gryffindors by. They apparently believe that every time Snape makes a threat, they will be the first "test case" (I guess) of Snape finally poisoning or injuring a student or familiar. I've been wondering lately if the Slytherins are partly laughing at the situations because they're thinking how gullible the Gryffindors are. The Slytherins know that when Snape uses those over-the-top threats, they're supposed to pay attention and focus, but they're probably a lot more the personality type that "gets" Snape's personality, and his threats don't worry them nearly as much as the Gryffindors. Oh, and before someone says that Snape is so easy on the Slytherins that they don't have to be concerned about him, remember that in talking to Draco out of the hearing of any Gryffindors (at least, Snape thought), Snape showed that he *could* be hard on Slytherins needing to do well in class. So this gets back to House. Slytherins really are similar personalities and they understand their Head of House better than the Gryffindors. But I like the idea of changing the House system to a random selection. I taught for two years in an international school in the Pacific where many kids lived in youth homes. They were divided more-or-less randomly. Having varying ages was great -- made more of a family atmosphere. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 01:09:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:09:29 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157878 > wynnleaf, >> How many examples do we hear from the Hogwarts students of the past times > people have died from Snape poisoning them? How many times do students > discuss a time Snape killed somebody's familiar? This seems to completely pass the Gryffindors by. They apparently believe > that every time Snape makes a threat, they will be the first "test case" (I > guess) of Snape finally poisoning or injuring a student or familiar. Alla: Even if Snape just makes threats and have not injured or killed anybody's familiar yet, which I will not put past him, I personally find it not very relevant in evaluating this scene. I don't think that when Neville comes to class and hears that teacher threatens to poison his toad, he should be expected to remember back to the conversations in the great hall or dorm and realise that oh, yes, there are no conversations about Snape killing anybody's pet, so this threat is not real. As we know, Neville is indeed terrorised by Snape ( Boggart) and that is what matters to me. I am also thinking about detention Snape asigned to Neville in GoF. What was he expect to cut? Pieces of toads or something? So, yeah, I find the fact that Snape considers to **making** those threats to be effective teaching tool to be so very disgusting. JMO, Alla. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Sep 5 01:22:28 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:22:28 +1000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060905012229.258102CF519@mail01.chariot.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 157879 dumbledore11214 writes: > Alla: > > I thought about cutting this part of your post entirely, since I've > said many times what I think about Snape um... "teaching" Neville ( > sorry, there is absolutely no way I would call what Snape does here > as teaching :)), but then I could not help myself with giving piece > of advise for Severus dearest, if this is indeed his mindset in this > scene. > > Um, Snape, you taught this boy for three years by now. Think harder > as to how reach him. Talk to the teacher who was succesful in > reaching him without threatening to poison his pet. Sorry, I just > cannot view this scene as humorous, I find to be well... you know. Shaun: It isn't Snape's job or role to 'reach' Neville. It is his role and job to 'teach' Neville. They are not the same thing at all. It would be nice if Snape was able to 'reach' Neville, but the simple fact is that virtually all teachers have some students they cannot reach effectively. Every child is different, every child has a different personality and it's really not reasonable to expect every single teacher to always be able to find a way of connecting to every child. It is great when they can - it really is - but it isn't reasonable to expect total success all the time. And when it doesn't happen - when a teacher cannot 'reach' a child should they just give up on 'teaching' the child as well? In my view, while it's wonderful to do both, if you can't manage one, then trying to accomplish the other is still worth while. I've been teaching a class of 26 recently. With 25 of the children, I had absolutely no problem getting them to learn without having to resort to any real unpleasantness. But #26 was a different matter. Nothing I tried worked with him - and I tried quite a few different things - until I started taking a heavily punitive approach. Basically, I found myself forced to scare the poor kid in order to get him to take care and pay attention to instructions in class. And that works with this kid. With regards to Neville and his toad - in my view (and I've outlined the evidence why I hold it on previous occasions), Trevor was never in any real danger. Snape let Neville think his toad was in danger to frighten him, but that is all. And considering the class I have a hard time seeing that as unreasonable. If students misbrew potions they *could* kill themselves or others. There are *very* serious consequences for carelessness in that class, and students must learn to take the risks seriously. So far that doesn't seem to have happened with Neville. Alla: > To make a long story short, I love it, but the question to you is > why would you want it? I mean, you seem to like House system, but > wouldn't the Houses be truly houses anymore? Shaun: In the real world plenty of schools that have house systems have house systems that are based on random allocation. Whether or not the Houses are truly Houses or not doesn't really have much to do with how the students are assigned to them. If a school makes houses important, if they actually play a role in the life of the school, then they will be important regardless of how students are assigned to them. Alla: > Would you just prefer for the names to be there? What if the > students be just sorting in four different dormitories with no > names? What is the significance left in House system? Shaun: It could still have significance, if the school chose to make it significant. For a start, at Hogwarts, the Heads of Houses seem to have primary responsibility for the welfare of their students which is (in my view) an eminently sensible idea - it allows a particular teacher to focus on particular students, meaning they are likely to get to know those students better, which is important in terms of student welfare. At the school I attended with the strongest house system, our placement in houses was *mostly* random - this school had the advantage of many students having previously been together at its prep schools, and so they did tweak house allocations for particular reasons based on the knowledge they gathered on students, but at least 80%, probably 90% of allocations were random (during my time at the school, they started looking at the idea of having a less random selection). And these Houses formed the core of the schools 'welfare' approach. Your Housemaster had ultimate responsibility for your welfare during your time at the school (we also had a 'tutor' system run within the House where teachers took personal responsibility for a small number of pupils all from that House). By having this divided on House lines, it meant you were within the same group for the whole time you were at the school, and that meant that the people responsible for your welfare really had a good chance to get to know you. It also helped those who had a problem making friends in large groups to find smaller groups that you knew would remain consistent - who was in your classes every year changed - who was in your House remained the same. And that was *mostly* based on a random allocation system. BTW, even though it was mostly random, quite fierce rivalries could develop between Houses - especially on sporting matters. (I visited my old school again recently and was somewhat amused to discover that our Great Hall is now hung with banners representing the Houses on a permanent basis - we used to hang them only rarely. I talked to some people and discovered that like many other schools here, they've started making a bigger deal of Houses in the wake of the Harry Potter books - there's even a House points system now for good behaviour - when I was there, House points were solely based on sports results). From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 5 01:25:49 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:25:49 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157880 Sydney: > IF, when book VII comes out, we don't hear anything further about what > Draco was doing in HBP-- I mean, nothing material one way or another > to this debate-- will it then be agreed that actually the basic story > is as expressed by Narcissa and obliquely by Snape? By this I mean that: > > -- Voldemort was enraged at Lucius and so approached Draco and sent > him on a suicide mission; that is, to kill Dumbledore by whatever > means he could think of, which in Voldemort's head was a thousand > times likelier to result in a dead Draco than a dead Dumbledore. The End. > Pippin: Um, no. My position will be that Voldemort approached Draco and sent him on a suicide mission with very specific instructions; that is, to fix the cabinets, admitting a force of DE's into Hogwarts who would serve as backup for Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore. Because otherwise, as I see it, Draco, who wants glory for himself, would not have thought that he needed DE backup, or that they needed to enter the school when Dumbledore was not there, he would have had plans for whom to invite and what to do with them when they arrived, and he would not have been told to desist from his other attempts to kill Dumbledore. This does not alter anything that we were told at Spinner's End, since Voldemort's objective, as Draco has been informed of it, is to kill Dumbledore, but the objective, as Snape, Bella and Narcissa see it, is to punish Draco by making him try to do the impossible. Snape says straight out that it is unlikely that Draco will complete his task. Narcissa cries out that then it is intended to for Draco to fail. Snape says that the Dark Lord is angry and unforgiving, and Bella chimes in that she would gladly give up her sons and Narcissa should be proud. No one tries to say that Draco has any chance of success. But we are told that Voldemort believes that Dumbledore would kill Draco when and if Draco made an attempt to kill him. So if Voldemort wanted Draco to struggle and suffer and slowly realize that he'd been given a suicide mission, instead of getting himself killed straight off, he had to come up with a way to make sure that Draco didn't try to kill Dumbledore at once. Draco's observation about the cabinets provided the perfect opportunity. Draco was told he must fix the cabinet so that he would have backup for his important mission, and he must learn Occlumency so that Snape does not find out what he is up to. (If Bella is Draco's Occlumency teacher then she probably does know about the cabinets. ) The whole point of this charade was to make Draco and his family suffer. For the curious, I recommend Erik Larson's The Devil in The White City if you want to know what kind of elaborate cat and mouse games a real life psychopath and serial killer played with his victims before killing them off. This behavior is perfectly in keeping with Voldemort's character as I see it in the books, and perfectly in keeping with a story arc for Draco in which he starts out thinking it's an honor to obey Voldemort's orders and ends up realizing that while he chose to be Voldemort's puppet, that's not what he has to be. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 5 01:56:17 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:56:17 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: <008c01c6d067$69689bb0$3c80400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157881 Mike: > > What on earth made him think that Voldemort would lend him some > > DEs to complete his plan? Magpie: > He's quite possibly using DE backup for the necklace plan too--he > wasn't in Hogsmeade that day so somebody else was involved. Maybe > the mead as well, perhaps someone else is Imperius-ing Rosemerta. > If he's just been given DE help regardless that fits with the way > Draco is in charge of the DEs when they get to the school. Mike: > > So, how does 'kill Dumbledore' follow 'fix the cabinet' without > > the "B" of 'I get DE support'? Likewise, how does 'give the > > kid DEs' follow 'assign the kid a suicide mission' without the > > interceding idea of 'getting the DEs into Hogwarts'? These are > > two interlocking questions. They cannot be answered seperately. Magpie: > They don't have to be answered separately if we go to the simple > answer (conveniently provided for us in canon) that it's all part > of fulfilling Voldemort's original order to kill Dumbledore. A DE > can Imperio Rosemerta, Imperio Katie or provide backup at the end. > So LV does have motive to assign the DEs without the Cabinets > specifically. Whether Voldemort *knows* about the Cabinet plot as > a possibility doesn't matter. He can know about the possibility, > it's just, imo, not Voldemort's big plan that he's forcing Draco > to do. If Draco never gets the Cabinet fixed he's got to do > something else. SSSusan: Hmmm. Not sure I can quite go along with this, Magpie, if I'm understanding what you're suggesting correctly. Yes, I could see that if Voldy truly wanted Draco to succeed in killing DD, and actually believed there was a chance he might, then he might have granted Draco some DEs to assist with the various attempts. It somehow doesn't *seem* very likely to me, given the way Voldy likes to be in charge, but I'll grant that it might have been the case in at least the necklace attempt, given your point about Draco not being in Hogsmeade that day. OTOH, I don't think that having an accomplice in one task, such as in the necklace scheme, would necessarily be the same thing as Voldy allowing Draco to have the degree of control that would allow him to call DEs to him whenever he felt the need (which seems to be what you're implying when you said "Whether Voldemort *knows* about the Cabinet plot as a possibility doesn't matter"). I mean, we're not talking about an accomplice or even two; we're talking about a whole GROUP of DEs arriving at Hogwarts to attack! I cannot imagine Voldy giving Draco carte blanche to summon DEs to assist him, as *he* (Draco) saw the need, in his various attempts to accomplish his mission of killing DD. Draco's a kid still -- and many seem to believe Voldy never really expected him to succeed -- so why would Voldy have said, "Sure, Draco. Any time you need a DE backup, just give the word, and they'll come/I'll send them"? I cannot believe he'd have that kind of trust in him! Especially in a plot of which he didn't even know the specifics. Siriusly Snapey Susan From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 01:44:40 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:44:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <20060905012229.258102CF519@mail01.chariot.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157882 >Shaun: >I've been teaching a class of 26 recently. With 25 of the children, I had >absolutely no problem getting them to learn without having to resort to any >real unpleasantness. But #26 was a different matter. Nothing I tried worked >with him - and I tried quite a few different things - until I started >taking >a heavily punitive approach. Basically, I found myself forced to scare the >poor kid in order to get him to take care and pay attention to instructions >in class. And that works with this kid. > >With regards to Neville and his toad - in my view (and I've outlined the >evidence why I hold it on previous occasions), Trevor was never in any real >danger. Snape let Neville think his toad was in danger to frighten him, but >that is all. And considering the class I have a hard time seeing that as >unreasonable. If students misbrew potions they *could* kill themselves or >others. There are *very* serious consequences for carelessness in that >class, and students must learn to take the risks seriously. So far that >doesn't seem to have happened with Neville. wynnleaf I do know from experience that kids usually pick up on the fact that over-the-top threats aren't really something to be afraid of. Other real punishments are, of course, a different story. >Shaun: >At the school I attended with the strongest house system, our placement in >houses was *mostly* random - this school had the advantage of many students >having previously been together at its prep schools, and so they did tweak >house allocations for particular reasons based on the knowledge they >gathered on students, but at least 80%, probably 90% of allocations were >random (during my time at the school, they started looking at the idea of >having a less random selection). wynnleaf Shaun, I was wondering if you found that the Houses took on distince characters, even though the students weren't chosen by personality, but mostly by random choice? The youth homes we had at the international school where I taught were all different in character -- partly because of different traditions, some by the personalities of their heads of house, or maybe other reasons. It seems to me that getting rid of the Sorting Hat, and sorting at random would certainly create more diverse groups of students, but the Houses would still likely be very competitive and would still develop different House characteristics. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Spaces is here! Its easy to create your own personal Web site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx From dougsamu at golden.net Tue Sep 5 01:58:37 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:58:37 -0400 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. Message-ID: <1780490E-4F1D-482E-A705-67E4D26A37F2@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157883 Ken: Slughorn and DD even disagree on what happens to the soul when a horcurx owner is "killed". Slughorn says *part* of the soul remains earthbound, DD says *all* of it remains earthbound. doug: Cool. Where does DD say such? Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From slytherindreamer at gmail.com Tue Sep 5 02:50:50 2006 From: slytherindreamer at gmail.com (Anne Neville) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:50:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: References: <008c01c6d067$69689bb0$3c80400c@Spot> Message-ID: <865e525b0609041950k54b5ea68m3a07561383a1e122@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157885 Mike wrote: These darn posts are getting too long, I'm going to cut to the chase. Draco has hitched his wagon to fixing the cabinet, in order to introduce DEs into Hogwarts. Why? What on earth made him think that Voldemort would lend him some DEs to complete his plan? This is an integral part of the Cabinet plan and this must come to him before "Draco's Detour", the first Saturday in August. How does Draco make the leap of kill D-dore to fix cabinet without the added piece of introducing DEs? And if Voldemort doesn't know about the cabinets and therefore Draco's Cabinet plan, who told Draco he gets DEs to secret into Hogwarts? AnneNeville replies: The other rational argument is that Draco was fixing the cabinets, INITIALLY, as an *escape* route, for after he killed Dumbledore. However, as he realized that he wouldn't be able to do it alone, or as the pressure mounted from Voldemort, he ADDED the backup of the Death Eaters. AnneNeville [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Sep 5 03:00:37 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:00:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! References: Message-ID: <011f01c6d097$7727bd50$3c80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157886 Mike now: > Sorry, not an answer to my question. Let's try this with role > playing. You are Voldemort with your premise, that is, this is > simply, specifically and ONLY a 'suicide mission' for Draco. You > summon Draco in and give him the "kill Dumbledore" mission and tell > him to do it any way he wants, you don't care. Why do you give him > any DE support, now or ever? You have to stay within your premise > when you answer, which is that you expect the boy to die in the > attempt and you *expect* NOTHING else to come of this mission. [snipping stuff after this--I'm trying to cut down and this seemed enough to respond to as the jist of it] Magpie: Why shouldn't I, if I were Voldemort? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if he needs a few DEs they can follow his instructions, just as any would-be assassin would get. Expecting Draco to fail and making him fail are two different things (as I believe "my side" has said before) and this is always presented by people in canon as the former, not the latter. I don't mean to imply, as I said to Susan below, that Draco's been given a year-long bunch of slaves he can order about at will, just denying that they prove Voldemort's got the Cabinets as a priority over Draco's attempted murder of Dumbledore. I don't think the DEs are a problem that needs to be solved through this theory. I don't think the author wrote anything especially illogical or left this stuff out or that I need it to make the characters behave the way they would really act or to make it make sense. Susan: OTOH, I don't think that having an accomplice in one task, such as in the necklace scheme, would necessarily be the same thing as Voldy allowing Draco to have the degree of control that would allow him to call DEs to him whenever he felt the need (which seems to be what you're implying when you said "Whether Voldemort *knows* about the Cabinet plot as a possibility doesn't matter"). Magpie: Sorry, that's not what I meant to be claiming. I was speaking specifically to the Cabinet First plot, which is trying to prove that Voldemort's interest in the Cabinet plan is driving things all year. So I'm arguing against the idea that anything in canon proves that the Cabinet Plan has to be Voldemort's plan in some significant way throughout the year, so that if Draco is working on that instead of some other method it's because he's following Voldemort's schedule, and the whole plan for Draco comes out of that for Voldemort. I didn't mean to imply Draco's got free access to order around whatever DE he wants throughout the year for whatever reason. I think he can call for assistance since he gets at it the end and possibly was getting earlier as well for help with other things he tried. But I was speaking about Voldemort knowing about the Cabinet plan up front in the beginning (FIRST!), long before the night they show up at the castle. That Voldemort must have heard about the Cabinet plot and as a result given Draco this mission and that he made the Cabinet fixing part of the mission. -m From buckaroo_57 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 01:43:01 2006 From: buckaroo_57 at yahoo.com (Ken) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:43:01 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore divide his soul in HP and Half-Blood Prince? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157887 I read the book and noticed how tired he was all the way through the book... and got to wondering if he had divided his soul... it would be a great way to make a comeback in the next book. It would also explain why Snape suddenly killed him if Dumbledore had trusted him with this secret... might explain quite a few things that happened in the book. Ken From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 03:23:14 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:23:14 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. (Long--sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157888 > Betsy Hp: > But here's the thing: Who *does* know about the cabinet at this > time? Seriously, as per canon, does anyone, including Draco have > any idea about using the cabinets? > > Because again, there is *no* canon suggesting that this plan has > occured to Draco yet. And there's massive canon to suggest that it hasn't. Certainly canon weighs very heavily *against* Voldemort > being aware of this plan even if Draco has thought of it already. > > I've brought it up before, and it's been routinely ignored, but if > Voldemort was aware of the cabinets (heck if Draco had thought this idea up) *why* would he wait so long, why would Voldemort allow him to wait so long to confirm that the other cabinet is available and the cabinet in Hogwarts is even fixable? > Tonks: In all of this talk about what came first and who, how, what and why about the cabinets, what if LV knew about the cabinets all along? LV must have known about the cabinet when he worked for Borgin. If the other one was at Hogwarts at the time I think he would have been aware of that as well. It is part of my theory of how he would have gotten into Hogwarts to plant the Hufflepuff cup or Ravenclaw tiara there, if in fact he did. It is possible that he had forgotten about them over all of these years. But if he had plans to get DE into the castle I thing the cabinets might be the first thing that he thought about. The Hogwarts cabinet was broken by Peeves just the year before and then LV was most concerned about getting the prophesy from the MoM, so he wasn't fixed on getting into the castle. It is not until he realizes that he must kill DD to get to Harry or that he must kidnap Trelawney to get the prophesy that a way to sneak into Hogwarts would be important. IMO, the fact that Draco figured out that the 2 cabinets are connected is no big revelation to LV. We don't know if LV knew that the cabinet connection was broken, or if he did know we don't know when and how he found out. We do know that "everyone" thought that Draco would not be able to fix them. "Everyone" could be just one person, two or more. Why would it take LV so long to try to get DE into the castle? (First I agree that LV would be the one to gives the orders for DE involvement. Draco is only a pawn, he has no power to order anyone.) I think we have to look at the events as a game of chess. This is a war and chess is a game of war. Chess is not a quick game. It is a game of careful thought and planning. Perhaps it would help if we set up the board and think this through like LV who is both the Black King and the player. I am going to need a bit of help here. So those of you who remember all of the events better than I do, fill in the blanks and ponder the moves. I think that this might help sort this out. Black side: King is LV Queen is Bella /or is it Snape? Bishops are: Snape? Rooks are: Knights are: Pawn is Draco Other Pawns are: White Side: King is Harry Queen is DD Bishops are: Rooks are: Knights are: Pawns are: >From LV POV, Harry must be checkmated. What moves does LV have to make and with what pieces to get into the right position to take out Harry? This is chess, so it will take many moves and a few sacrifices to get everyone in position for the final confrontation. What moves has LV made thus far? Who is in what position on the board? LV has planned to kill off the White Queen to make the path to Harry easier. What moves did he have to make and with what pieces to do this? (Note: I know that in the first book the good side was represented by the Black players. That is a bit confusing, but was probably that way because LV's side made the first move. But let's keep it simple here. Bad guys are Black and Good guys are the White.) Tonks_op Who hopes this method of thinking will help this discussion. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 03:46:34 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:46:34 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore divide his soul in HP and Half-Blood Prince? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken" wrote: > > I read the book and noticed how tired he was all the way through > the book... and got to wondering if he had divided his soul... it > would be a great way to make a comeback in the next book. > It would also explain why Snape suddenly killed him if Dumbledore > had trusted him with this secret... might explain quite a few things that happened in the book. > Tonks: The answer is simply *No*. The soul must stay intact as Slughorn told us. DD would not do anything to damage his soul. DD would have respect for the soul and the sanctity of the ancient magic that makes it a grave sin to split it. Soul splitting leans towards the dark side and DD never goes there. Now I know you are going to argue that DD allowed Snape to kill him and in fact asked Snape to kill him, and didn't this split Snape's soul? I suspect that Snape's soul was already damaged by his life as a DE. Snape's soul will be redeemed before we are finished, so not to worry. One final thing. (Please don't take this personally, everyone does it.) It seems that every time a new concept comes up in the books then we all start seeing it everywhere. It becomes the motive, the method, etc. to every other thing that is, has or will happen. First it was time turners. Now it is soul splitting and horcruxes. I think that JKR is very inventive and does not tend to use the same thing over and over. She introduces it, uses it and moves on to another idea and a new invention. But we start seeing whatever was her last great invention everywhere.. Tonks_op From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Sep 5 03:56:06 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 05:56:06 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <001501c6d09f$372e0c60$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 157890 Wynnleaf: >>>I've been wondering lately if the Slytherins are partly laughing at the situations because they're thinking how gullible the Gryffindors are. The Slytherins know that when Snape uses those over-the-top threats, they're supposed to pay attention and focus, but they're probably a lot more the personality type that "gets" Snape's personality, and his threats don't worry them nearly as much as the Gryffindors.<<< Marion Totally agree with you (with the whole post, which I snipped because it was too big) I don't think it's so much *Gryffindor* gullibilety but more *Harry* misjudging the situation as usual. After all, this is the same Harry that thought that Snape was bullying poor stuttering Quirrell (and gave Quirrell encouraging nods to show how much he sympathised with yet another 'Snape victim') I do indeed wonder how many students at Hogwarts have problems with Snape. My guess would be: very, very few. In fact, I think that Neville is probably the only one who fears him. And, to take this discussion in yet another direction, Neville's fear of Snape is totally *irrational*. What is Snape going to do? Insult him to death? Is Snape routinely killing children's pets? (he's Snape, not the Weasley twins!) The same Snape who, when his pupils brew a Swelling Potion has the antidote on hand to treat mishaps, *that* Snape doesn't know beforehand if a potion is going to work and doesn't have the antidote at hand when it does? And why is Neville so terrified of Snape anyway? Neville isn't shy towards other children. He has no trouble asserting himself against Harry or, later, Draco Malfoy. He asks Ginny to the Yule ball when Harry is still raking up his courage for asking Cho. Which means he isn't truly shy. Truly shy people are shy to *other people*, Neville is afraid of McGonegal and Snape, i.e.; he's afraid of authority figures who demand that he *uses magic*. What is the first thing Neville says when approaching/entering Hogwarts? "I'm practically a Squib", "they thought I was all-muggle", etc. He's the only child of invalid parents, raised by his overbearing grandmother and Uncle Algy, pressured into becoming 'just like his father' etc etc. He was a late-bloomer, magically. Thrown out of the window to see if that would kick-start his self-protective magic (luckily, it did) So Neville enters Hogwarts and he goes all "oh, don't try to teach *me* anything, I'm such a squib, I'll just sit here in the corner, minding my own business. No use teaching a near-squib". I can understand Neville, truly. He must be fed up and scared to death trying to fulfill his family's expertations. Being pushed for years to 'spark', magic must've lost it's sparkle for Neville years ago. He just wants to be left alone. Problem is: you don't teach magical children magic, you teach them how to control the magic they have (except perhaps at Potions, which is far more ritualised) Being left alone is not an option: Neville *needs* his education, if only to tame the wild magic he occasionally lets loose. That's why McGonegal gives him no quarter and why Snape gives him no quarter. I think Mike Smith made a very good point about Potions needing concentration and alertness. Neville needs to focus and follow instructions in Potions class (aside: *Harry* could do with those lessons as well. It's a pity he simply refuses to learn anything from Snape, because learning to focus his anger so he can *use* it and learning to follow instructions *cough*Occlumency*cough* is just what Harry needed to learn during all those books. But I digress) Neville needs to focus and follow instructions during Potions because it's an exact and dangerous science which could literally explode in your face. It would not only be totally counterproductive for Snape to coddle Neville (it would enforce Neville's selfproclaimed duffer-dom and he would never learn Potions) but also dangerous (potions go 'boom'), let alone out of character for Snape. Neville doesn't need a Potions Master who wants to be his friend, Neville needs a Potions Master who shows him that Potions can be your worst enemy (poison, boom, etc) or your best friend (bottle glory, stopper death) and that the difference lies in paying attention and following instructions to the letter. Throwing ratspleens willy nilly in a cauldron and hoping Hermione bails you out is simply *dangerous*. You have a valid point as well, Wynnleaf: Snape's 'style' is dramatic. His looks, the way he speaks (hardly above a whisper and yet the whole class listens so as not to miss a word), the things he says. *Very* dramatic, *very* over the top. Most Hogwarts pupils 'get' him, I would reckon. Harry does not (and therefor the reader does not). Ron... Well, Ron is a true sidekick to Harry. Besides, you wouldn't hear him, Roonil Wazlib, the boy who can't even spell his own name at sixteen, utter a positive word about a *teacher*. Especially a teacher who demands that his pupils actually *work*. Hermione doesn't really have a problem with Snape (note that after his 'bottle fame' speech, she looks as if 'she wanted to proof that she was not a dunderhead'. *She* was *inspired*. Harry and Ron 'pulled their eyebrows up to eachother') Marion, who still finds it very strange that the same people who find the so-called 'poisoning' of Trevor so shocking happily proclaim that the Weasley twins Quidditch practice with Ron's pet puffskein (they hit it with stickses!) is wholesome family fun. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 03:51:27 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:51:27 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore divide his soul in HP and Half-Blood Prince? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken" wrote: > > I read the book and noticed how tired he was all the way through > the book... and got to wondering if he had divided his soul... it > would be a great way to make a comeback in the next book. > It would also explain why Snape suddenly killed him if Dumbledore > had trusted him with this secret... might explain quite a few things > that happened in the book. > > Ken > Julie: There's a much more straightforward explanation for Dumbledore's tiredness, an explanation that also accounts for Dumbledore giving Snape the DADA position knowing Snape will be gone in a year, for Dumbledore teaching Harry about Tom's past and the Horcruxes when he's previously taken almost no part in Harry's "training," for the way he seems to be tying up loose ends throughout the book. Because he's living on borrowed time, and he fully expects not to be around later to take care of these matters. Whether Snape actually "stoppered death" or the ring horcrux in some other way acted to shorten Dumbledore's life, Dumbledore is dying. Snape killed him because he couldn't save him, not any longer. And JKR has already said Dumbledore is dead, so he's not coming back, soul fully or partially intact. Julie From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 04:22:22 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:22:22 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157892 - > > Mike: > I must have read close to 100 posts on this subject. Did you realize > that it spread over six threads? Other than some Montague timeline > research that I added for clarification (and I admit, to egg on the > argument ) I essentially stayed out until the end. My analysis > of the whole debate, in simple terms: The "suicide mission only" > crowd were arguing that you can't put the cart before the horse. > The "cabinet firsters" argued that they were putting the horse in > front but they just wanted to know how many horses were pulling this > cart. So, sorry Sydney, but the Cabinet firsters never had a problem > with the direction your cart took, they (and that includes me) said > they were going in that direction too, just getting there with more > horsepower. > Julie: I'd just like to point out that it is NOT "cabinet firsters" versus "suicide mission only." It seems pretty much agreed (certainly in the text) that it was a suicide mission, as whether Draco was to fix the cabinet primarily and then use it to kill DD, or whether he was to primarily kill DD using the cabinet or *any other means* is irrelevant to the belief that his chances at completing either were slim to none. So it's more like "it's about the Cabinet, dummy" versus "it's about killing Dumbledore, dummy" camps. (Er, the "dummy" part is just for humor, absolutely no intent to insult either camp, as I'm in one of them ;-) Your cart analogy doesn't equate at all, at least not to me. This has nothing to do with carts, or horses ;-) Er, really, though I don't see how it applies. After all this debating, I think I still stick to the conclusion that Draco's main job was to Kill Dumbledore. This is what he had to do, what he and his family would be killed for if he didn't do, KILL DUMBLEDORE. The Cabinet is certainly involved, and LV may well have known about it from the beginning. Perhaps Draco told him at the first meeting, or after LV told Draco he had to kill Dumbledore, Draco then said "Aha! I have just the means!" So be it. Still, the cabinet didn't seem to be of paramount importance to Voldemort, or some sort of displeasure would surely have been shown (probably on Draco's body) when Draco abandoned the cabinet idea for a while and tried to kill Dumbledore by other means. I mean, just how long is Voldy going to sit around twiddling his thumbs while Draco hems and haws between fixing the cabinet and giving up on it? If Voldy knew the cabinet plan from the beginning, he would like it--it is clever after all--but there's no evidence he was wedded to it. From Draco's other murder attempts, he seems to have been willing to leave Draco to his own devices cabinet or not cabinet. As for letting the DEs into Hogwarts, I suppose that was a nice bonus once the cabinet was fixed. I'm sure Voldemort was all for it. But I don't see that it was of primary importance, as they were only there to ensure Draco killed Dumbledore (or to kill Draco if he failed). Voldemort had no great plan to send a mass force of DEs in to take over Hogwarts (and why not, I do wonder?). The DEs served one purpose, to assist Draco (or, again, to kill him), so I don't see why they weren't in fact "available" to him from the beginning. (Draco did tell Snape he had "better help" or something like that, which would imply he had access to the DEs.) Additionally, they didn't *have* to be present, as they wouldn't have been if the necklace or poisoned mead had been successful. They can always kill Draco later, if need be, as Voldemort doesn't seem to have any problem hunting his errant DEs down (Regulus, Karkaroff). Umm, I guess that's it then. As always, I'm willing to be proven wrong in Book 7 ;-) Julie, who figures the biggest question left out of this debate is still why Voldemort didn't take over Hogwarts when he had a golden opportunity? From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Sep 5 04:18:05 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:18:05 +1000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060905041805.C70072CF4D0@mail01.chariot.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 157893 fair wynn writes: > wynnleaf > Shaun, I was wondering if you found that the Houses took on distince > characters, even though the students weren't chosen by personality, but > mostly by random choice? The youth homes we had at the international > school where I taught were all different in character -- partly because of > different traditions, some by the personalities of their heads of house, > or maybe other reasons. It seems to me that getting rid of the Sorting > Hat, and sorting at random would certainly create more diverse groups of > students, but the Houses would still likely be very competitive and would > still develop different House characteristics. Shaun: Oh yes, our houses all had quite distinct personalities. I think it our case the personality was primarily set by the beliefs and ethos of the housemaster. My housemaster was a great believer in social justice, and our house reflected that by nearly everybody being involved in completely voluntary social work activities outside school hours. The people our houses were named after - our patrons - also influenced a lot of us, though by no means all - enough to have an effect though on the character of the house. Fortunately all our houses were named after fairly unambiguously positive role models but it did give a different focus - member of my house tended to be extremely opposed to racism because of the influence of our patron. With regards to Hogwarts, assuming it does remain open, and assuming the houses remained intact it'd be interesting to see if the characters of the new Heads of Houses for Gryffindor and Slytherin influenced their Houses. I personally think Remus Lupin will be the new Head of Gryffindor (I've no real reason for that - it's just a gut call - he'd be my choice), and I'm assuming Horace Slughorn will be Head of Slytherin. If so, that could be interesting. Slughorn, for all his faults, acknowledges talent can be anywhere - in any House, no matter what your parentage - he's still a Slytherin, through and through, but different from the stereotype I think many readers developed. Lupin is the type who seems to me to want to work to build bridges. It seems to me that the biggest fracture between the Houses at Hogwarts is between Slytherin and Gryffindor - could those two help heal that but keep the Houses intact? Of course, a bigger question is is this the type of thing, JKR would address at all. She has a lot to cover and she can't look at everything. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 5 04:29:47 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:29:47 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157894 Betsy wrote: > > PS Here are some links for those who want to check out Mike's > reviews. > > The HBP stuff: (Done) > http://pages.prodigy.net/mike_p_smith/hbp/intro.html > The PoA stuff: (1/2 way through) > http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/tag/prisonerofazkaban > Julie: I clicked on the HBP page and haven't gotten past the capsule biographies of the characters yet. But I almost died laughing (er, pardon the pun) when I saw the picture of the little boy crying in front of Dumbledore's headstone. I don't know why, it stuck me as funny. Maybe I'm just a mean person ;-) Snape's bio is pretty funny too. Really if you don't read anything else, go read those biographies. (And I'm sure Mike means them in good fun. Pretty sure anyway...) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 04:30:11 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:30:11 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <001501c6d09f$372e0c60$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157895 > Marion > I do indeed wonder how many students at Hogwarts have problems with Snape. My guess would be: very, very few. In fact, I think that Neville is probably the only one who fears him. > > And, to take this discussion in yet another direction, Neville's fear of Snape is totally *irrational*. What is Snape going to do? Insult him to death? (snip) Neville is afraid of McGonegal and Snape, i.e.; he's afraid of authority figures who demand that he *uses magic*. (Snip) > So Neville enters Hogwarts and he goes all "oh, don't try to teach *me* anything, I'm such a squib, I'll just sit here in the corner, minding my own business. No use teaching a near-squib". Tonks: I disagree with the assumption that Neville acts the way that he does around the teachers because he thinks of himself as a near Squib. I guess that is a possibility, and poor Neville has very poor self esteem because of his overbearing Grandmother. He is a gentle soul who needs love. He was just a baby like Harry when his parents were taken from him. He did not get the love that a young child needs. In some ways Grandma is worse that Aunt Petunia, or at least as bad. Neville is scared of adults. He does not expect them to be warm and nurturing. He expects them to be punitive. It is called "eliciting behavior". He acts in ways that he has come to act in reaction to punitive treatment and this behavior on his part causes the adults who might have that type of streak in them to react in a punitive way towards him. It is a learned behavior. As Neville goes along in school he starts to grow out of it. Because of his friends and the sense of belonging and acceptance that he gets from them he gains confidence. And he is also learning by watching the behavior of other children towards the same teachers. They become a role model for him, which is something that an only child does not get in his own home. Tonks_op From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 07:36:35 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 07:36:35 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <001501c6d09f$372e0c60$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157896 "Marion Ros" wrote: > Neville's fear of Snape is totally > *irrational*. What is Snape going > to do? Insult him to death? Irrational or not most children (and many adults) fear humiliation more than death. Tell me Snape has some good in him if you want to, tell me he will do something heroic in the last book if you like; but don't tell me there is a 11 year old child on the planet who wouldn't be terrified of the Severus Snape as described in the books. Snape is many things but warm and fuzzy he is not. > Neville isn't shy towards other children. When Luna first met Neville and asked who he was Neville responded "I'm nobody". That's just sad. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 15:03:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:03:52 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <20060905012229.258102CF519@mail01.chariot.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157897 > Shaun: > It isn't Snape's job or role to 'reach' Neville. It is his role and job to > 'teach' Neville. They are not the same thing at all. > > It would be nice if Snape was able to 'reach' Neville, but the simple fact > is that virtually all teachers have some students they cannot reach > effectively. And when it doesn't happen - when a teacher cannot 'reach' a child should > they just give up on 'teaching' the child as well? In my view, while it's > wonderful to do both, if you can't manage one, then trying to accomplish the > other is still worth while. > > I've been teaching a class of 26 recently. With 25 of the children, I had > absolutely no problem getting them to learn without having to resort to any > real unpleasantness. But #26 was a different matter. Nothing I tried worked > with him - and I tried quite a few different things - until I started taking > a heavily punitive approach. Basically, I found myself forced to scare the > poor kid in order to get him to take care and pay attention to instructions > in class. And that works with this kid. Alla: The only problem is that in my view Snape did not try with Neville at all, and that is if I am giving him my most charitable attitude - namely that he is trying to teach him something and not just enjoys seeing the boy in pain . IMO Snape signed Neville off as "idiot boy" from the very first lesson. I don't see him trying **any** other things to teach Neville before he resorts to scare tactics and that I call pure lasiness on his behalf. That is again if he is thinking about teaching Neville at all. I don't know how old the kids you teach now, but I am assuming that if parents of that kid will tell you that he has nightmares where you feature prominently, you would stop teaching him, no? I said many times that "boggart" to me is the metaphor of person nightmares, so to answer your question - yes, if child has to pay such a price for education ( and from our past discussions you know how much I value education), if the price for that education is child's emotional health, the price for such education is too high IMO. This is of course only my view and you said it yourself that scare tactics work for the kid you teach, I guess it is great,but my main point is that I don't see Snape trying any other tactics to teach Neville, except scaring him and humiliating him. Oh, and I don't see that it works for him either. Somebody argued in the past that in GoF we don't see Neville having such huge problems with Potions, so supposedly that lesson taught him something. I manage completely forgot about that detention with "cutting horned toads" - paraphrase, so I disagree that the "Trevor" lesson helped Neville, I think it just scared him more. JMHO, Alla, who likes more and more Snape's ending up as teaching assistant to Neville as the most delightful punishment for Snape. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 15:27:18 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:27:18 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Irrational or not most children (and many adults) fear humiliation > more than death. Tell me Snape has some good in him if you want to, > tell me he will do something heroic in the last book if you like; but > don't tell me there is a 11 year old child on the planet who wouldn't > be terrified of the Severus Snape as described in the books. Snape is > many things but warm and fuzzy he is not. > Well, rationality and Snape make for an interesting mix. He is, after all, such a sane and clear model of balance and propriety in all his dealings. The subject of good and Snape is even more interesting. Will Snape do good? Who knows? I suspect that he will, one way or the other, simply because that seems to be the way the series is heading. But IS he good? That's a much more interesting question. Based on his abuse of Neville and Harry, the answer is a resounding NO, I think. He is an evil character (probably in the end evil with a small "e") who may well undertake some good actions. I suppose you could argue the Dumbledore is the opposite, a good character (the epitome thereof, we are told) who undertakes some evil actions (not least toleration of Harry being abused by Snape and the Dursleys). I guess that makes for an interesting mirror effect, but doesn't excuse either Snape's essential small "e" evil, or Dumbledore's particular actions (or inactions, as the case is here). Lupinlore, who thinks a final confrontation between Snape and Neville might be even funnier (in a Snapey-poo humiliating kind of way) than one between Snape and Harry From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 5 16:07:36 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:07:36 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: <1780490E-4F1D-482E-A705-67E4D26A37F2@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157899 > > Ken: > Slughorn and DD even disagree on what happens to the soul when a horcurx > owner is "killed". Slughorn says *part* of the soul remains > earthbound, DD > says *all* of it remains earthbound. > > doug: > Cool. Where does DD say such? > Ken: In the US HB version Slughorn's comments are on page 497 of the Horcruxes chapter. If we believe Slughorn's version then on the night of the attack at GH the part of Voldemort's soul that was in his body was sent into the next life and something, his spirit(?), was anchored to the Earth by his horcruxes. This spirit(?)lived on because of the horcruxes and now inhabits his regernated body which would then seem to have no soul except for the bits stored in horcruxes. A few pages later (503 US HB) DD gives a different account. He says that the seventh piece of Voldemort's soul, the part that was in his body at GH, was that part of him that lived on all those years when he had no body and it now inhabits his regenerated body. On the same page DD says that all his horcruxes remained intact. That implies that *none* of Voldemort's soul was sent on the night of the GH attack. Of course at the time Harry and DD are having this conversation two of the horcruxes *have* been destroyed but this is due to Harry's and DD's actions subsequent to Voldemort's "unfortunate" accident at GH. So what does this mean? Danged if I know. It is quite possibly just evidence that the author changed her mind about the details of how horcuxes worked and changed DD's comments to match it but forgot to change Slughorn's. If that isn't the case then DD really, really, really needed to comment on Slughorn's (apparent) mistake since it is *absolutely critical* that Harry understand how horcruxes really work. His silence is a HUGE mistake if it isn't just an editing error on Rowling's part. Ken From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Sep 5 03:40:42 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: Teaching is not and never has been a popularity contest. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157900 >> Shaun: It isn't Snape's job or role to 'reach' Neville. It is his role and job to 'teach' Neville. They are not the same thing at all. It would be nice if Snape was able to 'reach' Neville, but the simple fact is that virtually all teachers have some students they cannot reach effectively. Every child is different, every child has a different personality and it's really not reasonable to expect every single teacher to always be able to find a way of connecting to every child. It is great when they can - it really is - but it isn't reasonable to expect total success all the time. And when it doesn't happen - when a teacher cannot 'reach' a child should they just give up on 'teaching' the child as well? In my view, while it's wonderful to do both, if you can't manage one, then trying to accomplish the other is still worth while. I've been teaching a class of 26 recently. With 25 of the children, I had absolutely no problem getting them to learn without having to resort to any real unpleasantness. But #26 was a different matter. Nothing I tried worked with him - and I tried quite a few different things - until I started taking a heavily punitive approach. Basically, I found myself forced to scare the poor kid in order to get him to take care and pay attention to instructions in class. And that works with this kid. With regards to Neville and his toad - in my view (and I've outlined the evidence why I hold it on previous occasions), Trevor was never in any real danger. Snape let Neville think his toad was in danger to frighten him, but that is all. And considering the class I have a hard time seeing that as unreasonable. If students misbrew potions they *could* kill themselves or others. There are *very* serious consequences for carelessness in that class, and students must learn to take the risks seriously. So far that doesn't seem to have happened with Neville. << BAW: A nurse I used to date told me that when she was in nursing school, she made a math error on an assignment that involved giving the correct dosage of a drug to a patient. Had it been a real patient, she would have killed him. The teacher made her write an essay explaining what she would have said to the patient's family. That seems very like something that Snape might do, does it not? A cousin of mine teaches carpentry in a vocational course. A student of his submitted a design for a back deck for a house. The design was 85% correct. He failed the student. Why? Well, if he had PASSED him, the student might have actually built a deck to that design. Would you want anyone you cared about to walk on a structure whose design was only 85% correct? In a subject like French or English or History, 85% is not a bad grade at all--in electrical wiring or bricklaying or auto mechanics, it is a very poor grade indeed. I submit that Potions is more like carpentry than it is like Latin. Whatever you may say about Snape as a person, as a teacher you have to give him this--his students LEARN THE SUBJECT; on the principle that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', we have to admit that he is a good teacher. BAW From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 5 17:08:27 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:08:27 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157901 > > > > >> Betsy Hp: > > > So Snape is making an important point. Neville needs to learn to > > > pay attention and follow directions, or someone might get hurt. > > > Snape is doing the best he can to reach him. I think it's > > > especially telling that Snape expresses a bit of frustration > >before > > > he comes up with using Trevor as a guinea pig. Snape has been > > > trying to get that message across, and this is one way he's > >thought > > > of for doing so. > > wynnleaf, > I think is that Snape is the type of person to habitually make over-the-top > threats. They are soooo over-the-top, I'm always amazed that Harry, Ron, > Hermione and Neville all believe them. Apparently all the Gryffindors > believe Snape's threats. And when the Slytherins think they're funny, Harry > assumes it's because the Slytherins want to see terrible things happen to > the Gryffindors. > Ken: Another thing to consider is that we only see Snape teaching through Harry's eyes. I'm not sure everyone has picked up on this yet but Harry is not what you would call fond of Snape (yes, irony intended). I wonder how your average Ravenclaw would describe Snape as a teacher? We never get that point of view. We only get what Harry wants us to see and his impartiality cannot be relied upon. So you have to wonder if Snape is as bad as Harry paints him. I've always been incredulous that DD would allow such a poor teacher to instruct his most important pupil in such a critical subject. Maybe the answer is that he didn't, the problem is not Snape the teacher but Harry the student. I suppose you could argue that he should have found Harry another potions teacher because of the awful personality conflict between the two but I now wonder if Snape isn't a lot better than the Harry filter version gives us. Given all their problems Harry *and Ron* both do quite well on their potions OWL. From what we see in the book neither is a great student. Of course the supporting material for this is Carol's beloved irony of Harry's complete mastery of potions when taught by the HBP's potions notes as opposed to his struggles when taught by the same HBP in person. Nowhere is it stated, as Carol assumes, that Snape's blackboard potions notes are the same as his scribbles in his old textbook, yet that is surely a reasonable assumption. If they weren't intended to be better than the textbook instructions then surely he would have had the students read the instructions from the text as Slughorn does. If anything Snape's blackboard instructions would have some refinements over what he wrote in his textbook all those years ago. The thing that *really* gets Hermione's goat about the HBP textbook, I presume, is that she realizes that potions is *another* subject where Harry would outshine her if he didn't detest the teacher! She will give the Potter his due in DADA but *this* is too much. Snape reminds me of several teachers I had in my educational career. They were always the teachers that students feared. Pray that you get Mrs. Rannow, not Miss Smith. Pray that you get that cute young math teacher, not Mr. Moreland. Pray that you get *anyone* for English lit except, and I'm sorry but I've forgotten his name. Of course I ended up in the classes of all these dreaded hobgoblinish excuses for human beings. And they were all *excellent* teachers. They were all strict and demanding but all their reputations meant was that my fellow students were lazy. Mr. Moreland's excellence as a math teacher has served me well in my career as an engineer, too bad Ms. Rowling couldn't have had someone like him, eh? Miss Smith, He Whose Name Cannot Be Remembered, and, indeed, Mrs. Rannow all gave me the love of literature and history that remains with me today. For all her reputation as being friendlier than Miss Smith, Mrs. Rannow too had a fist of steel that could occasionally be glimpsed beneath her velvet glove. Is McGonagall any less fearsome than Snape in the classroom? She can *seem* a warmer, grandmotherly type compared to Snape. But like Mrs. Rannow, if you cross her ... well, wouldn't you rather find yourself in Snape's hands? Ken From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Tue Sep 5 17:57:26 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:57:26 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Special Request for Assistance Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157902 Hi, everyone-- The elves have received the following request: "Hello, My name is Stephen Hill and I am a teacher / student / researcher at the Institute of Education, University of London. I am interested in online groups and especially the participation of people who do not have English as their first language in these groups (as well as being a Harry Potter fan). I was hoping to talk to some of the participants in this group who do not have English as their first language. Would this be possible? My email address is: s.hill at ioe.ac.uk ( s.hill@ ioe.ac.uk )" As you all know, we normally ask that these requests go to our OTC and Announcements groups, however in this case, as Mr. Hill would particularly like to speak to members whose first language is not English, we realized it would be far more helpful to him if his request were made here, so we thank you for your indulgence in this. Please, as with other similar matters, if you would like to assist Mr. Hill, make sure to contact him directly, rather than reply to this post onlist. Thanks, everyone! --The Elves From CliffVDY at juno.com Tue Sep 5 18:03:54 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:03:54 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157903 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: > > > Julie, who figures the biggest question left out of this > debate is still why Voldemort didn't take over Hogwarts > when he had a golden opportunity? > LV has lost most of his supporters of value in the MoM battle. He has Bellatrix, Narcissa, Draco, Goyle and maybe Snape. That's not enough to take over Hogwarts as a school. You can't teach with the likes of Fenrir, and the two lumps. Of course, the school would have far fewer students, just full bloods and maybe some half-bloods, and of parents who don't mind having LV in charge. Then, of course, he didn't expect success. IMO, Draco came up with the ideas and got LV's OK by saying he's dead if he doesn't succeed. LV should believe a kid of 16 can pull it off? No way! Cliff, not licking his lips like Fenrir at the thought. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 18:34:56 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:34:56 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157904 > Sherry: > > I do believe, however, that he will go there occasionally, to ask > questions, to consult portraits, to check in the library or > something. >>Amontillada: >>That's what I expect, too. Besides searching for Horcrux(es), I can >>think of at least two reasons Harry might need to go there: >>1. To search for whatever knowledge/ideas/ information Dumbledore >>may have left; >>2. To find valuable information in the library--after all, Hogwarts >>is probably one of the two or three MOST important libraries or >>archives of wizarding in Great Britain. zanooda: 3. I always thought that Harry will return to take back Snape's potions book. I'm sure JKR wouldn't describe in such detail where and how Harry hid the book if she didn't intend for him to come back for it. I think Harry would want to look for the book hoping to find there some informaton about Snape, for example, where he used to live or other useful things. We know that Harry didn't have time to read all HBP's notes, so he might think that there is something there that can be used against Snape. I also think that maybe Harry can find in the book something that will make him think differently about Snape, or, at least, just think about Snape. I know that if Snape is DDM, it most probably will be revealed during some kind of final confrontation, because it would be so much more dramatic. However, for me personally it would be more interesting if Harry figured it out himself, or at least suspected, earlier in the book. As for what exactly he can find in Snape's book, I really don't know. Maybe the words "Sevvy loves Lily", surrounded by small hearts? :-) Just kidding, of course, this would be sooo un-Snapeish! zanooda From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 5 19:08:12 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:08:12 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157905 > zanooda: > As for what exactly he can find in Snape's book, I really don't know. > Maybe the words "Sevvy loves Lily", surrounded by small hearts? :-) > Just kidding, of course, this would be sooo un-Snapeish! Potioncat: Well, we do think he was talking about himself when he complained about fools who weart their hearts on their sleeves! As much as I would like to think Harry goes back to Hogwarts, I'm not sure that he will. I mean, can you picture Molly grasping him by the ear and leading him to the Express to make him go? (I can see her trying, mind you.) There's a bit of news that makes me wonder what's going on. JKR is quoted at the Leaky Cauldron about Book 7 and Lord Voldemort in "all his grisly glory." Here's the link: >http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9032 That doesn't sound too good and makes me hope it isn't happening at Hogwarts. I don't know what she has up her sleeve, but this should be a doozy! From bobhawkins at rcn.com Tue Sep 5 19:14:34 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:14:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > We know LV had a loyal > DE in the DADA position--Barty Crouch. Yet it appears LV did not > suspend the curse for him. I wonder if Crouch knew about the curse? > Of course, we don't know if LV can remove the curse. Maybe LV has to > actually be at Hogwarts to do that. Maybe he wasn't strong enough > when he was part of Quirrellmort. > Crouch Jr. only needed a year to do his job for Voldemort. In any case, he wasn't hired for the job, Moody was. When anyone talks about the DADA curse, it's Moody's academic year in a trunk that's given as an example of the curse. No one ever talks about Crouch getting his soul sucked out as related to the curse. They think the curse is on being hired for the post, not on occupying it. Zero Irregardless From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 19:32:29 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:32:29 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157907 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > > Ken: > > Slughorn and DD even disagree on what happens to the > > soul when a horcurx owner is "killed". Slughorn says > > *part* of the soul remains earthbound, DD says *all* > > of it remains earthbound. > > > > doug: > > Cool. Where does DD say such? > > > > Ken: > > ...Slughorn's comments ... page 497 ... Horcruxes > chapter. ... Slughorn's version .. on the night of ... > GH the part of Voldemort's soul that was in his body > was sent into the next life and something, his spirit > (?), was anchoredto the Earth by his horcruxes. ... > > ... (503 US HB) DD gives a different account. He says > that the seventh piece of Voldemort's soul, the part ... > in his body..., was that part of him that lived on all > those years when he had no body and it now inhabits his > regenerated body. ... > > ... > > So what does this mean? Danged if I know. .... > > Ken > bboyminn: While this view won't please a lot of people, I can't help but say 'I have a theory'. I think both Slughorn and Dumbledore are correct. Keep in mind that conversations in books or in real life are never absolute and definitive, they are all, to some extent, generalizations and have context within the bounds of the specific conversation. The context for Slughorn is specifically the individual torn off and re-embodied Horcruxes. When the rest of the soul should be off to the afterlife, the Horcrux holds it to the earth; it is /all/, the entire soul, earthbound. That is how Voldemort was saved. Since some aspects of his soul were still embodied (stored in the Horcruxes) on earth, the core part of his soul could not cross over to the afterlife. So with regard to souls /dying/ or crossing over, it is /all or nothing/. It was the core part of Voldemort's soul that was held to the earth by the existance of the Horcruxes. This part of his soul is the Self-soul, or what I generally refer to as the Core-Soul. It is the major part of the soul that contains the earthly identity, memories, and sense of Self. That is what lived on in Albania, and that is what now inhabits Voldemort's new body. It was that Self-Soul that Voldemort sought to save by creating Horcruxes. Taking the general belief that Souls are eternal, and combining that with what we know in the books, I speculate that souls take on three forms. Core or Self Soul - as I've said, this is the bulk of the soul, and it contains the sense of Self, memories, identity, and attachment to the earthly body. These are the aspects that are lost when a pure complete soul crosses over. Horcruxes - secondary soul pieces that are encased in secondary bodies (animate and inamimate) and are held to the earth by the bodies they inhabit. In a sense, as long as your soul, or some piece of it, has a working body, it can never truly die. Since the 'working body' of the soul piece is an inaminate object that generally can't physically die, the soul pieces, the Soul and the Self are held to the earth for eternity. Free Soul Pieces - When a Horcrux is destroyed, the soul piece becomes disembodied. That is, it is the body that is destroyed not the soul piece itself. Remember, I am operating under the assumption that the soul is eternal and can not be destroyed. The Free Soul Pieces are the most confusing since they are bound to the earth but they are not /earthboud/. That is, they are held on earth by the fact that other aspects of themselves /are/ earthbound, embodied and therefore tied to the earth and the earthly life. Since, the Free Soul Piece are not embodied, they do not act as anchors to hold Voldemort to the earth. They are simply waiting around until it is possible for all aspect of the soul to cross over. So, Harry's job is not to destroy the various soul pieces, but to free them from their earthly bodies. In other words, his job is to destroy the Horcruxes, not the soul pieces. Once all that remains embodied is the Self or Core-soul, Voldemort's body and his soulful-Self are as vulnerable to death as any other human being. When Voldemort final soul piece is freed, nothing will hold his soul in it's entirety to the earth, and when released it will all cross over into death. While this theory may or may not be right, it does seem to overcome any potential inconsistencies that seem to appear in the books. So, based on this theory, I think both Slughorn and Dumbledore are correct. They are each speaking in a context and about certain aspect of the overal effect. Since Dumbledore's statements are longer and more complete, they probably give the best overal picture, and I think, context considered, they do not conflict with Slughorn's statements. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 19:37:39 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:37:39 -0000 Subject: Teaching is not and never has been a popularity contest. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157908 Bruce Alan Wilson: > Whatever you may say about Snape as a person, as a teacher you have > to give him this--his students LEARN THE SUBJECT; on the principle > that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', we have to admit > that he is a good teacher. AD: So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, we can conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and his "E" in Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger bastards than Snape? Amiable Dorsai From bobhawkins at rcn.com Tue Sep 5 19:03:36 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:03:36 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I take it you haven't been converted to the DDM!Snape camp? Actually, I believe in DDM!Snape. But he has to appear to obey Voldemort's orders as much as he can. From Harry's, and therefore our, POV, this has to look the same as if he is loyal to Voldemort. Hence the mystery that is Severus Snape. > It's entirely possible that Voldemort still wants Snape to take the > DADA job, but possibly not for the reasons you suggested. The original reasons from a decade and a half ago probably don't apply any more. The continual turnover and often low quality of DADA teachers may have done enough damage to satisfy Voldemort. No one has been hired for Auror training in three years. (This may be a comment by JKR on the damage that poorly managed schools can inflict.) But now it's Dumbledore who wants Snape to take the job, for Potter's benefit. Like I said, Snape doesn't seem to be a lucky person. Zero Irregardless From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 20:06:57 2006 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:06:57 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore divide his soul in HP and Half-Blood Prince? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157910 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken" wrote: > > I ,,, noticed how tired he was all the way through > the book... and got to wondering if he had divided his soul... it > would be a great way to make a comeback ... > It would also explain why Snape suddenly killed him if Dumbledore > had trusted him with this secret... > Ken > Dumbledore has been gradually looking older and more tired in the last three books. I suspect he was drinking Elixir of Life with the Flamels until the Stone was destroyed and began to age when he ran out of it. However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Dumbledore, having killed Grindelwald, made a horcrux after the Potters died in order to be able to protect Harry. Dumbledore says in virtually every book, that he trusts Severus Snape, but in book one, he tells McG that he trusts Hagrid "with his life." Is Hagrid protecting a Dumbledore horcrux? Does it have anything to do with the title, "Keeper of the Keys?" From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 20:13:12 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:13:12 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157911 --- "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: > > --- "julie" wrote: > > > > > > > Julie, who figures the biggest question left out of > > this debate is still why Voldemort didn't take over > > Hogwarts when he had a golden opportunity? > > > Cliff: > > LV has lost most of his supporters of value in the MoM > battle. ... That's not enough to take over Hogwarts as > a school. You can't teach with the likes of Fenrir, ... > Of course, the school would have far fewer > students, ... > > Then, of course, he didn't expect success. ... LV > should believe a kid of 16 can pull it off? No way! > > Cliff, not licking his lips like Fenrir at the thought. > bboyminn: This is a very interesting aspect, the best I can do is speculate, but then I do that very well. We really don't know what the grander plan was since it was mucked up from the first second. I speculate that the DE's expected to enter the castle by stealth, and that they would be able to move freely around the school undetected, and to easily overcome any solitary resistance they might stumble across on the way. As it was, the instant the stepped out of the door they met a force of resistance. They managed to overcome it and ran for the tower to try and spring their trap and salvage their plan. Then another muck-up, as the ran for the tower they met the Order members, again, a monkey wrench in their plan. Still forge ahead and at least try to achieve their primary objective. They set off the Dark Mark as a lure to draw Dumbledore into the trap. Dumbledore arrives, Draco arrive, DE's arrive, and while one primary objective is right there in front of them, it's clear the rest of the plan is a bust. Then Snape arrives, kills Dumbledore and give the rest up as a bad job, and gets everyone out. So, given that the DE's expected to enter by stealth, and have unfettered access to the castle, I can't really say that taking over Hogwarts wasn't part of the plan. So, /if/ they planned to take over Hogwarts, here is how and why the plan would have gone. First, the enter the castle and set the trap for Dumbledore, meanwhile a few other DE's sneak off and catch the teachers unaware in their sleep. The teachers are disarmed and taken to a holding area. The trap is sprung on Dumbledore and Dumbledore is killed. Now when morning comes, and the unsuspecting students wake from their quite sweet-dreamy sleep, the DE's are in control of the castle. I suspect Draco and the Inquisitor's Squad would be helping them by acting as re-enforcements to control the students. The students wouldn't have had time to gather their forces and mount an effective counter-attack. First order of business, completely disarm the school. So, now Voldemort is essentially holding the entire school as a hostage. Every young wizard and witch in the world would be under his thumb. If you hold the children of the wizard world, you hold the wizard world. Sadly, or thankfully, things did not go according to plan, so they scaled back, accomplished what they could, and got the he11 out. I'm pretty sure something like this will happen in the next book. With Dumbledore gone, Hogarts will not seem so well protected, and it is a target of the most extreme strategic value. Remember it was primarily because of Dumbledore that Voldemort didn't attack Hogwarts the first time. Because I feel an attack on Hogwarts is imminent, I think it is important that Harry not be at Hogwarts, so he can come and rescue everyone. Though if Harry is there at Hogwarts when it is captured, then that would open the door for Snape to redeem himself by helping Harry, others, and perhaps Draco get out. Huge plot potential here. It also opens the door for Voldemort to brag and expound the way evil overlords are inclined to do when they think they have the upper hand, and give away secrets that Harry needs to solve the final /Riddle/. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 20:22:01 2006 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:22:01 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore divide his soul in HP and Half-Blood Prince? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Tonks: > DD would not do anything to damage his soul. Whizbang: {CoS, Ch 9} "Just because a wizard doesn't use Dark Magic doesn't mean he can't, Miss Pennyfeather," snapped Professor Binns. "I repeat, if the likes of Dumbledore -" We're just not sure what Dumbledore might or might not do. > Tonks: > Now I know you are going to argue that DD allowed Snape to kill him > and in fact asked Snape to kill him, and didn't this split Snape's > soul? Whizbang: We have no idea what Dumbledore asked or allowed Snape to do in the moment Snape killed him. >Tonks: > I think that JKR is very inventive and does not tend to use the same > thing over and over. She introduces it, uses it and moves on to > another idea and a new invention. Whizbang: Excellent premise. If only the books didn't contradict it. ;) Personally, I'm keeping an eye out for omnioculars. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 20:38:16 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:38:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157913 Zero Irregardless: *(snip)* > When anyone talks about the DADA curse, it's Moody's academic year in a trunk that's given as an example of the curse. No one ever talks about Crouch getting his soul sucked out as related to the curse. They think the curse is on being hired for the post, not on occupying it. Ceridwen: Not here. I've suggested, agreed with, and read on this list that the DADA curse hit both men that year: Moody who was hired to do the job, and Crouch, Jr., who actually held the position. Both men met with unfortunate circumstances, with Crouch, Jr.'s ultimate fate much worse than Moody's. Not everyone on the list may agree, and there are probably people who don't care or don't think about it, but it is not an unheard-of speculation. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 5 20:42:47 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:42:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157914 "zeroirregardless" wrote: > > > Crouch Jr. only needed a year to do his job for Voldemort. Potioncat: He was expecting LV to proud of him, and to reward him, but he wasn't expecting a kiss. Zeroirregardless: In any > case, he wasn't hired for the job, Moody was. When anyone talks about > the DADA curse, it's Moody's academic year in a trunk that's given as > an example of the curse. No one ever talks about Crouch getting his > soul sucked out as related to the curse. They think the curse is on > being hired for the post, not on occupying it. > > Potioncat: Oh, I don't know. It's been awhile, but both Quirrell and Crouch are thought to have suffered from it. In August of 05 there was a pretty good thread about the DADA curse. Here's portions of two posts In 137961 Carol wrote: snip I see that I'm going into too much detail and I apologize to anyone who has followed me this far. Fortunately, I haven't given much thought to the DADA curse in years four and five. I'll just say that the real Moody, aknown enemy of Voldemort, is Imperio'd by Voldemort and his servants (including Wormtail) before he even gets to the school, the swiftest manifestation ever of the DADA curse (agent: his own trunk). And Crouch!Moody, the fanatically loyal servant of Voldemort who takes his place, also falls victim to the curse, having his identity and crimes exposed and his soul sucked out just at the end of the year, following the pattern established by Quirrell, and in 138084 Jen wrote: snip 4)Crouch!Moody's initial strategy: Unwavering belief in the Dark Lord's power and the power of evil in general. Weakness: Hubris. In his belief that Voldemort & evil will always prevail, Crouch unwittingly causes Voldemort's downfall in the graveyard by teaching Harry and those around him the skills Harry will need to escape LV. In the end, his hubris allows him to believe he can outwit Dumbledore, and he is ultimately destroyed by the very evil he worships. To be honest, I wonder if Harry with his DA didn't also get a touch of the curse. He ignored the Dark Detectors and was captured by Draco. At any rate, whether Snape be DDM! or ESE! I think he became a victim of the curse. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:03:58 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:03:58 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157915 > >>Mike: > > My analysis of the whole debate, in simple terms: The "suicide > mission only" crowd were arguing that you can't put the cart > before the horse. The "cabinet firsters" argued that they were > putting the horse in front but they just wanted to know how many > horses were pulling this cart. So, sorry Sydney, but the Cabinet > firsters never had a problem with the direction your cart took, > they (and that includes me) said they were going in that direction > too, just getting there with more horsepower. Betsy Hp: I strongly disagree with that, Mike. The Cabinet First folks are attempting to change the entire thrust of Draco's story. They're trying to make him that much more responsible for the mess he landed in. They're trying to make his first adult move to be approaching Voldemort. And that is somthing I just can't let stand. (I, uh, feel a bit strongly about it. ) For that reason I do find your theory that Draco had been thinking of the cabinets before the meeting, but it was still Voldemort who did the approaching, a bit more palatable. But the canon just isn't there. If JKR had in mind that Draco had latched onto the cabinet idea *before* "Spinner's End" then she would have foreshadowed in back in OotP. And she doesn't. She even had the perfect spot to slip a hint in when Draco confronts Harry after Lucius is thrown in Azkaban. And she doesn't take it. Draco's threats are Harry-centric and very non-specific. Draco doesn't talk like a boy with a devious plan up his sleeve. He talks like a boy caught up in emotion. > >>Mike: > > Let's try this with role playing. You are Voldemort with your > premise, that is, this is simply, specifically and ONLY a 'suicide > mission' for Draco. You summon Draco in and give him the "kill > Dumbledore" mission and tell him to do it any way he wants, you > don't care. Why do you give him any DE support, now or ever? > Betsy Hp: Either, Voldemort is setting Draco up for failure so he hands the kid a bone. "So and So will train you." That way Draco isn't made instantly aware that his task is completely hopeless. Or, Bellatrix volunteers to give Draco a bit of training and Voldemort is like, "Eh, whatever. Just see it doesn't distract you from xyz." So there's Draco's Death Eater link to Voldemort: his trainer. We know Draco received some sort of training. I suspect it was Bellatrix. Voldemort *does* build Draco up. We know he starts off feeling honored and excited by his assignment. So it makes sense that the training is at least okayed by Voldemort. It makes total sense that Draco tell his trainer about his grand cabinet idea. And at first Draco may have either seen the cabinets as an escape route (thank you AnneNeville ), or a way to slip his adult trainer in to stand as backup, if allowed. We know Draco was surprised by at least one of the Death Eater's chosen to come through, so I don't think Draco was handling the logistics. I'm betting it was his trainer (probably Bellatrix). Betsy Hp From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:03:20 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:03:20 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore divide his soul in HP and Half-Blood Prince? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157916 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > Tonks: > > DD would not do anything to damage his soul. > > Whizbang: > {CoS, Ch 9} > "Just because a wizard doesn't use Dark Magic doesn't mean he can't,> Miss Pennyfeather," snapped Professor Binns. "I repeat, if the likes > of Dumbledore -" > > We're just not sure what Dumbledore might or might not do. > Tonks: Just because a wizard knows Dark Magic doesn't mean that he will ever use it. Remember the words of McGonagall in the first chapter of the first book. She says that DD is "too noble" to use them. So, Yes we do know what DD would do. Or, at least, we know what he would not do. He is, as JKR has told us, the epitomy of goodness. It follows that he WOULD NEVER use Dark Magic! He would never split his soul, he would not have a horcrux. NEVER. Tonks_op DD's most loyal and faithful servant. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 5 21:08:52 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:08:52 -0000 Subject: Oops! Re: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157917 Oops, this part of the post was my opinion, not Jen's and should have sai:. > To be honest, I wonder if Harry with his DA didn't also get a touch > of the curse. He ignored the Dark Detectors and was captured by Draco. > > At any rate, whether Snape be DDM! or ESE! I think he became a victim > of the curse. As did Quirrell and Crouch. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:33:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:33:45 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157918 Alla wrote: > As to Mike Smith, somebody recently mentioned him to me. I take your > word for it that he is funny, but honestly I could never understand > if person dislikes the books that much, why bother writing so much > about it. > > No, I have not read him yet, if he is truly funny I may or if he is > just trashing the books, I probably won't. Carol responds: I just read about half of Mike Smith's HBP review (the chapters I'm most interested in). What's fun about it is that, even though we find out at the end that he's a Christian, he's not reading it from a fundamentalist perspective and in fact argues that the fundamentalists have nothing to object to. And the conclusions he arrives at regarding Dumbledore are quite surprising (and, IMO, astute) considering that his chapter-by-chapter analysis doesn't seem to lead that way at all. What I like is his complete outsider's perspective--imagine reading HBP without having read the earlier books (I think he's seen the first three movies, but that's all). Also, he reacts to each chapter as he reads it instead of writing about them in hindsight after he's finished the book, and if you skip the silly stuff comparing HBP with science fiction and anime, he really seems to have no agenda. He certainly doesn't have a favorite character who shapes his perceptions: he seems to dislike them all equally. Obviously, a real HP fan who knows all the books will arrive at different conclusions (and will note his frequent mistakes), but I think you might enjoy skimming it, seeing how he reacts to particular chapters and contrasting that humorous, skeptical take with his conclusions about DD in the end. I won't say any more because anyone who's mildly interested should check out the link themselves. (Thanks, Betsy. I didn't receive any enlightenment, but it was fun.) > > Alla: > > Yes, I am one of the people who thinks that "end the sorting" is the > most likely answer and the most logical answer to house rivalry and > especially to ending the poisonous Slytherin mmentality (pureblood > mentality, I mean, but again, so far I had been given nothing to > show that it does not equal Slytherin mentality, therefore in my > mind they are pretty much the same). > > The solution you just gave I find very cool, in a sense that indeed > random sorting would not put students of the same personalities > together, and they will have a chance to socialise with those whose > values are truly different from theirs, learn the best, get rid of > the worst, etc. > > To make a long story short, I love it, but the question to you is > why would you want it? I mean, you seem to like House system, but > wouldn't the Houses be truly houses anymore? > > Would you just prefer for the names to be there? What if the > students be just sorting in four different dormitories with no > names? What is the significance left in House system? > > Just Quidditch? But then couldn't the teams be randomly formed? Carol responds: The one advantage I see in having Houses (besides delegating authority to four teachers, who can interact more directly with the students in their particular House than Dumbledore can with anyone except Harry, who's a special case) is that the point system seems to provide a better incentive for doing well in school than the rare awards for individual achievement, which no one seems to be striving for, and a better system of punishment than detention, which doesn't seem to deter rule-breaking and disrespect for teachers at all. And it isn't just Snape's detentions that seem to have no effect on Harry. McGonagall's don't affect him, either. In fact, even when he's done something wrong and knows it, like using Sectumsempra on Draco, he seems to concentrate on the unfairness of the detention. At least the loss of house points seems to cause him some regret. Carol, unable to think of an alternative to house points and detention that serves as a deterrent and isn't corporal punishment or suspension From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:32:39 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:32:39 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles & Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157919 > >>Tonks: > > Neville is scared of adults. He does not expect them > to be warm and nurturing. He expects them to be punitive. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, I'm not sure I believe this. When Harry was sick it was Neville who suggested and then went ahead and fetched McGonagall. And while Neville is a bit nervous of Snape, I don't recall him shying away from other adults. Actually, I kind of get the feeling that Neville is around older witches and wizards a lot. That's why the other kids see him as a bit weird. I really do think that what Neville is most scared of (or was, I think OotP may have changed that) is the expectation to perform. Classes like Transfiguration and Potions are so scary for him because his results are right out there, and neither Snape nor McGonagall shy away from calling him on bad results. I suspect he's more nervous of Snape than McGonagall because Snape is a younger man. Neither of which Neville has as much experience with (the young and male bit). But he knows all about strict older women. So he's not as nervous about McGonagall. Anway, that's how I see it. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, we > can conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and his "E" > in Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger bastards than > Snape? Betsy Hp: I think it's more that Potions is a different kind of subject than Charms or DADA. So Lupin and Flitwick can build Neville up, break through his fear, or give him time to make mistakes and learn from them. But if Snape did the same thing Neville could well end up killing himself and/or others. There's no guess work in potions. Until you've reached a certain level of competence. And Neville *should* be scared of screwing up. Because screwing up in Potions can lead to really frightening things. Betsy Hp From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 5 21:39:54 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:39:54 -0000 Subject: Teaching is not and never has been a popularity contest. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157920 > AD: > So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, we can > conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and his "E" in > Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger bastards than Snape? > > > Amiable Dorsai > Hickengruendler: Not to mention that dastardly Professor Sprout. ;-) IMO, the books make crystal clear that, no matter how good a teacher Snape may be for other students, he is not a good one for Neville. Neville shows progress when people show confidence in him, like Lupin and Harry. He was also said to perform much better during his Potions Owl, when Snape wasn't there. I fully believe those users, who said that teachers like Snape were the best for them. I, however, made a different experience. I always was a pretty good student and by far my worst subject was sports. And when I was 12, I had a Snape like teacher in Swimming and it was hell on earth. I can honestly say, even now with another 12 years gone by, that *nothing* good came out of it. (The teacher was later fired, because he touched some girls, by the way. Oh, how I rejoiced, when he was gone). Of course, not every student is the same, and therefore how we reacted to these kind of teachers doesn't matter. The books show us, how Neville does react, and it is not good. Therefore Snape's methods are not the right ones for this particular student. On the other hands, and in Snape's defense, that of course also means, that it is impossible for a teacher to change their behaviour, since what is good for individuum one might not be good for indidual two. Still, more often than not Snape goes too far IMO, and he does enjoy humilitating persons, see his commentt about Hermione's teeth for example, which really does not have any pedagocial value at all. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:46:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:46:46 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles & Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157921 > > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, we > > can conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and his "E" > > in Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger bastards than > > Snape? Alla: MAHAHAHA. You summed up in one sentence what I struggled to do in several paragraphs. You are brilliant :) > Betsy Hp: > I think it's more that Potions is a different kind of subject than > Charms or DADA. So Lupin and Flitwick can build Neville up, break > through his fear, or give him time to make mistakes and learn from > them. But if Snape did the same thing Neville could well end up > killing himself and/or others. Alla: Are you arguing that Potions is more dangerous subject than **any* other subject? Because I don't think that Care of Magical Creatures is a very safe subject either and I don't have my PoA with me, but I seem to remember that Neville was doing pretty good with hypogriffs without Hagrid scaring him out of his mind. I can be wrong of course, but for some reason I think I remember it. I mean, really in **all** subjects where he is treated well, Neville **does** well, I think it is that simple. And no, I don't think Mcgonagall treats him well either. JMO, Alla From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Sep 5 21:45:14 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:45:14 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching is not and never has been a popularity contest. References: Message-ID: <000f01c6d134$92547170$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 157922 Bruce Alan Wilson: > Whatever you may say about Snape as a person, as a teacher you have > to give him this--his students LEARN THE SUBJECT; on the principle > that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', we have to admit > that he is a good teacher. AD: So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, we can conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and his "E" in Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger bastards than Snape? Marion: You're missing the point. In the original link (http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/125565.html#cutid1) Mike says the following: "Meanwhile, on the other side of the room, Neville Longbottom is hard at work on totally whizzing it. According to Snape, the potion they're making is supposed to be green, and his is orange. This is apparently because Neville added one too many rat spleens and went overboard on the leech juice. I'm kind of thinking that it has more to do with Neville failing at life in general. To hammer home the point, Snape says they'll be testing his crappy orange work on his toad. I assume he means Neville's pet toad, and not just some random toad they handed out to the lab partners for this session. Because Neville seems super-worried about what'll happen to this toad once it's exposed to his substandard product. Hermione begs Snape to ease off the poor kid, since she wasn't able to help him enough to salvage his work, but Snape just tells her to quit showing off. Again, this makes a lot of sense. People comparing this Potions bullcrap to chemistry makes me throw up in my mouth a little, but one principle that carries over is that you're working with potentially dangerous materials, so the cardinal rule is to know what the hell you're doing. That means following the instructions, listening to someone who knows, and staying focused on the task at hand. Snape may come off harsh, but it's a safe bet that Neville won't soon forget that you only need one rat spleen the next time. For that matter, he'll know better than to depend on someone else to save his ass. Unless Hermione's gonna hold his hand through every slightly challenging task life throws at him, helping him here is counterproductive. Besides, Hermione's already stuck carrying Hagrid's teaching career. Moving on, the nWo (Trio) attend Lupin's Defense Against the Dark Arts class. The backstory on this is that the teaching position in the DADA course is cursed because yadda yadda yadda, and even though Snape would prefer to be teaching it, for some reason they hired Lupin to do it instead blah blah blah techno crap. At this point, all anyone seems to know abou Lupin is that he's an amicable fellow who just so happens to look and dress like a vagrant. He shows up late to his own class, and tells the students to put their books away and follow him for a practical lesson. The chapter's a decent improvement from before, simply for using Neville's confidence issues to tie everything together into a little story. Snape breaks him down because fear is critical to good laboratory practice, even if the lab is for something as melodramatic and absurd as Potions. Fear leads to caution. Caution leads to accuracy. Accuracy leads to progress. Conversely, Lupin builds Neville back up again, since Lupin's course concerns self-defense, where fear can only become a hinderance, even when the enemy doesn't feed upon it. Fear leads to hesitation, hesitation leads to getting eaten by a flying shark. It's a precarious balance Neville has to strike, but he has to strike it if he's going to get through life. I complain about these books for failing to provide any sort of moral guidance to the characters, but just this once it might have gotten it right. Can't fault that." Marion again: See? Snape's teaching style is quite appropriate for the art he teaches. (I wanted to write more, but then I read Betsy's post and knew I couldn't add to that :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:53:23 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:53:23 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat / bit of etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157923 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But you can have the Houses and just sort students *randomly* > > into them. That way being a Gryffindor doesn't mean anything > > more than the color of your school tie. It doesn't say anything > > about your personality. > > So you still have the logistical sense of the Houses without the > > psychological test that in many ways justifies cut-throat House > > rivalry. It's win, win! > >>Alla: > The solution you just gave I find very cool, in a sense that > indeed random sorting would not put students of the same > personalities together, and they will have a chance to socialise > with those whose values are truly different from theirs, learn the > best, get rid of the worst, etc. > To make a long story short, I love it, but the question to you is > why would you want it? I mean, you seem to like House system, but > wouldn't the Houses be truly houses anymore? > Would you just prefer for the names to be there? What if the > students be just sorting in four different dormitories with no > names? What is the significance left in House system? > Betsy Hp: I went to a college with a house system, and I quite liked it. As Shaun and Wynnleaf pointed out, it's a nice way to give incoming students a group they can belong to. It's also a nice way to give students a chance to interact with different age groups. And it's good for them to have an adult or two that stays with them throughout their school career. As McGonagall said, your House becomes your home away from home. I'd hate for Hogwarts to lose that. So yeah, random sorting with probably a bit of tweaking to make sure half-bloods, Muggle-born and purebloods are evenly spread throughout. As Shaun pointed out, the Houses would probably develop personalities based on Heads of House or possibly an exceptionally charismatic student (or students). But I think there'd be a natural ebb and flow to the whole thing. Heads don't stay the same forever (see the difference between Snape and Slughorn) and I doubt any House would be branded "evil". Certainly not with any seriousness. And yeah, there'd probably be rivalries, but that's human nature. But with a house system the adults can at least moniter the rivalry and make sure it doesn't get out of hand. That can be harder, I think, with private cliques. Anyway, that's the way I can see throwing out the bathwater without troubling the baby. > >>Julie: > I clicked on the HBP page and haven't gotten past the capsule > biographies of the characters yet. But I almost died laughing > (er, pardon the pun) when I saw the picture of the little boy > crying in front of Dumbledore's headstone. I don't know why, > it stuck me as funny. Maybe I'm just a mean person ;-) > > Snape's bio is pretty funny too. Really if you don't read anything > else, go read those biographies. (And I'm sure Mike means them > in good fun. Pretty sure anyway...) Betsy Hp: Wait until you hit the bit on Dumbledore using the facilities at Slughorn's. *I* nearly peed. :-D Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:56:13 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:56:13 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore divide his soul in HP and Half-Blood Prince? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157924 --- "whizbang" wrote: > > --- "Ken" wrote: > > > > I ,,, noticed how tired he was all the way through > > the book... and got to wondering if he had divided > > his soul... it would be a great way to make a > > comeback ... ... > > Ken > > > Whizbang: > > Dumbledore ... was drinking Elixir of Life with the > Flamels until the Stone was destroyed... > bboyminn: Not likely since JKR has confirmed that living to in excess of 100 years is not uncommon for wizards. > Whizbang: > However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that > Dumbledore, having killed Grindelwald, made a horcrux > ... in order to be able to protect Harry. ... > bboyminn: While I can't say that this isn't an intriguing speculation, I'm having trouble buying it. Think about /how/ Dumbledore would continue to exists, he would be an abstact intangible entity that was less than the 'meanest ghost', and according to Voldemort, not able to do magic. That doesn't make it seem like he would be much help. Also, I don't see Dumbledore doing something as Dark as using the Bone-Flesh-Blood spell to regain a body. Still if Voldemort could communicate, he might advise Harry as well as spy for him. At the end when Voldemort has been successfully vanquished, Dumbledore could tell Harry where to find the Horcrux. Harry could destroy it, releasing Dumbledore's soul to move on to the 'next great adventure'. It is a nice theory, that does have some potential, but I don't think it will come true ...still anything can happen. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 21:56:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:56:11 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157925 Alla: > > Even if Snape just makes threats and have not injured or killed > anybody's familiar yet, which I will not put past him, I personally > find it not very relevant in evaluating this scene. > > I don't think that when Neville comes to class and hears that > teacher threatens to poison his toad, he should be expected to > remember back to the conversations in the great hall or dorm and > realise that oh, yes, there are no conversations about Snape killing > anybody's pet, so this threat is not real. > > As we know, Neville is indeed terrorised by Snape ( Boggart) and > that is what matters to me. > > I am also thinking about detention Snape asigned to Neville in GoF. > What was he expect to cut? Pieces of toads or something? > > So, yeah, I find the fact that Snape considers to **making** those > threats to be effective teaching tool to be so very disgusting. > > JMO, > > Alla. > Carol responds: Technically, Snape doesn't threaten to poison Neville's toad. What he says, after Neville had dramatically messed up the potion and Snape has explained exactly what he's done wrong, is threaten to *test* the potion on Neville's toad at the end of class. Hermione offers to help Neville and Snape tells her not to. He wants Neville to do it on his own. Of course Snape sees Hermione helping him, and of course he knows from the color of the potion that it's somehow been made right (one of the more improbable bits of HP canon, but, oh, well). Only when Snape is ready to test the potion on Trevor and knows perfectly well that it's okay does he mention poison and pour the drops of potion into Trevor's mouth, after which he pours the antidote, which he's had in his pocket the whole time, onto Trevor's head. I'll grant you that this method of teaching (trying to pressure a student who doesn't thrive on pressure) to perform is not particularly effective. Nevertheless, it's different from "Get it right, Longbottom, or I'll poison your toad." And the points he deducts are from Hermione, who has disobeyed him and is preventing Neville from at least trying to fix the potion himself. Just as Snape knows that he's not going to expel Harry because he doesn't have the authority, he knows that he's not going to poison Trevor. What would have happened if Neville had tried to fix the potion himself, we don't know. But it's a safe bet that Snape, who can look at any potion and tell exactly what steps have been omitted or incorrectly performed, knew that no harm would come to Trevor when he put the drops of potion in his mouth. (If Snape really did go around poisoning students' pets, we'd have heard about it.) Carol, who finds Crouch!Moody's approach to teaching the Unforgiveable Curses much more disturbing than anything Snape does as a teacher From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 22:11:31 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:11:31 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles & Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157926 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think it's more that Potions is a different kind of subject > > than Charms or DADA. So Lupin and Flitwick can build Neville > > up, break through his fear, or give him time to make mistakes > > and learn from them. But if Snape did the same thing Neville > > could well end up killing himself and/or others. > > >>Alla: > Are you arguing that Potions is more dangerous subject than **any* > other subject? Betsy Hp: No. I'm saying Potions is more dangerous than Charms or DADA. At least at this level. (I can see DADA and Charms reaching a point when they become just as dangerous as Potions, but by that point you're probably at NEWT levels and the sucky students have been tested out.) > >>Alla: > Because I don't think that Care of Magical Creatures is a very > safe subject either and I don't have my PoA with me, but I > seem to remember that Neville was doing pretty good with > hypogriffs without Hagrid scaring him out of his mind. > Betsy Hp: Neville *was* having trouble actually. Harry was a bit worried for him but then Draco did his bit and Neville was saved. And actually, that just goes to prove the point. I think CoMC *can* become as dangerous as Potions eventually, depending on the magical creature being studied. Hagrid started the students out with dangerous creatures so it *was* a dangerous class. But he didn't drive home the caution the students should have been taking. He didn't scare them enough, and Draco was hurt. Could easily have been killed. Snape was preventing such an outcome by giving Neville a threat that would scare the boy, but at the same time be one that he (Snape) could control. Instill the fear in a reasonable way to prevent the sort of injury Draco suffered. > >>Alla: > I mean, really in **all** subjects where he is treated well, > Neville **does** well, I think it is that simple. And no, I don't > think Mcgonagall treats him well either. Betsy Hp: That's true. But I think there's something to be said about the exactness both McGonagall and Snape expect. I don't think it's wrong for them to expect same. And in Snape's case, it'd be downright criminal if he did play fast and loose with his subject. I agree that Neville doesn't behave well under pressure in PoA. (That's the weakness he faces and overcomes in OotP, I think.) But that shouldn't mean that the teachers stop applying it. I mean, yeah if Neville's about to self-destruct, sure. But he wasn't near that at all. Betsy Hp From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Sep 5 22:31:23 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 00:31:23 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles References: Message-ID: <002701c6d13b$04b9f810$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 157927 >>>Lupinlore, who thinks a final confrontation between Snape and Neville might be even funnier (in a Snapey-poo humiliating kind of way) than one between Snape and Harry<<< Marion: If, *if*, there ever would be a 'final confrontation' between Snape and Neville, Neville-poo would be mincemeat. Not so much as Harry-poo would, though (unless JKR pulls a magic bunny out of a hat which magically transforms Harry-poo from a stupid, obstreperous, selfimportant hate-filled dillitante into a smooth, suave duellist) No, indeed. Neville might start out as a kid with performance-angst (err..) but after a few years of Hogwarts, Neville has *learned*. Neville has *grown*. Neville is *capable* and *confident*. Confidence is not aquired by getting petted on the head and told that you needn't worry if you're bad at something because "we can't all be good at magic/potions/maths". Confidence is aquired by attempting something you think you can't do, perhaps fail the first time, try again and succeeding. But seriously, I don't think seventeen-year old Neville has such a problem with Snape. Neville has *grown*. Neville might have a problem with Snape killing Dumbledore, but apart from that, Snape does not occupy a large part of Neville's conscious. Why would Neville want to kill/duel/harm Snape? Because he used to be frightened of Snape's sarcastic remarks in class when he was eleven? How many adults still carry a killing-rage grudge against their 'mean schoolteacher' (except Harry)? Marion, who's still amazed that people who have read how the Dursleys cuddle, schmooch and praise their son and explain away his shortcomings, transform them into virtues and don't expect him to succeed in anything because he's perfect in their eyes no matter *what*, that those people will still insist that the best thing you can do with a child is praise him to death, not expect anything of him, pet him on the head when he fails because this will supposedly give the kid *self-esteem* and *confidence*. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 22:53:11 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:53:11 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157928 Mike: > > My analysis of the whole debate, in simple terms: The "suicide > > mission only" crowd were arguing that you can't put the cart > > before the horse. The "cabinet firsters" argued that they were > > putting the horse in front but they just wanted to know how many > > horses were pulling this cart. So, sorry Sydney, but the Cabinet > > firsters never had a problem with the direction your cart took, > > they (and that includes me) said they were going in that direction > > too, just getting there with more horsepower. Betsy Hp: > I strongly disagree with that, Mike. The Cabinet First folks are > attempting to change the entire thrust of Draco's story. They're > trying to make him that much more responsible for the mess he landed > in. Sydney: ... must... not... reply..to thread.. darn it. Stupid willpower again. I agree so very much with Betsy (astonishing, isn't it!). Actually, more than the way it affects Draco's arc, what I would worry about is how it affected the very next scene with him. Taking the Spinner's End exposition about What's Happening at face value, we see that Draco is given a task, something that nutty Death Eaters (Bella) see as a huge honour (though a dead-producing one-- doesn't she say she'd be glad to 'give up' her [nonexistent] sons to the Dark Lord?). But the sane people-- Snape and Narcissa-- cue us that it's not an honour, it's really a petty punishment for Lucius and a death sentence. We see Snape, always the 'double' character, giving us both sides: the OMG Voldie fanboy schtick-- if he succeeds, it'll definitely be amazing; and obliquely (because he can't come right out and say, 'yes, Voldie's a vindictive psycho')-- this is all about punishing Lucius, and Draco's meant to be killed. Snape the makes some sort of mysterious effort to interfere in this which we can anticipate will lead to Doom Ahead. Now, when we next see Draco, he's bragging and boasting and excited in the train compartment, being the Big Man because of his Important Task. Sticking with the reading that Narcissa was being used as Basil Exposition, the audience reaction is: hooo boy, kid, you have no idea what's going on. There's maybe a, "LOOK BEHIND YOU DRACO!!" element for people who already care whether he lives or dies. For people who don't-- and this I think is really important-- there's maybe the start of pity. Draco thinks he's been given this cool important task but actually he's just this patsy in a sideline to punish his dad. There's also a Hitchcockian irony in the audience knowing something Draco doesn't, always a fun element in a scene. If you discount Narcissa's take, you enter the train scene very, very differently, and I think, to the detriment of the arc as it then plays out. First of all, you would have no idea what's going on-- there's no dramatic irony because you've decided to ignore what Narcissa and Snape give you. The scene that way is, IMO, less interesting, more vague, more just some stuff going on, than something that follows in an interesting way from the scene before. More critically, you would see Draco as actually being part of the Big Plan that he's bragging about. He's a *threat*. He really *is* an important DE and not a slightly ridiculous 16-year-old. Also, everything is his own fault-- it's a 'hoist in his own petard' thing rather than a 'person oblivious to looming threat thing'. There's no start of pity from the audience and his emotional breakdown and Dumbledore's mercy don't follow, in my opinion, as clean a line as if the audience's pity had been allowed to start there. So I'm being adamant here that 'Cabinet first' is extremely different *story-wise* from 'Suicide mission', even if it may not seem that different *plot-wise*. It seems like it's just a small change, a little behind-the-scenes theorizing that doesn't move the furniture of the story. But it does move the furniture, it moves it quite a lot. Draco going to Voldemort first is, in terms how you would tell the story, a very critical point. If you were telling a similar story about someone you know, that's where you would start-- "so, Joe was thirsting for pay-back, and so he went to the Mob, but then it all went pear-shaped and he got in over his head". "So Joe was thirsting for revenge, and so when the Mob came and made him this offer he was thrilled, but the poor sap didn't know that..." is a different story. You wouldn't leave out the part that Joe actually went to the mob. It's where the story hinges. For that reason, I find it extremely hard-- in fact, impossible-- to believe a writer, especially a writer like Rowling, would leave it out. She doesn't have to write a scene with Draco and Voldemort to do that. She could have put it in the mouths of any one of the three 'exposition' characters in Spinner's End. It's not, as I said, a documentary and you can just wave your hand and say just none of them happened to know about it or bring it up. It's a million times more important than any sort of logic about how the DE's communicate or who called who or whether Voldemort's plan makes sense. If Draco went to Voldemort it needed to be either in that scene or the train scene, period, and Rowling would have found a way to put it in. In 'connect the dots' terms, it would not be a line you'd expect your audience to draw between dots, it would be a dot. A big, black, dot. Labelled "IMPORTANT DOT". Because that's where the line would TURN. A small note about how the 'suicide plot' is introduced. Steve objects that I'm talking a line of dialogue from a hysterical woman as 'carved in stone'. But dialogue is something you use for exposition just as much you use anything else, especially if you're having to compress a load of stuff that happens into one scene. Of course characters can be wrong, but then you have to actually contradict them. To use another analogy, a line like that, that gives exposition, is a rolling ball that will continue to roll along until something stops it by 'contradicting' it, giving it a push in the opposite direction. Until that is done, the ball is going to keep rolling. That ball is still rolling and until someone in the book stops it, I'm considering it as exposition, not as misdirection. -- Sydney, swearing this absolutely postiviley her last post on this subject. Geez, we're not even talking about Snape here, people! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 22:52:32 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:52:32 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157929 --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > > Sherry: > > > > > > I do believe, however, that he will go there > > occasionally, to ask questions, to consult portraits, > > to check in the library or something. > > > >>Amontillada: > > >>That's what I expect, too. Besides searching for > >>Horcrux(es), I can think of at least two reasons > >> Harry might need to go there: > > >>1. To search for whatever knowledge/ideas/ information > >> Dumbledore may have left; > > >>2. To find valuable information in the library... > > > zanooda: > > 3. I always thought that Harry will return to take back > Snape's potions book. ... > > ... > Maybe the words "Sevvy loves Lily", surrounded by small > hearts? :-)> Just kidding, of course, this would be sooo > un-Snapeish! > > > zanooda > bboyminn: I've weighed in on this before, but since it's come up again, I might as well repeat myself. I think most certainly Harry will come back to school, but he won't come back /to/ school. That is, certainly Harry will be in and out of Hogwarts several times, but I don't think it will be as a full time student. He has way too much to do outside Hogwarts to waste his time on hours of boring lessons with the other students. So, here are some reasons why Harry will be back- 1.) He will be back as a special Student. That is, there are plenty of things the teachers can teach him, but it has to be specific lessons geared to his specific needs. He simply can't waste hours in general lessons. 2.) Absolutely, he will come back for the HBP Potions book. 3.) Absolutely, he will need to use the Library. 4.) He will certainly need to consult with the various teachers for various reasons. 5.) He will need to consult with Dumbledore's portrait. At this point, that portait is the last link we have to Dumbledore. While the information he gains will certainly be limited, it could none the less be valuable. 5a.) Let us not forget the possibility that Dumbledore left information in the Penseive that will be valuable for Harry. 6.) I suspect a nice tea and chat with Hagrid on occassion. 6a.) Unrelated subplot, it's high time the Minitry forgave Hagrid and let him become a full wizard and buy a new wand. I'm hoping Harry will apply some pressure on Hagrids' behalf. 7.) The DA Club - OK, everyone else has written this off, but I won't give up, I'm determined to get the DA Club back into the plot. So I speculate... that they simply won't be able to find a DADA teacher, and now more than ever, they need one. So, since there is no one to teach the class and we can reasonably assume that the teaching position is as thoroughly jinxed as it can be. They will try an alternative method of making sure the students are as thoroughly trained as they can be. They will invite Harry to stop by once or twice a month, to continue the DA Club under the guise that the training will be as valuable for Harry as for the students. In the spirit of bringing the school together (Houses united), Slytherins will be in the new club. Lots of interesting subplots ensue. I'm not holding my breath on this last one, as much as I want it to be true, I think it would just be a waste of too much precious plot time. There is still a lot of story to tell and only one book to do it in. I suspect much like the beginning of HBP, the plot will move quickly and old hanging plot points will be resolved just as quickly. 8.) The attack on Hogwarts will certainly bring Harry there. Various possible scenarios exist for this, but in general I remain convinced that there will be some kind of battle at Hogwarts that will involved Harry and Co. Still, unless it is the central aspect of the plot, this too seem like a plot waster. So, obviously I think Hogwarts /will/ be open. Enrollment might be down a bit, but as others have pointed out, the school has been in business over 1,000 years. They've had their high times and low times, and managed to muddle through. As is pointed out at the end of HBP, Hogwarts is no more or less safe that any place else in the magic world. And in some way, is probably more safe since they have a dozen staff members and several hundred students capable of defending themselves. That's is a formitable force based on nothing other than shear volume. Then of course, there are the many many protections and physical walls that surround Hogwarts. Are you better off in your urban/suburban/rural home, or in a literal magically protected fortress? Oh yes, Hogwarts will definitely be open. Just a thought. Steve/boyminn From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Sep 6 00:00:39 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:00:39 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimma... Message-ID: <56b.49ee42a.322f69a7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157930 Abergoat writes: Nikkalmati, I was intrigued by the subject line but I don't see the question 'Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ?' anywhere in your post. Is it still under discussion? There is some fun ideas about Snape and Dog Lady at St Mungo's and that was given as Snape's reason for always slipping out of the meals. Nikkalmati: Sorry, I have been on vacation and I am still trying to catch up on the posts! Perhaps I never will. I'll always be a week behind. Gosh! I think this is one of those posts that evolved and I neglected to change the subject line (bad girl). I have no idea where Snape went to eat while everyone else was chowing down at Grimmauld Place. I suspect the poster was correct that Sirius never asked him, plus he can't be seen being chummy with the Order can he? He never eats at the Burrow either. I like the idea that the Dog Lady is an Animagus transformation gone bad. If we can't see her face, how can we know who she looks like? Maybe she is one of the missing - thought dead people. Nikkalmati (goats rule). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dougsamu at golden.net Wed Sep 6 01:05:31 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:05:31 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context References: Message-ID: <3B03F4B1-0ED5-4CE3-87D3-C159514C9B1F@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157931 Ken: ... believe Slughorn's version then on the night of the attack at GH the part of Voldemort's soul that was in his body was sent into the next life and something, his spirit(?), was anchored to the Earth by his horcruxes. This spirit(?)lived on because of the horcruxes and now inhabits his regenerated body which would then seem to have no soul except for the bits stored in horcruxes. doug: I can see the confusion engendered by the different terms 'soul' vs 'spirit'. I have always read them as the same thing. The synonyms for 'soul' are many and varied, and some have their own meaning which excludes the soul-concept overlap. As to what it means here, it can be read as such, that the spirit of Voldemort -Vapourmort- was not the soul of Voldemort. I would choose to err on the side of simplifying the nature of soul, rather than parcelling it up into finer and finer discrete bits. Ken: [Dumbledore] says that the seventh piece of Voldemort's soul, the part that was in his body at GH, was that part of him that lived on all those years when he had no body and it now inhabits his regenerated body. On the same page DD says that all his horcruxes remained intact. That implies that *none* of Voldemort's soul was sent on the night of the GH attack. doug: ? of course, because the seventh soul - usually inhabiting Body - bit was anchored by the horcruxes to this mortal plane. Ken: If that isn't the case then DD really, really, really needed to comment on Slughorn's (apparent) mistake since it is *absolutely critical* that Harry understand how horcruxes really work. His silence is a HUGE mistake if it isn't just an editing error on Rowling's part. doug: There are some who think that Dumbledore is infallible and should explain everything. Until the seventh book is published, and the story is wrapped up nice and tidy, I read everyone with great skepticism. BTW I come down on the side of Harry-has-a-soul-bit-but-isn't-a- horcrux side of this whole thing. Hello Carol.... :-) bboyminn: Since some aspects of his soul were still embodied (stored in the Horcruxes) on earth, the core part of his soul could not cross over to the afterlife. So with regard to souls /dying/ or crossing over, it is /all or nothing/. doug: Fascinating. bboyminn: Since, the Free Soul Piece are not embodied, they do not act as anchors to hold Voldemort to the earth. They are simply waiting around until it is possible for all aspect of the soul to cross over. So Voldemort, despite parcelling out bits of himself has 100% soul, not 1/7th or 1/64th... ? and Voldemort can continue to draw on the power of his complete soul... hmmm... I have heard this idea expressed one other place. generally it has been thought that once a soul bit has been 'freed' from it's embodiment it moves on. Why are Humans the only primates with chins and nuclear weapons? ____________________ Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 01:16:11 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:16:11 -0000 Subject: Teaching is not and never has been a popularity contest. In-Reply-To: <000f01c6d134$92547170$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157932 > AD: > So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, we can > conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and his "E" in > Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger bastards than Snape? > > > > Marion: > You're missing the point. > In the original link (http://mike- smith.livejournal.com/125565.html#cutid1) Mike says the following: > < SNIP of the quote,go UPTHREAD to read it> >> Marion again: > See? Snape's teaching style is quite appropriate for the art he teaches. > (I wanted to write more, but then I read Betsy's post and knew I couldn't add to that :-) Alla: I don't know about Amiable Dorsai, cannot speak for him, but I got the point, I think and this **point** I find to be faulty, that is all. I don't find Snape's subject to be significantly **more** dangerous than any other magical subject, except maybe the one Binks teachers, there is no danger there, that is for sure :) Anything can go wrong more or less on any practical subject IMO, that is why I don't buy that Snape's subject being a bit more dangerous than some and just as dangerous as others IMO ( Care of Magical creatures, DADA,etc) gives him a cart blanche to do that to Neville. Especially since Neville does **not** respond well to his methods, IMO. > > Betsy Hp: > No. I'm saying Potions is more dangerous than Charms or DADA. At > least at this level. (I can see DADA and Charms reaching a point > when they become just as dangerous as Potions, but by that point > you're probably at NEWT levels and the sucky students have been > tested out.) Alla: Okay, and I am saying that **all** magical subjects are dangerous, because any spell said wrong can be gone wrong, any creature they studied in DADA could have gotten loose or something, but what I am trying to say is that I don't think that the more dangerous subject is the more horrible and humiliating the teacher should become. > Betsy Hp: > Neville *was* having trouble actually. Harry was a bit worried for > him but then Draco did his bit and Neville was saved. Alla: Yes, he was having trouble, my bad, but he was not doing worse than everybody else in the class, he listened to the instructions and he was not being attacked at least. Betsy Hp: > And actually, that just goes to prove the point. I think CoMC *can* > become as dangerous as Potions eventually, depending on the magical > creature being studied. Hagrid started the students out with > dangerous creatures so it *was* a dangerous class. But he didn't > drive home the caution the students should have been taking. He > didn't scare them enough, and Draco was hurt. Could easily have > been killed. Alla: I suppose Hagrid could not imagine that Draco would come to the class ready to sabotage it, and thought that safety instructions were just as enough for Draco as for everybody else. But I am not sure what point it proves. > Marion: > If, *if*, there ever would be a 'final confrontation' between Snape and Neville, Neville-poo would be mincemeat. > Not so much as Harry-poo would, though (unless JKR pulls a magic bunny out of a hat which magically transforms Harry-poo from a stupid, obstreperous, selfimportant hate-filled dillitante into a smooth, suave duellist) No, indeed. Alla: I had became quite a betting person lately :) But actually, I will not even offer a bet about who will loose the confrontation at the end, I will just bookmark this post to the same place where I put ESE!Lupin post and return to discussing it after book 7 is out. I promise :) My crow is ready to be cooked. Is yours? ;) JMO, Alla From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Sep 6 01:27:46 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:27:46 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching is not and never has been a popularity contest. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FEB0B2.14388.3B5D10D@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 157933 On 5 Sep 2006 at 19:37, amiabledorsai wrote: > AD: > So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, we can > conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and his "E" in > Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger bastards than Snape? Shaun: No, we can't. There are a lot of different teaching styles, just as there are a lot of different learning styles. Whether a child learns well from a teacher is very often a matter of how well that teachers teaching style matches that child's learning style. In the case of Snape and Neville, we certainly don't have a good match. Lupin does seem to have a reasonable match with Neville - I can't really say about Flitwick. But just because Snape's teaching style doesn't match Neville's learning style doesn't mean that there's anything inherently wrong with Snape's teaching style - for exactly the same reason that there's nothing wrong with Neville's learning style. These things come in a continuum of valid syles (and yes, there can be invalid styles at the extremes). A good teacher is able to modify their style to an extent - but normally only to an extent. If a teachers style works for 95% of their students, there is a real problem for the 5% it doesn't work for, and nobody should deny that - but it doesn't make the style wrong. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 01:26:33 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:26:33 -0000 Subject: Teaching is not and never has been a popularity contest. In-Reply-To: <000f01c6d134$92547170$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157934 Marion Ros: > > AD: > So, if being an ass is the best way to get through to Neville, > we can conclude, from his performance against the Boggart and > his "E" in Charms, that Lupin and Flitwick are even bigger > bastards than Snape? > > > > Marion: > You're missing the point. AD: Do you really wish to quote, as a serious argument, a review from someone who is so careless a reader that he thought Harry had killed Marge Dursley? Just askin'... Amiable Dorsai From kking0731 at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 01:56:47 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:56:47 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts under attack was Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157935 Steve snipped extremely: I'm pretty sure something like this will happen in the next book. With Dumbledore gone, Hogarts will not seem so well protected, and it is a target of the most extreme strategic value. Remember it was primarily because of Dumbledore that Voldemort didn't attack Hogwarts the first time. Because I feel an attack on Hogwarts is imminent, I think it is important that Harry not be at Hogwarts, so he can come and rescue everyone. Snow: As you say an attack on Hogwarts is imminent but I don't think that it follows directly that Harry will not be there when Voldemort attacks, although it is a fairly good assumption but your analysis seems to be a bit different than mine in getting there. It does seem to be inevitable that Voldemort will attempt to take over the castle but when will it come about, immediately? We know that Voldemort was always interested in the stronghold of magic that resides inside the Castle walls, especially Slytherin's Chamber of Secret(s) but the story might be over before it begins if it began with Hogwarts. (I think it's doubtful that Harry will return at the beginning of the year with his fellow classmates) Voldemort has more of an obsession with Harry than any magic he could obtain at Hogwarts therefore I think he will go for Harry before his passionate Hogwarts obsession even though the opportunity is there for the taking. I feel we will start out with Voldemort's attack at the Dursley's and follow, or rather chase, Harry to each and every place that Harry visits until Voldemort has had enough of the chase and sets up the I'll-kill-your-friends-if-you-don't-get-here-now approach at the castle. However, I don't think it will end at the castle to save his friends; Harry would make every attempt to divert Voldemort away from Hogwarts, and any friends that may be there, to a place where Harry would feel could be a safe ground to attempt his defeat of Voldemort. Since everything seems to be connected to Hogwarts somehow by the Lake including the first-year's entry to Hogwarts, it somehow seems appropriate that the Lake will take us places that have been visited before but never realized as a direct entryway from the Lake. There have been many references (and inferences) to the Lake, so let's take a look. The Durmstrang crew who arrived the first time, by lake entry, of course will return in the fight against evil via the lake (along with the Beaubatons; everyone must come together in the ultimate fight) The lake may even be connected to the Ministry since the bottom floors have no windows because it is under ground. The Chamber had many pipes and as we know Myrtle found her way into the Lake via Hogwarts pipes. Hell even the lake that entranced the way to the Cave could be on the agenda (wouldn't we need a bit of inferei to complete the scene and help explain their existence; or should I say non-existence) My very favorite end scene I submitted to the list quite a while ago in message # 95244; Gringott's underground in SS pg. 74 & 75 {When Hagrid and Harry are riding in the cart they go over a ravine and they also passed over an underground lake.} I so liked this because it was mentioned but ever so discretely. I so love the Lake connection; there are just so many possibilities. We might be in for quite a ride in the next book revisiting many places we have been and those that we know of but never actually saw (i.e. Godric's Hollow). Some may be via the Lake and some like Grimmald Place (My very favorite scenario that Petunia has to be protected there) may not, but many old places may connect in a way we never expected. I can't wait, it's like standing in line for the ultimate ride but when you finally get there, you are excitedly fearful. The really interesting thing about This ride is that I doubt there will be anyone who gets out of line because the wait was too long no matter how much they complain in the interim, you simply have to know the outcome. Snow From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Sep 6 02:00:54 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:00:54 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: References: <20060905012229.258102CF519@mail01.chariot.net.au> Message-ID: <44FEB876.5526.3D4275C@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 157936 On 5 Sep 2006 at 15:03, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > The only problem is that in my view Snape did not try with Neville at > all, and that is if I am giving him my most charitable attitude - > namely that he is trying to teach him something and not just enjoys > seeing the boy in pain . Shaun: We don't know that Snape hasn't tried with Neville. I agree that we don't see any sign that he's tried, but that doesn't mean he hasn't. And quite a few of the things a teacher tries may not be at all observable from the outside. I'd honestly be rather surprised if Snape hasn't tried other things with Neville. He doesn't seem to have found anything that works, but sometimes that is very hard to do. Alla: > IMO Snape signed Neville off as "idiot boy" from the very first > lesson. I don't see him trying **any** other things to teach Neville > before he resorts to scare tactics and that I call pure lasiness on > his behalf. That is again if he is thinking about teaching Neville at > all. Shaun: I disagree. If Snape had written Neville off from the first lesson, he wouldn't be caring about Neville was doing in third year. The fact that he is still trying to get Neville to do the right thing means he hasn't written him off. He obviously still thinks Neville is capable of learning this. We don't see him doing things because the books don't revolve around the education of Neville Longbottom - and - frankly - the kids I teach *generally* don't see what I do for other kids. There are exceptions, sometimes it is obvious - but most of the time it isn't. I'm not saying Snape has necessarily done anything for Neville - I suspect he may have done some minor things, but I don't think he's taken heroic steps - but I think it's an unsafe assumption he's done nothing. I see a man who is still trying to get through to a student after three years. His methods may not be working, but he is still expending effort on Neville. He hasn't written him off. Alla: > I don't know how old the kids you teach now, but I am assuming that > if parents of that kid will tell you that he has nightmares where you > feature prominently, you would stop teaching him, no? I said many > times that "boggart" to me is the metaphor of person nightmares, so > to answer your question - yes, if child has to pay such a price for > education ( and from our past discussions you know how much I value > education), if the price for that education is child's emotional > health, the price for such education is too high IMO. This is of > course only my view and you said it yourself that scare tactics work > for the kid you teach, I guess it is great,but my main point is that > I don't see Snape trying any other tactics to teach Neville, except > scaring him and humiliating him. Shaun: The kids I was talking about were 10 and 11 year olds - and yes, if I became aware that a child was having nightmares about me teaching him, of course, I would stop teaching him *if* it was possible for me to do so. Snape really doesn't have that luxury. He is the only potions teacher at the school. If he doesn't teach Neville potions, Neville will not have the opportunity to learn potions. Making a decision to deprive a child of an opportunity to study a subject that is compulsory, and is a prerequisite for further study is a major step. When I was 14, my school made a decision to stop me studying a subject. They had good reasons for doing so - I was breaking down in tears in those classes. But I still resent that decision after 17 years because it meant I lost opportunities I would have otherwise have had later on - a decision to deprive a child of a subject is a pretty major one. Yes, emotional health is important - but only to an extent. It cannot be the number one factor all the time, because if you make it that important, you start cutting off opportunities for a child. When I was 13/14 etc, I know people had some pretty grave fears about the consequences to my long term mental health of some of the choices I made - but if I hadn't been allowed to make those choices, I would have missed out on a lot of things I value today. Alla: > Oh, and I don't see that it works for him either. Somebody argued in > the past that in GoF we don't see Neville having such huge problems > with Potions, so supposedly that lesson taught him something. Shaun: I don't think Snape's methods work for Neville either - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't have been tried. The simple fact is, sometimes, as a teacher, you're not going to be successful whatever you try. Sometimes whatever you try, doesn't work. It's a reality - teaching does not have a 100% success rate. Even the best teacher fails sometimes. Alla: > I manage completely forgot about that detention with "cutting horned > toads" - paraphrase, so I disagree that the "Trevor" lesson helped > Neville, I think it just scared him more. Shaun: I think you're right - but that doesn't make it a bad thing to try. When I made a decision to drop the hammer on one of my students recently, to take a very strict, zero-tolerance, punitive approach to his actions in my classroom, I didn't know if it would work. I actually didn't really expect it to work - I'd just completely run out of other ideas, and my alternatives were to try this or give up on him. And, in my case, I really didn't want to do it - I don't enjoy teaching like that at all. As it happens, it seems to have worked very well - but I didn't know it was going to. I took a risk. It paid off for me. Snapes attempts with Neville don't seem to have worked. That doesn't mean there was no point to making the attempt. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 02:26:43 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:26:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40609051926m6b970b56rd146d829a2c9e18f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157937 > bboyminn: > ... > > So, /if/ they planned to take over Hogwarts, here is how > and why the plan would have gone. > > First, the enter the castle and set the trap for > Dumbledore, meanwhile a few other DE's sneak off and > catch the teachers unaware in their sleep. The teachers > are disarmed and taken to a holding area. The trap is > sprung on Dumbledore and Dumbledore is killed. > > ... > Kemper now: Bella seems a more competent DE than those on the tower, and she fled from DD when she saw that he was in the Dept of Mysteries. How is it that a trap be sprung on DD, killing him? I imagine that the students would be used. But even then, would DD lay down his wand or would he fight? I think fight, knowing that some student may die, but that others would live. Would he trust a DE's word to let the students live especially with Greyback there? I agree with the speculation of LV imminent attack/invasion of Hogwarts. It's where he felt comfortable and where he's always wanted to be. In fact, besides immortality and the death of Harry (Dark, professional goals, really), Hogwarts seems his only personal goal. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Sep 6 02:33:19 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:33:19 -0000 Subject: How reliable are pensieve memories? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157938 Since pensieve memories are _somebody's_ memories, is it safe to assume the memories are how the donor remembered the event? We have never seen the same pensieve scene from more than one perspective, have we? In OotP, "Snape's Worst Memory" may only be how _Snape_ remembered the event, not necessarily how it actually occurred. In that particular scene, we hear James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter talking about the O.W.L. they just took, including reference to Remus being a werewolf. Would Snape have actually been able to hear that conversation and have it captured in his memory? Or is these details that Snape has "added" after the fact based on information gathered later? Eddie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 02:37:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:37:49 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <44FEB876.5526.3D4275C@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157939 > Shaun: > > We don't know that Snape hasn't tried with Neville. I agree that we don't see any sign that > he's tried, but that doesn't mean he hasn't. And quite a few of the things a teacher tries may > not be at all observable from the outside. > > I'd honestly be rather surprised if Snape hasn't tried other things with Neville. He doesn't > seem to have found anything that works, but sometimes that is very hard to do. Alla: Well, IMO Snape did not try, because we don't see it on the page. It reminds me of the "cabinet" thread a bit now. Of course you can argue that he tried anything, but you ask me to prove double negative. It is not on the book page, so IMO Snape is being lasy with Neville, that is again if he wants to teach him at all. I mean, you can even argue that Snape praises Neville at the lessons we don't see, I guess. IMO JKR put everything about Snape teaching that she considers important on the page. It is not like his teaching methods are the final mystery ready to be revealed same as his allegiances are IMO. I think all we need to know about him as a teacher is in the book already. Although I suppose it is not true if one holds a view that Harry cannot hear and see and does not accurately transcribe the words from Snape mouth. As you know - I do not hold that view, I don't buy that Snape's nastiness is "Harry filter", since I am having lots of trouble imagining how what Snape says to Harry and Neville can be explained away as nice. T >> Shaun: > > We don't see him doing things because the books don't revolve around the education of > Neville Longbottom - and - frankly - the kids I teach *generally* don't see what I do for other > kids. There are exceptions, sometimes it is obvious - but most of the time it isn't. Alla: Yes, of course in RL that would be true, but I would find it extremely strange that "off the book page" Snape would be a different character than what we would have seen on the page. And again I am not talking about his other mysteries, but I think teaching methods are all there. Otherwise one can say that Snape off the book page in the Potions classes we don't see is being really fair to Trio and I don't think there is a support for this argument, unless you can point me to canon hints that Snape as teacher is that different to Gryffindors off page. IMO of course. I mean, yes, sure in book 7 one of Snape's revelations in his dying breath can be - I tried so hard to teach you ungrateful brats, I tried so many things with you Longbottom, but you just did not do it, so I decided to become your Boggart in hopes that this work. But I mean, IMO the fact that Snape runs his mouth on Neville on the very first lesson speaks very strongly against Snape trying **anything** but scare tactics. Shawn: > I'm not saying Snape has necessarily done anything for Neville - I suspect he may have done > some minor things, but I don't think he's taken heroic steps - but I think it's an unsafe > assumption he's done nothing. Alla: Why? I see **zero** hints in canon that he indeed **tried** anything else but scaring Neville off. You may wish that he tried something, you may think that he tried something, because that is what decent teacher would have done, that is what you would have done, but I don't consider Snape to be a decent teacher and I think of Snape as a teacher after I read scenes in the book, I am not going to imagine scenes that IMO contradict everything we see of Snape teaching style in the book. Am I making sense? Shawn: > I see a man who is still trying to get through to a student after three years. His methods may > not be working, but he is still expending effort on Neville. He hasn't written him off. Alla: Well, yes, if you consider what Snape does expending efforts on Neville, I consider Snape taking the easiest approach - scaring the kid in the oblivion, and since he took this approach from the very first lesson, I think that it is rather reasonable conclusion to make that Snape took this route right after Neville made his very first mistake. Snape does not seem to give this kid a chance and IMO indeed wrote him off as failure right away. Shawn: > Snapes attempts with Neville don't seem to have worked. That doesn't mean there was no > point to making the attempt. > Alla: I am glad we agree that what Snape does is not working with Neville, but except your assumption ( based on very valid RL experiences, but IMO is not necessarily applicable to what is happening in the book), I don't see a proof that he indeed **made** that attempt, and I mean the attempt to do something else at least, before scaring Neville off. JMO, Alla From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 02:46:54 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:46:54 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles & Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157940 > > >>Alla: > > Are you arguing that Potions is more dangerous subject than **any* > > other subject? > > Betsy Hp: > No. I'm saying Potions is more dangerous than Charms or DADA. At > least at this level. AD: So, since Potions is *more* dangerous, it follows that one should use teaching methods that are, for this student, demonstrably *less* effective? Amiable Dorsai From bobhawkins at rcn.com Wed Sep 6 02:07:01 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:07:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA Job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157941 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Not here. I've suggested, agreed with, and read on this list that the > DADA curse hit both men that year: By "them," I meant people in the books. There is nothing that hasn't been said by fans. zeroirregardless. From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Sep 6 03:02:28 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:02:28 -0000 Subject: How reliable are pensieve memories? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157942 Eddie: > Since pensieve memories are _somebody's_ memories, is it safe to > assume the memories are how the donor remembered the event? We have > never seen the same pensieve scene from more than one perspective, > have we? > > In OotP, "Snape's Worst Memory" may only be how _Snape_ remembered the > event, not necessarily how it actually occurred. In that particular > scene, we hear James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter talking about the > O.W.L. they just took, including reference to Remus being a werewolf. > Would Snape have actually been able to hear that conversation and > have it captured in his memory? Or is these details that Snape has > "added" after the fact based on information gathered later? Eddie: In partial answer to my own question: http://mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml -- answer from JKR is, "what you remember is accurate in the Pensieve." I'm not sure that answers how Harry could hear a conversation that was supposedly out of earshot of Snape, but JKR can do what she wants, I guess. Eddie From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 03:16:00 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:16:00 -0000 Subject: How reliable are pensieve memories? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157943 Eddie: > In OotP, "Snape's Worst Memory" may only be how _Snape_ remembered the > event, not necessarily how it actually occurred. In that particular > scene, we hear James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter talking about the > O.W.L. they just took, including reference to Remus being a werewolf. > Would Snape have actually been able to hear that conversation and > have it captured in his memory? Or is these details that Snape has > "added" after the fact based on information gathered later? zgirnius: Pensieve memories are objective, what is shown is what occurred, even if the person whose memory it is never noticed. It is what makes them so useful. People can take a second look at their own memories and see crucial details they overlooked in real time. This was confirmed by Rowling in an interview (you are not the first to wonder!) This is an excerpt from the 7/16/2005 interview Rowling had with Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz: > MA: One of our Leaky "Ask Jo" poll winners is theotherhermit, she's 50 and lives in a small town in the eastern US. I think this was addressed in the sixth book, but, "Do the memories stored in a Pensieve reflect reality or the views of the person they belong to?" > JKR: It's reality. It's important that I have got that across, because Slughorn gave Dumbledore this pathetic cut-and-paste memory. He didn't want to give the real thing, and he very obviously patched it up and cobbled it together. So, what you remember is accurate in the Pensieve. > ES: I was dead wrong about that. > JKR: Really? > ES: I thought for sure that it was your interpretation of it. It didn't make sense to me to be able to examine your own thoughts from a third-person perspective. It almost feels like you'd be cheating because you'd always be able to look at things from someone else's point of view. > MA: So there are things in there that you haven't noticed personally, but you can go and see yourself? > JKR: Yes, and that's the magic of the Pensieve, that's what brings it alive. > ES: I want one of those! > JKR: Yeah. Otherwise it really would just be like a diary, wouldn't it? Confined to what you remember. But the Pensieve recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time. It's somewhere in your head, which I'm sure it is, in all of our brains. I'm sure if you could access it, things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Wed Sep 6 03:43:22 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:43:22 -0000 Subject: Dog Lady at St Mungo's (WAS: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ?) In-Reply-To: <56b.49ee42a.322f69a7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157944 Nikkalmati wrote: > I like the idea that the Dog Lady is an Animagus transformation gone > bad. If we can't see her face, how can we know who she looks like? > Maybe she is one of the missing - thought dead people. Abergoat adds: Hope you had a great vacation! What about the idea that she is a horcrux victim? But everyone just thinks that she 'made a mistake' during transformation? The general idea is that Agnes (Dog Lady's name according to the nurse) is Agnes Filch, Argus Filch's mother. Canon says Agnes has a son that visits her. I suspect JKR took us to the ward to see more than Bode and the Longbottoms. They were deadends, very sad but not clues for future books. Agnes could have been a clue. Or not... We go on to speculate that the closeness of Snape to Filch seen in PS/SS (Filch was binding Snape's leg) is because Eileen Prince is related to Agnes Filch - perhaps Dog Lady's maiden name was Prince. Therefore Argus Filch is Snape's uncle. > Nikkalmati (goats rule). Abergoat snickers: If I can sell you on Dog Lady, perhaps I can sell you on the idea that Aberforth holds his head high and his brother isn't sure he can read because he is presently a goat...possibly another animagus that Voldemort tampered with in his efforts to extract the memory of the prophecy. But Aberforth refused to cooperate, the stubborn goat. One has to admit this is a better explanation why Mundungus doesn't wear a disguise when talking with the barman in HBP - Dung is hiding from the barman that is now a goat with a vicious kick...that makes the bar smell of goats! Abergoat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 05:55:28 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 05:55:28 -0000 Subject: Fwd: Re: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: <3B03F4B1-0ED5-4CE3-87D3-C159514C9B1F@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157945 --- doug rogers wrote: > > bboyminn: > Since, the Free Soul Piece are not embodied, they do > not act as anchors to hold Voldemort to the earth. > They are simply waiting around until it is possible > for all aspect of the soul to cross over. > > Doug: > So Voldemort, despite parcelling out bits of himself, > has 100% soul, not 1/7th or 1/64th... ? > and Voldemort can continue to draw on the power of > his complete soul... hmmm... > > I have heard this idea expressed one other place. > generally it has been thought that once a soul bit > has been 'freed' from it's embodiment it moves on. > > Why are Humans the only primates with chins and > nuclear weapons? > > Doug Steve: Yes, 100% of Voldemort's soul does /exist/ (I speculate) but he has separated himself from 6 parts of it, so while they exist, he does not have access to them or to any soulful power they might give him. That is, any power beyond what he gains from them as Horcruxes. Voldemort has access to the faction of a soul that inhabits his physical body, the other soul-bits have bodies of their own or are 'free floating' waiting for the moment when the whole soul is free to cross over. Also, we don't really know the 'divide'. Voldemort's Core-Soul is one of seven parts, but we don't know that it is one seventh of his soul. It is possible that the soul-bits he separated were just small corners torn off at the edges by the act of murder. It is also possible that with each death his soul was torn in half, so that the one of seven parts that inhabit his body, is really one half of one half of one half of one half of etc..., so that the remaining part is a very minor part of the whole. Again, we really don't have enough information to assign sizes to the parts, but it is clear that the Core-Soul is significant in that it is the Self-Soul, the part that contains Voldemort's earthly identity and sense of Self. Remember that the Diary Horcrux was give the identity of Tom's 16 year old self as a separate action. The fact that that bit of soul return with Tom's identity doesn't mean that identity was contained in the soul-bit. I think it is unfair to call the Core-Soul the seventh part of his soul. It is actually the first and most significant part of his soul, and the other six are just torn off bits. So we have the Core and six bits, and not seven parts; admittedly a subtle distinction. Just making it up as I go along. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 06:26:29 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:26:29 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: <700201d40609051926m6b970b56rd146d829a2c9e18f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157946 --- Kemper wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > ... > > > > So, /if/ they planned to take over Hogwarts, here is > > how and why the plan would have gone. > > > > First, the enter the castle and set the trap for > > Dumbledore, meanwhile a few other DE's sneak off and > > catch the teachers unaware in their sleep. The > > teachers are disarmed and taken to a holding area. > > The trap is sprung on Dumbledore and Dumbledore is > > killed. > > > > ... > > > > Kemper now: > > Bella seems a more competent DE than those on the tower, > and she fled from DD when she saw that he was in the > Dept of Mysteries. How is it that a trap be sprung on > DD, killing him? bboyminn: Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow you. The /sprung trap/ I am speaking of is the very trap that lured Dumbledore in and lead to his death in the existing book. So /IF/ that plan had not been discovered as soon as they stepped out of the door, and /if/ they had been able to move quietly about the castle, then my suggestion for taking the plan beyond Dumbledore's death might be valid. >Kemper continues: > > I imagine that the students would be used. But even > then, would DD lay down his wand or would he fight? ... > ...edited... > bboyminn: Well, the Dumbledore aspect would have played out pretty much as it originally did in my hypothetical scenario, so nothing changes there. Dumbledore is lured to the top of the tower, he arrives weak and getting weaker, Harry is out of it. Draco and/or the DE's kill Dumbledore. Snape is not involved. The teacher are captured. The students wake to find the castle in control of the DE's. My point is that the original plan was sufficiently thwarted that we can't actually say that capturing Hogwarts was not part of it. But since they met immediate and continued resistance, they had to cut the plan short as settle for the first objective of killing Dumbledore and let it go at that. It is a hypothetical alternative plan from the DE's perspective. It is how they expected the raid to go, but the DA members and the Order messed it up. Again, in proposing the hypothetical situation I am seeking to point out that we don't know the full extent of the orignal plan. They may well have intended to take Hogwarts if everything else went well. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From littleleah at handbag.com Wed Sep 6 06:25:26 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:25:26 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> Alla: >> I mean, you can even argue that Snape praises Neville at the > lessons we > don't see, I guess. IMO JKR put everything about Snape teaching that > she considers important on the page. It is not like his teaching > methods are the final mystery ready to be revealed same as his > allegiances are IMO. I think all we need to know about him as a > teacher is in the book already. Leah: I agree with this, and think he can be defended perfectly well from canon. > >> Alla: > But I mean, IMO the fact that Snape runs his mouth on Neville on the > very first lesson speaks very strongly against Snape trying > **anything** but scare tactics. Leah: My memory of PS/SS was that Snape was pretty mean to Neville in the first lesson. On a re-read I saw something else. Snape has no agenda with Neville when the lesson begins. He is wholly focused on Harry (I'm not getting into Snape's Potter problems here). Then he sets the class to making 'a simple potion'. Neville manages in very short order to melt Seamus' cauldron, get the whole class standing on stools and he himself 'moans in pain' as boils appear on his arm. 'Idiot boy!' snarled Snape. This may not accord with some teaching methods, but if that situation had occured in some of the classrooms I've been in, I can tell you Snape's response would seem mild by comparison. And that's ALL Snape says to Neville-he then dispatches him to the hospital wing. Now no one really knows Neville at this stage, but he has all the potential to be the resident class dork. Snape could quite properly have taken points from Gryffindor for Neville's error; Neville has not followed instructions and has caused a nasty situation. That would really have made Neville popular with the other Gryffindors. Instead Snape moves the point of interest from Neville by rounding on Harry and deducting points. The rightness of this I'm not debating here, as I've said, though no doubt Snape thinks he is right in taking Harry down a peg or too. So in fact, Snape says and does nothing untoward to Neville in this scene; in fact he deflects blame from him. Leah (rushing to leave for a holiday) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Sep 6 10:04:00 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:04:00 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: References: <44FEB876.5526.3D4275C@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <44FF29B0.16073.58E84B7@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 157948 On 6 Sep 2006 at 2:37, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > Well, IMO Snape did not try, because we don't see it on the page. It > reminds me of the "cabinet" thread a bit now. Of course you can > argue that he tried anything, but you ask me to prove double > negative. It is not on the book page, so IMO Snape is being lasy > with Neville, that is again if he wants to teach him at all. Shaun: No, I'm not asking you to prove a double negative - rather I'd say I'm asking is that people consider the possibility that just because it's not on the page, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think people should think about - "Would I *expect* to see any evidence of Snape having helped Neville if he had been?" and if the answer to that is no, then why is its absence at all surprising? Now you may think you would see signs - and that's fine - if you think there would be signs of this in the text, then their absence certainly is a reason for suspicion. Personally, I would not expect to see major signs. We really don't see evidence of any of the teachers at Hogwarts going out of their way to support individual students, which either means they don't do it - in which case why are we picking on Snape? Or they do it and JKR doesn't think it's a big enough deal to put it in the books. But the fact is, I do see some minor signs of Snape helping Neville - I really do. The first lesson: "'Idiot boy!' snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. 'I suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?'" (PS, p103). Yes, Snape calls him an idiot - he also tells him explicitly what he did wrong. If he just wants to pick on the kid, he didn't need to do that. Telling a child exactly what they have done wrong is good teaching. Neville's injured, so we don't get to see any more of what he does because he - quite properly - sends Neville to get medical attention. And with the Trevor incident, again, Snape gives Neville *explicit* details as to what he had done wrong and gives him a chance to fix it. That's *good* teaching - it really is. "'Orange. Tell me, boy, does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed? Didn't I state plainly that a dash of leech juice would suffice? What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?'" And to go further, he also allows the smartest child in the class to help Neville fix what he has done - yes, he punishes Hermione for doing so - which means he *knows* she is doing it. But he doesn't stop her. Again, that's good teaching and entirely appropriate. He also gives Neville an incentive to get it right - and again that is entirely appropriate in itself. I think the incentive - get it right or your pet dies - is way over the top - but nonetheless the teaching methodology is valid. And so is the result - Neville gets the chance to achieve some success in a class he finds difficult. His potion ultimately works. Snape is teaching Neville here - and if he is still teaching Neville after over two years of Neville making repeated mistakes in his classroom, then I really have to assume he has been trying to teach Neville the whole time. Alla: > I mean, you can even argue that Snape praises Neville at the > lessons we > don't see, I guess. IMO JKR put everything about Snape teaching that > she considers important on the page. It is not like his teaching > methods are the final mystery ready to be revealed same as his > allegiances are IMO. I think all we need to know about him as a > teacher is in the book already. Although I suppose it is not true > if one holds a view that Harry cannot hear and see and does not > accurately transcribe the words from Snape mouth. As you know - I do > not hold that view, I don't buy that Snape's nastiness is "Harry > filter", since I am having lots of trouble imagining how what Snape > says to Harry and Neville can be explained away as nice. T Shaun: It's not a matter of it being *nice*. Snape is NOT nice, not by any measure of the word. But he doesn't have to be to be a good teacher. As has been said, teaching is not a popularity contest. I know some very nice teachers who are actually absolutely incompetent. Nice might be enough if you're teaching infants - maybe - beyond that it's a minor component of teaching. There's nothing wrong with being nice - but being nice isn't required. Even if JKR did put everything about Snape's teaching that she considers important on the page, as I've indicated above, quite a bit of what we see can in my view, be seen as good and valid pedagogy, if a person looks at it with a teachers eyes. JKR does have some teaching experience - if she really wanted to portray Snape as an awful teacher, I think she could steer clear of anything approaching good practice in his portrayal of him - in both the examples I've quoted above, merely leaving out the explicit instruction would do that. If she has put in what she considers important, I would assume she knew what she was doing in putting that in. > Alla: > > Yes, of course in RL that would be true, but I would find it > extremely strange that "off the book page" Snape would be a > different character than what we would have seen on the page. And > again I am not talking about his other mysteries, but I think > teaching methods are all there. Otherwise one can say that Snape off > the book page in the Potions classes we don't see is being really > fair to Trio and I don't think there is a support for this > argument, unless > you can point me to canon hints that Snape as teacher is that > different to Gryffindors off page. IMO of course. Shaun: The thing is, I am not just looking at what is not on the page. I can see signs of this on the page, quite easily. I'm also aware that with the exception of Neville, most of Snapes students do apparently learn his subject effectively - we're told in Order of the Phoenix that the standard is high. That doesn't just happen. Alla: > I mean, yes, sure in book 7 one of Snape's revelations in his dying > breath can be - I tried so hard to teach you ungrateful brats, I > tried so many things with you Longbottom, but you just did not do > it, so I decided to become your Boggart in hopes that this work. > > But I mean, IMO the fact that Snape runs his mouth on Neville on the > very first lesson speaks very strongly against Snape trying > **anything** but scare tactics. Shaun: It doesn't need to be in the last book - I think it's there in the very first. 'You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking,' he began. He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort. 'As there is little foolish wand- waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses.... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death - if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach.'" That statement to me is a statement that really does seem to come from a man who *loves* his subject and who *desperately* wants to teach it - 'You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking' 'I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death' This is a man who *wants* to teach his subject. Also incidentally - I notice that in one of the very first statements she makes about him, JKR *favourably* compares an aspect of Snapes teaching ability to that of McGonnagall - 'He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort.' If JKR is putting down what she thinks is important about Snape's teaching - that statement to me is very telling. Praise right at the start. Before we see anything else. > Alla: > > Why? I see **zero** hints in canon that he indeed **tried** anything > else but scaring Neville off. You may wish that he tried something, > you may think that he tried something, because that is what decent > teacher would have done, that is what you would have done, but I > don't consider Snape to be a decent teacher and I think of Snape as > a teacher after I read scenes in the book, I am not going to imagine > scenes that IMO contradict everything we see of Snape teaching style > in the book. Am I making sense? Shaun: Yes, you are making sense. I just think I am seeing things that are different from those that you see. I don't just wish he tried something - I see him trying it. Explicit instruction as to mistakes. The opportunity to correct those mistakes and achieve success, with the help of the best student in the class. That is there on the page. Arguably, he also provides an incentive, but that is so fraught, I'm not sure it counts. > Alla: > > Well, yes, if you consider what Snape does expending efforts on > Neville, I consider Snape taking the easiest approach - scaring the > kid in the oblivion, and since he took this approach from the very > first lesson, I think that it is rather reasonable conclusion to > make that Snape took this route right after Neville made his very > first mistake. > > Snape does not seem to give this kid a chance and IMO indeed wrote > him off as failure right away. Shaun: Scaring the kid into oblivion from the very first lesson? He called him an idiot boy - not nice, but for an 11 year old boy sent off to boarding school, I really can't see that that would figure highly in his fears. And if he is so sensitive as to be hurt so badly by that, then: "'Which person,' she said, her voice shaking, 'which abysmally foolish person wrote down this week's passwords and left them lying around?'" must have been truly and utterly devastating to his psyche. Yet, McGonnagall doesn't seem to attract anywhere near the vitriol that Snape does. If Snape was so cruel to Neville by calling him idiot boy - what does that say about McGonnagall calling him an abysmally foolish person? Frankly, in my view, both were deserved, considering what he'd done. But deserved or not, we see that was Snape does isn't unique to him as a teacher. And as I have said - when Snape is still trying to teach Neville after more than two years, I really can't see any evidence he wrote him off as a failure. Teachers don't waste effort on a kid they've written off - and I have seen that happen. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 11:29:00 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:29:00 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157949 > >Kemper continues: > > > > I imagine that the students would be used. But even > > then, would DD lay down his wand or would he fight? ... > > ...edited... > > > > bboyminn: > > Well, the Dumbledore aspect would have played out pretty > much as it originally did in my hypothetical scenario, > so nothing changes there. Dumbledore is lured to the top > of the tower, he arrives weak and getting weaker, Harry > is out of it. Draco and/or the DE's kill Dumbledore. Sydney: Wait... what? Am I missing something here? I confess I haven't read every single post on this thread(s), but I hadn't realized that the "Cabinet-first" plot *included* Dumbledore somehow being lured into crippling himself in the Horcrux hunt. So in this theory, does Voldemort actually *know* that Dumbledore is onto the Horcruxes, and that he knew about the fake one R.A.B. left, and that he arranged for Dumbledore to go off that night and return badly injured? Logically my assumptions have been based on the fact that there was no way anyone could have known Dumbledore wouldn't have been capable of handling Draco and a handful of nudniks, but if this is the theory then that makes sense, at least. I find it hard to square with Voldemort also intending Draco to die in the attempt, as Draco has actually a pretty good chance of getting all the honour everyone was talking about, which isn't exactly a great revenge on Lucius. Does the cabinet-first theory work that in somehow? Wouldn't Voldemort have wanted to kill Dumbledore himself and do a little gloating or something, if he really knew he was going to be so weak? It seems out of character to leave something so juicy to lackeys, especially lackeys he was supposed to be punishing! And if Voldemort knows Dumbledore is after his horcruxes, has he moved them all by now? -- Sydney From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Sep 6 14:58:50 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:58:50 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157950 > Sydney: > If you discount Narcissa's take, you enter the train scene very, very > differently, and I think, to the detriment of the arc as it then plays > out. First of all, you would have no idea what's going on-- there's > no dramatic irony because you've decided to ignore what Narcissa and > Snape give you. The scene that way is, IMO, less interesting, more > vague, more just some stuff going on, than something that follows in > an interesting way from the scene before. More critically, you would > see Draco as actually being part of the Big Plan that he's bragging > about. He's a *threat*. He really *is* an important DE and not a > slightly ridiculous 16-year-old. Also, everything is his own fault-- > it's a 'hoist in his own petard' thing rather than a 'person oblivious > to looming threat thing'. There's no start of pity from the audience > and his emotional breakdown and Dumbledore's mercy don't follow, in my > opinion, as clean a line as if the audience's pity had been allowed to > start there. Magpie: That's why I think it's also significant that many later ideas that are built on the Cabinet!First assumption that I've read in this thread continue shift the element of Draco's personal agency to a different place. It is his personal decision to act either by going to Voldemort with the Cabinet Plot or by spilling the beans about the Cabinet Plot and so giving Voldemort a reason to order Draco to fix the Cabinet so that he can get DEs into the castle and kill DD that is his biggest contribution to the plot. (One that nobody ever deals with, though to me it would seem totally central to everything.) So in this version Draco's own personal, unique action is important in causing Voldemort to make a plan to kill Dumbledore via getting DEs into the school. (The alternate methods of killing Dumbledore are either irrational acts on Draco's part since he's been ordered to fix the Cabinets, or Draco proving that the Cabinet Plan couldn't be his own because the fact that he does them when the Cabinets don't get fixed fast enough means he really would have done them first all along if Voldemort hadn't taken him by the hand and said to fix the Cabinets and then kill DD.) The place where it seems to me Draco's uniqueness comes in is *after* he's been given the task. That, to me, goes right along with JKR's usual view of the second generation. Every time older people try to manipulate younger people they just never are what the older person is so sure they are--because they're new, individual people. That's, imo, part of the hopefulness of the series. Whenever people try to make parallels to the last generation they never quite work--Neville might be a nebbish like Peter, but this one surprises with acts of bravery after being isolated while Peter was tough when he was with stronger people and folded when he was alone. Remus Lupin might keep things quiet to keep his friends since he's been friendless, but Hermione Granger doesn't have to make the same choice. The Cabinet follows wonderfully from that: Both Voldemort's plan AND Dumbledore's and possibly Snape's plans are messed up simply because this kid, when tested, turns out to not be quite the kid in quite the situation that everyone can imagine. He happens to have heard about what it's like in the Broken Vanishing Cabinet *because he's a kid* and so among those listening to Montague's tales of escape. His mind happened to make a deduction that nobody else's made for whatever reason. (It's the type of thing Hermione would have realized and kept to herself until she could use it.) He had personal reasons for not wanting Snape to help him with it. Then when he gets a taste of murder he's got more reason to hide things from Snape--but also a reason to persevere with the Cabinet because that is his reaction to the threat to himself and his family. Basically, the whole story turns on how, once again, it's harder than you think to manipulate a young man who's never been tested, because it's only in the testing you're going to find these things out. (And Draco throughout canon is always very adamantly not tested-He's not like Neville or the Trio who have already found themselves in difficult situations out of which they couldn't get). Dumbledore says it's our choices that show who we are, and this story seems to be a lot about that. If the choice Draco makes is simply to go to Voldemort or open his mouth to Voldemort to get revenge or get power, then no matter what his success with the Cabinet is he's still just the same thing he was, a cog in Voldemort's machine who put himself there like most people do and is doing Voldemort's bidding. His being able to fix the Cabinet (as opposed to being able to kill or unable to kill) isn't a revelation about character, it's just a mundane shop project it's not so shocking he could accomplish. It also, as I said, puts Dumbledore in the position of praising Draco for the very thing he used to cause all the mess, and for fulfilling a straightforward task for Voldemort instead of being able to praise the Cabinet Plan as part of making Draco value himself as an individual who doesn't need to impress Voldemort. Voldemort sees Draco as only the offspring of the adult Lucius. Dumbledore sees Draco as an important individual in himself even at 16. Which is why I keep harping on this subject. Not only because everyone's words and actions in canon support it (and without contradiction why wouldn't I take that dialogue as exposition?), but because as a story arc these changes muddy what's clear and weaken what's strong. And what I'd actually love to talk about to bring it back to Snape, is Snape's reaction to this! I mean, I agree with I think it was you who said Snape's probably going crazy watching Dumbledore let Draco make his own mistakes instead of just letting Snape step in. For all I think Snape is loyal to DD he's never understood this in him. But he does it. What I wonder is, given that Snape has always been linked to this kid (though fandom has very often not taken that at face value and assumed Snape was just pretending to like Draco and sometimes hate Harry as part of his spy cover) and has been playing his DE mentor all this time, how surprised is he at this? He's shown looking afraid at the Christmas party--is he less confident that there's nothing to fear from Draco just because he's an unknown quantity? He's bound up in all this, after all. He himself became a DE--how does he see Draco as one? Has he always just seen him as a joke in that regard, somebody who obviously didn't have the stomach for this sort of thing? Did he think he could avoid ever having to face him trying it out? Did his "sudden move" when Harry named Lucius as one of the DEs indicate Snape thought that would be bad for him (Snape)? -m From jamess at climaxgroup.com Wed Sep 6 15:08:03 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:08:03 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C03@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 157951 Sydney: Wait... what? Am I missing something here? I confess I haven't read every single post on this thread(s), but I hadn't realized that the "Cabinet-first" plot *included* Dumbledore somehow being lured into crippling himself in the Horcrux hunt. So in this theory, does Voldemort actually *know* that Dumbledore is onto the Horcruxes, and that he knew about the fake one R.A.B. left, and that he arranged for Dumbledore to go off that night and return badly injured? Logically my assumptions have been based on the fact that there was no way anyone could have known Dumbledore wouldn't have been capable of handling Draco and a handful of nudniks, but if this is the theory then that makes sense, at least. I find it hard to square with Voldemort also intending Draco to die in the attempt, as Draco has actually a pretty good chance of getting all the honour everyone was talking about, which isn't exactly a great revenge on Lucius. Does the cabinet-first theory work that in somehow? Wouldn't Voldemort have wanted to kill Dumbledore himself and do a little gloating or something, if he really knew he was going to be so weak? It seems out of character to leave something so juicy to lackeys, especially lackeys he was supposed to be punishing! And if Voldemort knows Dumbledore is after his horcruxes, has he moved them all by now? James: Have you considered that the suggestion relating to Voldemort taking revenge refers simply to him brining Draco into the fold. We can see that Narcisia is unhappy about the idea, and I imagine Lucius would be too. If Draco truly has become a death eater then the mark on his arm could be the revenge. Voldemort is many things, but stupid he is not. Without knowing about DD's hunter for the horcri or his resulting sickness, he could very well have had reason to think that Draco hight succeed where a team of DE's wouldn't, for the very reason that the order wouldn't suspect it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 15:34:48 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:34:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40609051926m6b970b56rd146d829a2c9e18f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40609060834o7af94437w319ddd4ac21076f1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157952 > > > bboyminn: > > > ... > > > > > > So, /if/ they planned to take over Hogwarts, here is > > > how and why the plan would have gone. > > > > > > First, the enter the castle and set the trap for > > > Dumbledore, meanwhile a few other DE's sneak off and > > > catch the teachers unaware in their sleep. The > > > teachers are disarmed and taken to a holding area. > > > The trap is sprung on Dumbledore and Dumbledore is > > > killed. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > Kemper earlier: > > > > Bella seems a more competent DE than those on the tower, > > and she fled from DD when she saw that he was in the > > Dept of Mysteries. How is it that a trap be sprung on > > DD, killing him? > > > bboyminn: > > Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow you. The /sprung trap/ > I am speaking of is the very trap that lured Dumbledore > in and lead to his death in the existing book. > Kemper now: So what I'm hearing you say is that the DE trap that happened in HBP took into account an unhealthy, weak Dumbledore. If that's the case, then I can understand why DE's who seem less competent than Bella were in the invasion plan of Hogwarts. >bboyminn continues: > So /IF/ that plan had not been discovered as soon as they > stepped out of the door, and /if/ they had been able to > move quietly about the castle, then my suggestion for > taking the plan beyond Dumbledore's death might be valid. Kemper now: I never disagreed with an invasion plan that includes the take over Hogwarts. It would have been quite the coup. I do disagree that it would have happened stealthily even if the DA weren't waiting by the RoR. I see/hear the portraits sounding the alarm. > >Kemper earlier: > > > > I imagine that the students would be used. But even > > > then, would DD lay down his wand or would he fight? ... > > ...edited... > > > > bboyminn: > > Well, the Dumbledore aspect would have played out pretty > much as it originally did in my hypothetical scenario, > so nothing changes there. Dumbledore is lured to the top > of the tower, he arrives weak and getting weaker, Harry > is out of it. Draco and/or the DE's kill Dumbledore. > Snape is not involved. The teacher are captured. The > students wake to find the castle in control of the DE's. Kemper now: Again, what I'm hearing you say is that your hypothetical scenario includes the DE invasion plan that takes into account a weak Dumbledore who's getting weaker.... Or, are you saying that the DE invasion plan would have been successful regardless of Dumbledore's strength or weakness? > bboyminn continues: > My point is that the original plan was sufficiently > thwarted that we can't actually say that capturing > Hogwarts was not part of it. ... > ... > It is a hypothetical alternative plan from the DE's > perspective. It is how they expected the raid to go, > but the DA members and the Order messed it up. > > ... They may well have intended to > take Hogwarts if everything else went well. Kemper now: Again, I'm agreeing with a DE invasion plan consisting of the capture of Hogwarts. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 16:05:26 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:05:26 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C03@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157953 Sydney: > I find it hard to square with > Voldemort also intending Draco to die in the attempt, as Draco has > actually a pretty good chance of getting all the honour everyone was > talking about, which isn't exactly a great revenge on Lucius. Does > the cabinet-first theory work that in somehow? Wouldn't Voldemort > have wanted to kill Dumbledore himself and do a little gloating or > something, if he really knew he was going to be so weak? It seems out > of character to leave something so juicy to lackeys, especially > lackeys he was supposed to be punishing! > > And if Voldemort knows Dumbledore is after his horcruxes, has he moved > them all by now? > James: > Have you considered that the suggestion relating to Voldemort taking revenge > refers simply to him brining Draco into the fold. We can see that Narcisia > is unhappy about the idea, and I imagine Lucius would be too. If Draco truly > has become a death eater then the mark on his arm could be the revenge. Sydney: Why? Voldemort is an evil megalomaniac. He'd hardly see giving someone a position in the inner circle of his evil empire as a disaster for them. It's like saying Hilter would punish someone by awarding them a medal and leadership of a Hitler Youth Brigade, and he'd really relish their descent into moral turpitude. Narcissa is unhappy about Draco dying, not about him joining the DE's-- "He doesn't mean him to succeed, he wants him to be killed trying!" She has Snape swear to protect and help Draco and "to carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered him to perform", not to keep him out of the Death Eaters and make sure he's a good moral boy. She and Lucius might worry about Draco's saftey, and about the viability of the DE's in general, but I really don't think they'd see Draco being at the heart of a pureblood supremacist organization as in itself a bad thing. James: > Voldemort is many things, but stupid he is not. Without knowing about DD's > hunter for the horcri or his resulting sickness, he could very well have > had reason to think that Draco hight succeed where a team of DE's wouldn't, > for the very reason that the order wouldn't suspect it. Sydney: Dumbledore is the most powerful wizard alive, he's defeated Voldemort in battle, he's well aware of who all the kids in his school are and who their parents are. He has an office crammed with magical devices to detect people with bad intent. Yeah, to me that sounds like a dumb plan-- or, as Narcissa concludes, a plan that isn't actually meant to work. -- Sydney From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 18:06:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:06:57 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157954 It seems to me that we're in desperate need of a new topic again, so here's my attempt to start a new thread. JKR has indicated that we should look at OoP, which she concedes is a little too long, for clues: JKR: My feeling is that Phoenix is overlong, but I challenge anyone to find the obvious place to cut. There are places that I would prune, now, looking back, but they wouldn't add up to a hugely reduced book, because my feeling is you need what's in there. You need what's in there if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution in book seven. One of the reasons "Phoenix" is so long is that I had to move Harry around a lot, physically. There were places he had to go he had never been before, and that took time ? to get him there, to get him away. That was the longest non-Hogwarts stretch in any of the books, and that's really what bumps up the length. I'm trying to think of specifics, it's hard. ES: Any subplots that you think could have been left out, in hindsight? JKR: I find it very hard to pinpoint any because I feel that they were necessary. How can any of us judge? Even I, until seven's finished, will not be able to look back really accurately and say, "That was discursive." Carol resumes: So all the subplots are necessary for the resolution--house elfs and boggarts and all. What do those who think Phoenix is a "bad" book with a lot of wasted pages think should have been cut because it won't play a part in book seven? And what do OoP's defenders think will prove to be important besides the locket that won't open and the Veil and the Love Room in the DoM? 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? Anyone want to volunteer a list of Book 5 subplots that need to be resolved in Book 7 and speculations on where JKR might take them? Carol, who wouldn't mind endlessly debating Snape but reluctantly concedes that there's more to the HP books than Sevvie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 18:20:39 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:20:39 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157955 Sydney wrote: > > Dumbledore is the most powerful wizard alive, he's defeated Voldemort > in battle, he's well aware of who all the kids in his school are and > who their parents are. He has an office crammed with magical devices > to detect people with bad intent. Carol responds: Note that the DEs lured DD away from the office with all the instruments and onto the Astronomy Tower for that very reason (probably on Voldemort's orders--I don't think it was Draco's suggestion as he's never AFAIK been inside DD's office and wouldn't know about the instruments). Regardless of what LV thought, I think the DEs expected Dumbledore to die, especially if they'd heard from Snape via Bellatrix that he'd recently sustained a serious injury and that his reflexes had been damaged in the battle of the MoM. They certainly didn't see *themselves* as being on a suicide mission regardless of what they thought of Draco's chances. Carol, trying to stay out of the thread but wanting to answer this one point From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Sep 6 18:23:15 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:23:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157956 wynnleaf I love all of the discussion on Snape's teaching styles compared to other Hogwarts teachers and RL. This is purely anecdotal, but I wanted to share this given some of the comments that 11 year old children would hate to be taught by a person like Snape. I used to assume this was correct, and that Snape's overall approach might be more suited to high school and college levels. I tried to recall teachers of my own or my children's teachers that could fit the type. But I totally missed a perfect example from "teachers I have known" because of one major difference -- the most perfect example was a teacher whose students liked him. Three of my kids experienced a science teacher when each was 10, who is very, very Snape-like in teaching style and personality. My now 16-year old daughter recently characterized his classroom teaching style as "ruthless." My very literal minded 11 year old had him last year and was utterly convinced that he really would throw a student out of a second floor window (and probably actually had done so some time in the past). He is very, very strict and precise. He says dramatically cutting things. He uses over-the-top threats. He sometimes yells at his students. They all start out terrified of him. In the end, they are fascinated with him. Parents request that their kids be in his classes because we know they'll come out more responsible people. I asked my son why so many students like this teacher if he is, as my daughter said, so "ruthless." My son explained that it was in part because the subjects he taught were so cool. But also, my son said you could "learn really good lines" from him. Apparently, this teacher's cutting remarks and other caustic comments are the stuff of legend in the school. The fact that you could miss a highly anticipated school event, solely because one piece of homework wasn't completed properly -- well, the students seem to learn within the first month that in *his* class, you just don't have incomplete assignments. I asked my son which kids *didn't* like this teacher. He said it was the one or two students that continued to cause a lot of trouble even after the first month. I'm not sure what the problems are, of course, but that's how my son put it. This truly surprised me. Once I actually thought of Mr. W, the "ruthless" science teacher, I realized that I'd never seen the similarity to Snape in the past because Mr. W. is so well liked. As a parent, I'd call him a little intimidating -- and very stubborn, too. But there's no doubt that most of those 10 year old kids respond *very* well to his teaching style. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 18:33:59 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:33:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OoP clues? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40609061133t4fd5384as1be5ada22b9349f4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157957 > Carol: > > It seems to me that we're in desperate need of a new topic again, so > here's my attempt to start a new thread. JKR has indicated that we > should look at OoP, which she concedes is a little too long, for clues: > > JKR: > > Carol resumes: > So all the subplots are necessary for the resolution--house elfs and > boggarts and all. What do those who think Phoenix is a "bad" book with > a lot of wasted pages think should have been cut because it won't play > a part in book seven? And what do OoP's defenders think will prove to > be important besides the locket that won't open and the Veil and the > Love Room in the DoM? > ... > Kemper now: I hate Gwarp and the chapter 'Hagrid's Tale' (I immediately thought of Chaucer but can't see how it relates to any of his tales). I really don't know how to add any more. I think Hagrid's tale could've been hella edited... but I'm no editor. Also... Aberforth seems like a line of questioning, but those who talk about him and his actual scenes are very limited. That's all I got in the 'right now'. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Sep 6 18:23:15 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:23:15 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <44FF29B0.16073.58E84B7@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157958 > Shaun: > > No, I'm not asking you to prove a double negative - rather I'd say I'm asking is that people > consider the possibility that just because it's not on the page, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Actually, seems to me that in books, if its not on the page, and it isn't refrenced, then it doesn't happen. We'll never have any common frame of reference if we argue that stuff happens that isn't in the book. 'Cause I guess that means I can mentally add that Harry/Luna makeout scene that HBP desperately needs :) > Personally, I would not expect to see major signs. We really don't see evidence of any of the > teachers at Hogwarts going out of their way to support individual students, which either > means they don't do it - in which case why are we picking on Snape? Or they do it and JKR > doesn't think it's a big enough deal to put it in the books. Doesn't Professor Sprout spend extra time with neville? I admit I could be getting fanfiction mixed up with canon, but doesn't she give him additional attention? There of course is also Professor Lupin teaching Harry the Patronus charm outside of the classroom. They have a special relationship, but don't you think Lupin would have taught that spell to anyone who asked and and that extreme a reaction to Dementors? Then what about Professor Trewlary (sp) and Parvati and Lavender? they both seemed to have a very good relationship with their divination teacher. > Yes, Snape calls him an idiot - he also tells him explicitly what he did wrong. If he just wants > to pick on the kid, he didn't need to do that. Telling a child exactly what they have done wrong > is good teaching. But not when you do it in such a way as to prevent them from hearing the instruction. All Neville would hear is the insult and Harry gets in back up towards Snape because the insults towards him. Good Teaching is also knowing what will get to each student. its reading them and knowing that, yes, this student can take make sarcasm, but this student can't so I won't use it on him. I have a biting sense of humor myself and I have had to learn, sometimes the hard way, that I cannot always use it. > And with the Trevor incident, again, Snape gives Neville *explicit* details as to what he had > done wrong and gives him a chance to fix it. That's *good* teaching - it really is. Sure it is, but not when you add threats to the mix. Threatening his toad is not good teaching. > And to go further, he also allows the smartest child in the class to help Neville fix what he has > done - yes, he punishes Hermione for doing so - which means he *knows* she is doing it. But > he doesn't stop her. Again, that's good teaching and entirely appropriate. I'm about to use my biting sense of humor so don't get mad :) But honestly that is so ass backwards I don't know where to begin. Yes, it is good teaching to allow good students to help students who aren't as good, but that when teachers do that, it is a conscious effort to do so. you put them in a group together. tie their grade together, there are a variety of techniques that go with pairing up students. Snape doesn't use any of them. Hermione is forced to work on the sly to help neville, and she is punished at the end. Basically you seem to be saying that Snape expected Hermione to help him, that it was part of his plan, but at the same time she is punished for the role he clearly expected she would play. That's not good teaching. That's stupid. > Shaun: > It's not a matter of it being *nice*. Snape is NOT nice, not by any measure of the word. But he > doesn't have to be to be a good teacher. As has been said, teaching is not a popularity > contest. I know some very nice teachers who are actually absolutely incompetent. Nice might > be enough if you're teaching infants - maybe - beyond that it's a minor component of > teaching. There's nothing wrong with being nice - but being nice isn't required. I love the way you repeatedly use nice likes its some kind of poisonous word in this paragraph--as if the only two methods someone can use is to be nice or to be like Snape. There are plenty of effective teachers who are neitherly overly nice nor overly cruel. the key to being a good teacher is being firm. You can be nice all you want as long as you students know when you tell them to do something they better damn well do it. It doesn't take insults or browbeating them to get students to that point either. I've worked in schools were not only acting like Snape would be the last way would you teach a student, it would also be the first way you would end up getting shot. > Even if JKR did put everything about Snape's teaching that she considers important on the > page, as I've indicated above, quite a bit of what we see can in my view, be seen as good > and valid pedagogy, if a person looks at it with a teachers eyes. Don't lump all of us teachers in together! I have plenty good teacher's eyes and as far as I'm concerned Snape is a boil on the behind of good education. > Shaun: > That statement to me is a statement that really does seem to come from a man who *loves* > his subject and who *desperately* wants to teach it - > > 'You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking' > > 'I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death' > > This is a man who *wants* to teach his subject. I would actually say that this is a man who *loves* his subject. that I would agree with, and thats also a very different animal than having a desire to teach it. I get the impression that Snape would rather be holed up in lab working on experiments than standing around trying to teach his subtle science to a bunch of runny nosed kids. > 'He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor > McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort.' It does seem like he has fairly good classroom management. Probably due to the fact he likes threatening to poison pets :) > Shaun: > > Scaring the kid into oblivion from the very first lesson? > > He called him an idiot boy - not nice, but for an 11 year old boy sent off to boarding school, I > really can't see that that would figure highly in his fears. And if he is so sensitive as to be hurt > so badly by that, then: > > "'Which person,' she said, her voice shaking, 'which abysmally foolish person wrote down this > week's passwords and left them lying around?'" > > must have been truly and utterly devastating to his psyche. > > Yet, McGonnagall doesn't seem to attract anywhere near the vitriol that Snape does. Of course there was also that scene in HBP where she talks up Neville when his grandmother badmouths his grades. Also, in the scene you mention, she was asking who the abyssmally foolish person was. She didn't assume it was neville. it could have been Harry or Ron, or one of the younger years. It was not directed at Neville specifically the way Snape's insults have been. McGonnagall doesn't recieve the vitrol Snape does because I think ultimately most people see her as strict but fair. She doesn't have the history of blatant favoritism and assery that Snape does. phoenxigod2000, who wonders why Snape's teaching methods are still being argued about when he's an evil murderer ;) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 19:24:04 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:24:04 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157959 Phoenixgod: > Actually, seems to me that in books, if its not on the page, and it > isn't refrenced, then it doesn't happen. We'll never have any common > frame of reference if we argue that stuff happens that isn't in the > book. > > 'Cause I guess that means I can mentally add that Harry/Luna makeout > scene that HBP desperately needs :) Alla: LOLOL. Just wanted to say that I posted reply that is similar to yours in some aspects that Yahoomort seems to have eaten few hours ago, but I am still hopeful it may show up. And yeah, I agree about "not in the book" meaning author did not mean it to happen. Actually scratch that - if something is a mystery that happened off screen, we may not know about it yet, yeah, but I don't consider Snape's teaching methods to be a mystery. :) Phoenixgod: > Doesn't Professor Sprout spend extra time with neville? I admit I > could be getting fanfiction mixed up with canon, but doesn't she > give him additional attention? Alla: In my reply Yahoomort ate I mentioned that Neville wants to show Sprout his Mimmbletonia, to me it can be interpreted that they may have some extra private lessons or something. Shawn: > > Yes, Snape calls him an idiot - he also tells him explicitly > what he did wrong. If he just wants > > to pick on the kid, he didn't need to do that. Telling a child > exactly what they have done wrong > > is good teaching. Phoenixgod: > But not when you do it in such a way as to prevent them from hearing > the instruction. All Neville would hear is the insult and Harry > gets in back up towards Snape because the insults towards him. Alla: YES, precisely, scaring may force some kids to listen better, IMO Neville is so not one of them. Alla, who is still hopeful that her reply will show up. From ornawn at 013.net Wed Sep 6 19:26:26 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:26:26 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! One last time. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609021316k76d0e31dn500a1c570ed38598@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157960 >Random832 >And the _only_ basis for it being a suicide mission is >that Narcissa thinks it is, and we KNOW she doesn't know about the >cabinet. Orna: The strongest basis for it being a suicide mission is a common sense saying ? that if you give a teenager a mission to kill the most powerful wizard in the world ? his chances of succeeding and getting away alive are zero. And Voldemort doesn't be much of a mentor to Draco throughout the year - it seems quite plain that Draco is put under threats and pressure ? but not helped too much. His grown-up Des got much more help and detailed plans for retrieving the prophecy, than teenager Draco got on his "mission". That's what I would call suicide mission. Narcissa just says it. Hadn't she done it, we would either think Voldemort lost his marbles, or figure the revenge issue out ourselves. As a matter of fact, Bellatrix doesn't challenge this view ? she just thinks it's honorable. (Actually it's a bit like Voldemort dealt with Wormtail ? since he was a bit disloyal to him, because he came to him only when he hadn't got another choice, but also nursed him loyally to get his body back ? Wormtail was "honored" to sacrifice his arm for Voldemort). You might argue that since he has a one-in-million chance to survive ? it's not a "real" suicide" mission. But IMO, if your chances to succeed are near-zero, and you can't back-out when you think you will be failing ? it's a suicide or more accurately a getting-murdered-mission. I think that since we know the end of the story ? Dumbledore getting killed, we can think of it being a mission-to-complete. But basically - if Dumbledore hadn't been on his deathbed, wandless ? what would be the big deal for him to manage 4 DE's and a teenager? Orna From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 19:22:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:22:00 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157961 Owww... this whole thing has gotten mucked up and it's partly (totally?) my fault. First, we are off on a new subjects, related but new. So, I should have changed the Subject heading to read - "Hogwarts Attacked! (was: Cabinet FIRST!)" I was responding to a comment made by Clifford Vander Yacht in post #157903. He made the following comment - "LV has lost most of his supporters of value in the MoM battle. He has Bellatrix, Narcissa, Draco, Goyle and maybe Snape. That's not enough to take over Hogwarts as a school." That was the part I was responding to. Cliff's assertion that Voldemort didn't have enough resources to take over the school. So, I made up a hypothetical scenario which indicated that it was /possible/ that the /existing plot/ was actually a plot to take over Hogwarts. However, the existing plot was met with so much unanticipated resistance that they had to scale it back. Cliff also said - "Of course, the school would have far fewer students, just full bloods and maybe some half-bloods, and of parents who don't mind having LV in charge." A secondary aspect of modifying the existing plan was to point out that Voldemort has no interest in /running/ the school. He is not going to let them all go home, then invite them all back to the /new/ school with him as the /new/ headmaster. That would be stupid beyond belief. The stragegic advantage to capturing the school is holding all the students hostage. If he holds the school and it's students, he has essentailly won the war. So, in that sense, Cliff was right, Voldemort has no interest in taking over Hogwarts "as a school". But can anyone deny that IF he holds the school and the students he has essentially won the war? --- "Sydney" wrote: > > Sydney: > > Wait... what? Am I missing something here? I confess > I haven't read every single post on this thread(s), but > I hadn't realized that the "Cabinet-first" plot > *included* Dumbledore somehow being lured into > crippling himself in the Horcrux hunt. > bboyminn: No need to have read every post because we are off on a new tagental subject here. So, no Dumbledore being weak was not part of the real plan or the hypothetical plan. Harry and Dumbledore went off and did what they did, that's a fact. Dumbledore came back in the condition that he came back in that is a fact. Dumbledore's actions aren't controlled by the plan at all; he still went to the cave, he still drank the potion, he still came back weak. Those are facts that are in no way tied to the DE plan, though, they did work to the DE's advantage. My point in creating my alternate hypothetical plan was simply to show how the existing plan /could/ have been a plan to take over Hogwarts /if/ everything had gone in favor of the DE's. BUT since the plan was a muck-up from the first step, and they were forced to scale it back, we can't say that it /was/ or /wasn't/ a plan to take over Hogwarts. Remember, whatever Voldemort's plan was in the very beginning, does not necessarily reflect what his plan was at the very end. Draco succeeded in fixing the cabinet, regardless of his original motivations, Voldemort now had a way to get a force of DE's into the castle by stealth, he had a real chance of actually killing Dumbledore, and with Dumbledore out of the way, he had a real chance to take over the school. I'm not saying that the plan /was/ a plan to take over the school, I'm saying that we can't know with certainty that it was not. My hypothetical plan was simply a way of showing how the existing plan /might/ have gone /if/ things had worked to the DE's advantage, and how it had the theoretical potential to actually be a plan to capture Hogwarts. Sorry for the confusion, and hoping I haven't created more. Steve/bboyminn From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 19:15:21 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:15:21 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > > phoenxigod2000, who wonders why Snape's teaching methods are still > being argued about when he's an evil murderer ;) > Well, his teaching methods are probably a more profound indication of his state of light/dark, good/evil than the case of the Terrible Tower. As Nora, particularly, has pointed out several times the ordinary interactions of life may well be much more revealing than extraordinary situations, which after all tend, especially in highly contrived plots of the kind JKR sometimes uses, to be influenced by all kinds of strange and convoluted (and often, I think, unbelievable) perturbations in the space/time continuum. Thus, in the kind of situation we have here, it can be argued quite cogently that abusive teaching methods are much more important than specific actions taken during one particular highly dramatic and murky instance. Add that to the fact that we have an "epitome of goodness" (author's own words) who apparently approves of said abusive teaching methods, and the moral soup really gets stirred (not to mention spit in several times). Lupinlore, who finds it interesting that even post-quill (I think) Harry in OOTP includes both Snape and Umbridge when he thinks of the teachers he hates most at Hogwarts From ornawn at 013.net Wed Sep 6 20:29:14 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:29:14 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157963 >Sydney: >So I'm being adamant here that 'Cabinet first' is extremely >different >*story-wise* from 'Suicide mission', even if it may not seem that >different *plot-wise*. >Joe was >thirsting for pay-back, and so he went to the Mob, but then it all >went pear-shaped and he got in over his head". "So Joe was thirsting >for revenge, and so when the Mob came and made him this offer he was >thrilled, but the poor sap didn't know that..." is a different >story. >You wouldn't leave out the part that Joe actually went to the mob. >It's where the story hinges. >For that reason, I find it extremely hard-- in fact, impossible-- to >believe a writer, especially a writer like Rowling, would leave it >out. Orna: I agree only partly. The ways I imagine it could happen together. I can easily imagine Draco boasting to Voldemort ? eager to rent his services for him to show loyalty after Lucius was disgraced. He would think the service is just helping Des enter Hogwarts. Voldemort would twist it devilishly towards this kill-Dumbledore mission. So it's cabinet-first turning into suicide mission. I can also imagine quite easily Voldemort luring Draco into this mission, this tricky way or the other - cabinet being just one means to the end. I must confess I can't see Voldemort just reaching openly out for Draco ? he would somehow make it seem to Draco ? that it's his volunteering. That's because I think that`s how Voldemort acts ? if he doesn't imperius the person ? he acts on some act of initial volunteering. I don't think it's very important for JKR to mention it, if Draco approached Voldemort. If Voldemort approached Draco ? it would need mentioning, and I agree that it alters the story. As it is, the story is told so that nobody has difficulty in believing that Malfoy wants to join the Des. Hermione doubts whether Voldemort would use a teenager ? but not that Draco would like to join. Dumbledore doesn't ask ? how the hell did you come to get such a task. It seems quite assumed that Draco joined voluntarily, proudly, and during the process discovers slowly "the bitter pill" - he is not built to be a killer, or a DE. Had he been approached by Voldemort, and just agreed (even happily) his lesson or potential transformation wouldn't be so bitter, or even important And I think that Dumbledore would check this point out ? as he did with Fenrir being invited. The starting point is IMO - you think you are a killer, you began to follow this path - slowly you have to admit that you were wrong about yourself. It's taking responsibilities on your choices, which would be weakened if his choice would be being tempted or threatened by Voldemort to join. Dumbledore doesn't tell him when he wants to show him he is not a killer "You didn't even ask for this job". But it might be mentioned in book 7 ? perhaps in connection with Regulus. Somehow Draco's joining Des and learning that it's different (and that he is different) from what he imagined ? reminds me of what Sirius said about Regulus. So if Regulus is RAB, and his story is told ? Draco might be there also in a way. Orna From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 19:55:39 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060906195539.52976.qmail@web55103.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157964 justcarol67 posed: It seems to me that we're in desperate need of a new topic again, so here's my attempt to start a new thread. JKR has indicated that we should look at OoP, which she concedes is a little too long, for clues: JKR: [and snip again] You need what's in there if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution inbook seven. One of the reasons "Phoenix" is so long is that I had tomove Harry around a lot, physically. There were places he had to go hehad never been before, and that took time ? to get him there, to get him away. That was the longest non-Hogwarts stretch in any of the books, and that's really what bumps up the length. I'm trying to think of specifics, it's hard. [wholesale snippage] akh ruminates (at work, so I may have forgotten some things): I decided to think about the locations beyond Hogwarts, and for grins added a couple of Hogwarts places that aren't generally on the syllabus. Here are my initial thoughts about their importance to the rest of the story: Privet Drive ? been there, done that, but we get an interesting tidbit about Petunia and we finally learn about Mrs. Figg, but perhaps not all. I?m still suspicious about her house smelling like cabbages (polyjuice, anyone?) and the tent in GoF smelling like cats and reminding Harry of Mrs. Figg's house. 12 Grimmauld Place ? we?re pretty sure it?ll figure into the Horcrux hunt. There may be additional clues there, too. Ministry of Magic ? Wizengamot, outer lobby, Department of Mysteries, elevator, prophecy room ? guesses, anyone? I think we all expect to see more of the Department of Mysteries, the Veil, the locked door, but is the rest of it going to figure in? The Burrow ? been there before; any significance to going again? Were returned there in HBP. I'm not coming up with any brilliant theories Hogsmeade, including the Hog?s Head ? we can presume a first glimpse of Aberforth is worth noting for the future St. Mungo?s Hospital ? this is fraught with all kinds of possibilities. Are others heading back there for treatment? Is it holding a "key to everything/" Enquiring minds want to know! In Hogwart?s: Room of Requirement ? that?s already figured into book 6, and we suspect it may have yet another role to play in book 7, with all the junk - er - valuable treasures stored there Forbidden Forest ? we saw places and creatures we hadn?t met before; which are putting in another appearance in 7? Grawp? (That'll thrill millions - or not) Thestrals? Herd of Centaurs? akh, who finds this much more fun than writing annual fund copy... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Sep 6 21:03:23 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:03:23 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157965 > Orna: > I don't think it's very important for JKR to mention it, if Draco > approached Voldemort. If Voldemort approached Draco ? it would need > mentioning, and I agree that it alters the story. As it is, the > story is told so that nobody has difficulty in believing that Malfoy > wants to join the Des. Hermione doubts whether Voldemort would use a > teenager ? but not that Draco would like to join. Dumbledore doesn't > ask ? how the hell did you come to get such a task. Magpie: But Voldemort approaching Draco IS mentioned. It's implied in Narcissa's telling us how he's assigned a task to Draco she thinks is supposed to kill him, and Bellatrix saying it's an honor to be asked and Snape saying Voldemort wants Draco to try first. Dumbledore, too, seems to accept that Voldemort gave him the task to punish Lucius, it seems to me, as does Draco in the end. Draco was eager to do it, but he's still the one who's the patsy. Orna: It seems quite > assumed that Draco joined voluntarily, proudly, and during the > process discovers slowly "the bitter pill" - he is not built to be a > killer, or a DE. Had he been approached by Voldemort, and just > agreed (even happily) his lesson or potential transformation > wouldn't be so bitter, or even important. And I think that Dumbledore > would check this point out ? as he did with Fenrir being invited. Magpie: But this is exactly the change in the story the book doesn't support. You're wanting the extra bitterness and importance of it being just that much more of a personal comeuppance--ha ha, you tried to suck up to Voldemort and it bit you on the butt. That's what would need to be in the story--and I think it would be played out explicitly. In the story as is you've still got the irony of Draco being eager to accept his task, and that being a DE was what Draco wanted. Only the task has appeared for the reason everyone in canon seems to agree on--Voldemort is angry at Lucius and has given his son this mission as punishment. Orna: > The starting point is IMO - you think you are a killer, you began to > follow this path - slowly you have to admit that you were wrong > about yourself. Magpie: Yes, but how he begins to follow this path is important. He's wanted this life and gets his chance when he's offered a mission. As he starts to try to fulfill the mission he learns he's not a killer. In your version he's started to follow the path through a different means which are turned back on him. He's hoisted on his own petard. Orna: It's taking responsibilities on your choices, which > would be weakened if his choice would be being tempted or threatened > by Voldemort to join. Magpie: Again, this is exactly what's not in the book the way it's specifically being played out here. In this version Draco's choice was to go to Voldemort and brag and the consequence is being handed this mission that's more than he wanted. In canon Draco's previous behavior is still affecting his situation, but what he's playing out is punishment for his *father's* choices. He's given a task he thinks is glorious and tries to fulfill it, and realizes the reality doing that. His being punished for his father doesn't turn Draco into an innocent who never wanted this kind of task, but I still think it's important to the story. Orna: Dumbledore doesn't tell him when he wants to > show him he is not a killer "You didn't even ask for this job". Magpie: But Narcissa says he was chosen as punishment. Dumbledore agrees that Voldemort expects Dumbledore to kill him. Draco says they all thought he'd die. The task as punishment for Lucius is the only reason anyone ever gives for his being given this task. I think Dumbledore doesn't say "you didn't even ask for this job" because he probably doesn't know he needs to put down that misunderstanding since nobody in canon is under it.:) It's just not relevent to the situation to say that anyway because Draco was eager to take on the job. (Besides which, I don't think DD is a big one for noting that we don't ask for the jobs we have--Harry didn't ask for his job, but that's tough.) -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 16:40:26 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:40:26 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <44FF29B0.16073.58E84B7@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157966 > > Alla: > > > > Well, IMO Snape did not try, because we don't see it on the page. > Shaun: > > No, I'm not asking you to prove a double negative - rather I'd say I'm asking is that people > consider the possibility that just because it's not on the page, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Alla: Right and I am saying that by that means - **anything** that we would like to happen can be argued that it is just not on page and don't get me wrong, I certainly have no problems with it, since I believe that anything is a fair game in unfinished work, but unless I see a sign leading to this assumption in canon, I think that such argument is weak, that's all. I mean, since you argue below that you do see such signs, that is a different story. I just so don't see them and I only mean the signs that Snape tried to do something else with Neville before scaring him. Shawn: I > think people should think about - "Would I *expect* to see any evidence of Snape having > helped Neville if he had been?" and if the answer to that is no, then why is its absence at all > surprising? > > Now you may think you would see signs - and that's fine - if you think there would be signs of > this in the text, then their absence certainly is a reason for suspicion. Alla: Yes, exactly - to me **all** that I read in the text about Snape teaching of Neville is in direct contradiction to your assumption that he tried any other tactics, that is why the absense of the signs tells me that it never happened. Shawn: > Personally, I would not expect to see major signs. We really don't see evidence of any of the > teachers at Hogwarts going out of their way to support individual students, which either > means they don't do it - in which case why are we picking on Snape? Or they do it and JKR > doesn't think it's a big enough deal to put it in the books. Alla: Huh? But with all other teachers we don't see Neville having them as a boggarts and being so scared and upset as he is at Snape's lessons. What I am trying to say is that the other lessons ( Mcgonagall is a different story) are not going in direct contradiction with the assumption that other teachers maybe helping him off screen so to speak, canon does not contradict it, IMO. And in case with Snape, it is just inconceivable for me to imagine that he does. Based on what I see him doing to Neville **on page**. Actually, I think in case of Sprout we do see a rather strong hint that Neville has a relationship with her off screen. Isn't he planning to show her Mimmbletonia in OOP? I mean, it is not a direct support, but IMO can be interpreted as such. In any event, as I said I can buy that **any** teacher tries to do something with Neville off page,except Snape. Shawn: > But the fact is, I do see some minor signs of Snape helping Neville - I really do. The first > lesson: > > "'Idiot boy!' snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. 'I > suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?'" > (PS, p103). > > Yes, Snape calls him an idiot - he also tells him explicitly what he did wrong. If he just wants > to pick on the kid, he didn't need to do that. Telling a child exactly what they have done wrong > is good teaching. And with the Trevor incident, again, Snape gives Neville *explicit* details as to what he had > done wrong and gives him a chance to fix it. That's *good* teaching - it really is. Alla: You are arguing a different point though now IMO. We will agree to disagree on whether those tactics constitute good teaching. But I am asking you to support not the validity of those tactics, but the argument that Snape tried something **else** before resorting to them. > Shaun: > > It's not a matter of it being *nice*. Snape is NOT nice, not by any measure of the word. But he > doesn't have to be to be a good teacher. Alla: Yes, of course. I was trying to get across the argument that if you are arguing that Snape does those things off page, you can argue anything even such absurd thing (IMO of course) that Snape is being nice off page. Sorry for being unclear. > Shaun: > > It doesn't need to be in the last book - I think it's there in the very first. >. Alla: Yeah, the man loves potions - I get it from the speech, the man loves teaching - sorry, I don't. "If you are not the usual bunch of dunder heads" implies to me quite the opposite. Shawn: > Also incidentally - I notice that in one of the very first statements she makes about him, JKR > *favourably* compares an aspect of Snapes teaching ability to that of McGonnagall - > > 'He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor > McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort.' > > If JKR is putting down what she thinks is important about Snape's teaching - that statement > to me is very telling. Praise right at the start. Before we see anything else. Alla: Yeah, I know. I always bring up this quote to counter the idea that narrator through Harry is prejudiced against the Snape from the beginning. He is ready to appreciate Snape teaching till Snape barks at him. I mean, there must be some good aspects in Snape teaching. At least he can keep class quiet, while mistreating some students horribly IMO. > Shaun: > > Scaring the kid into oblivion from the very first lesson? > > He called him an idiot boy - not nice, but for an 11 year old boy sent off to boarding school, I > really can't see that that would figure highly in his fears. And if he is so sensitive as to be hurt > so badly by that, then: > > "'Which person,' she said, her voice shaking, 'which abysmally foolish person wrote down this > week's passwords and left them lying around?'" > > must have been truly and utterly devastating to his psyche. > > Yet, McGonnagall doesn't seem to attract anywhere near the vitriol that Snape does. > > If Snape was so cruel to Neville by calling him idiot boy - what does that say about > McGonnagall calling him an abysmally foolish person? > > Frankly, in my view, both were deserved, considering what he'd done. But deserved or not, > we see that was Snape does isn't unique to him as a teacher. Alla: Erm... sure she does attract that vitriol from me and I absolutely remember from some other list members. Don't get me wrong, I love Mcgonagall dearly, on the overall scale of suiting to be a teacher I grade her much much higher than Snape ( those fifty points from each in PS/SS made me respect her a lot), but she IMO mistreated Neville badly on couple occasions. But at least Mcgonagall learned and changed her approach IMO in OOP, and that makes me respect her too, that she does not hold on to her assumptions. JMO, Alla From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 22:31:46 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:31:46 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157967 I'm actually taken quite aback by the thought that people would dislike this scene. Goodness sakes, you mean Dumbledore might be HUMAN? You don't say! Impossible! Even in the Gospels Jesus shows his human side, how can anyone expect more of Dumbledore. Wise, yes. Cunning, yes, obviously. Powerful, you betcha. But human? Really? Yep, and JKR showed us his humanity more and more as Harry gets older. Good lord, abuse JKR and Dumbldore for taking the very human action of defending an abused child... Distaiyi the almost-human From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 22:42:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:42:13 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157968 Orna wrote: > I can easily imagine Draco boasting to Voldemort ? eager to rent his > services for him to show loyalty after Lucius was disgraced. He > would think the service is just helping Des enter Hogwarts. > Voldemort would twist it devilishly towards this kill-Dumbledore > mission. So it's cabinet-first turning into suicide mission. > > I can also imagine quite easily Voldemort luring Draco into this > mission, this tricky way or the other - cabinet being just one means > to the end. I must confess I can't see Voldemort just reaching > openly out for Draco ? he would somehow make it seem to Draco ? that > it's his volunteering. That's because I think that`s how Voldemort > acts ? if he doesn't imperius the person ? he acts on some act of > initial volunteering. > > I don't think it's very important for JKR to mention it, if Draco > approached Voldemort. If Voldemort approached Draco ? it would need > mentioning, and I agree that it alters the story. As it is, the > story is told so that nobody has difficulty in believing that Malfoy > wants to join the Des. Hermione doubts whether Voldemort would use a > teenager ? but not that Draco would like to join. Dumbledore doesn't > ask ? how the hell did you come to get such a task. It seems quite > assumed that Draco joined voluntarily, proudly, and during the > process discovers slowly "the bitter pill" - he is not built to be a > killer, or a DE. Had he been approached by Voldemort, and just > agreed (even happily) his lesson or potential transformation > wouldn't be so bitter, or even important And I think that Dumbledore > would check this point out ? as he did with Fenrir being invited. > The starting point is IMO - you think you are a killer, you began to > follow this path - slowly you have to admit that you were wrong > about yourself. It's taking responsibilities on your choices, which > would be weakened if his choice would be being tempted or threatened > by Voldemort to join. Dumbledore doesn't tell him when he wants to > show him he is not a killer "You didn't even ask for this job". > > But it might be mentioned in book 7 ? perhaps in connection with > Regulus. Somehow Draco's joining Des and learning that it's > different (and that he is different) from what he imagined ? reminds > me of what Sirius said about Regulus. So if Regulus is RAB, and his > story is told ? Draco might be there also in a way. Carol responds: Exactly. If Draco volunteered his services, his story parallels those of Regulus and Young!Snape and brings the theme of "Slytherin kid joins the DEs and finds it's not what he thought it was" into the new generation. If Voldemort went after him (and when have we seen that happen?), there's no parallel. I'm not saying that's what happened, but parallel stories and variations on a theme are the way JKR often works. His enlightenment is also much more dramatic and the revelation that he's not a killer much more significant if he volunteered to be a DE (complete with the cabinet idea) rather than if he was always intended to be a sacrificial pawn. I think that Harry will get a similar awakening or epiphany when he confronts Severus Snape in Book 7. Carol, who supposes she'd better stop saying that she's giving up on a particular thread as she can't keep her own resolve From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 6 22:44:51 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:44:51 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! - Hogwarts Attacked! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: wasn't/ a plan to take over Hogwarts. > > Remember, whatever Voldemort's plan was in the very > beginning, does not necessarily reflect what his plan was > at the very end. Draco succeeded in fixing the cabinet, > regardless of his original motivations, Voldemort now had > a way to get a force of DE's into the castle by stealth, > he had a real chance of actually killing Dumbledore, and > with Dumbledore out of the way, he had a real chance to > take over the school. > Pippin: Would Voldemort believe that Dumbledore can be killed? Slughorn had told him that Dumbledore doesn't want anyone to know about horcruxes. I don't think Voldemort would believe that Dumbledore *hadn't* constructed a horcrux. In that case Voldemort would never believe that Draco had the slightest chance of killing Dumbledore whatever. Bella, who appears to know about horcruxes also, would probably think the same. Not having JKR to set him straight, perhaps Voldemort will spend Book Seven expecting Dumbledore to reappear. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 23:19:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:19:52 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: <20060906195539.52976.qmail@web55103.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157970 akh wrote: > > > I decided to think about the locations beyond Hogwarts, and for grins added a couple of Hogwarts places that aren't generally on the syllabus. Here are my initial thoughts about their importance to the rest of the story: > > Privet Drive ? been there, done that, but we get an interesting tidbit about Petunia and we finally learn about Mrs. Figg, but perhaps not all. I'm still suspicious about her house smelling like cabbages (polyjuice, anyone?) and the tent in GoF smelling like cats and reminding Harry of Mrs. Figg's house. Carol responds: I'm betting on a Battle of Privet Drive the moment Harry turns seventeen and Mrs. Figg being the one to do magic at an advanced age. > AKH: > 12 Grimmauld Place ? we're pretty sure it'll figure into the Horcrux hunt. There may be additional clues there, too. Carol: Yes, and Kreacher will probably be back home with orders to stay there. Maybe Dobby will keep him company. Funsies! > akh: > The Burrow ? been there before; any significance to going again? Were returned there in HBP. I'm not coming up with any brilliant theories Carol: Well the wedding is likely to be held there (perhaps a double wedding with Lupin/tonks as a second couple). And I expect that clock to play a role, although it was disappointing to me that its hands were already pointing at "mortal peril" in HBP. Maybe Percy will show up with Penelope Clearwater? (Or, heaven forfend, Rufus Scrimgeour.) We need to see more from Bill, the curse breaker, and Charlie, the dragon handler. I'm hoping that the Weasleys aren't stupid enough to announce the wedding in the paper until it's over, but if they do announce it, the DEs are sure to crash it. (Anyone familiar with the Cossacks ruining the wedding reception in "Fiddler on the Roof"? It might be like that, only worse.) Also, I almost forgot Bill's role as liaison to the goblins. Will we hear any more of Ludo Bagman? Will we meet Ragnok the goblin in person? (I can hardly wait. Not.) > akh: > Hogsmeade, including the Hog's Head ? we can presume a first glimpse of Aberforth is worth noting for the future Carol: Yes, there's the Mundungus/Aberforth connection, for one; the Snape connection, for another; and the all-consuming question of why Albus would think that Aberforth might not be able to read (if he were a goat, Albus would know the answer!) I think Aberforth is and always has been an important part of Dumbledore's spy network. And he's the only living link to Dumbledore. Maybe he inherited the Pensieve and the bottled memories? > akh: > St. Mungo's Hospital ? this is fraught with all kinds of possibilities. Are others heading back there for treatment? Is it holding a "key to everything/" Enquiring minds want to know! Carol: Well, there's the unresolved identity of Agnes, the dog-faced woman and the fate of Healer What's her Name, who was suspended with pay. And I want to see Snape get a job as researcher/Healer at St. Mungo's when it's all over. I'd like to see that mind and those talents put to good use. > akh: > In Hogwart's: > Room of Requirement ? that's already figured into book 6, and we suspect it may have yet another role to play in book 7, with all the junk - er - valuable treasures stored there Carol: The tiara? And Harry will probably return for the HBP's book, rationalizing that Snape wasn't a murderer yet when he wrote those potions hints and invented spells. And I think there's at least a fifty/fifty chance for a Battle of Hogwarts and a much higher chance for a talk or two with Dumbledore's portrait. (Will we get to find out what all those instruments are for? Probably not. But we'll surely go once more into the Pensieve, good friends.) > akh: > Forbidden Forest ? we saw places and creatures we hadn't met before; which are putting in another appearance in 7? Grawp? (That'll thrill millions - or not) Thestrals? Herd of Centaurs? Carol: Alas, yes, we haven't heard the last of Grawpy. He warn't sivilized for nuthin, ya know (oops, wrong accent--that's Huckleberry Finn, not Hagrid). And the flying motorcycle has probably mated with the flying Ford Anglia and created lots of little flying three-wheeled carts. I don't think we'll see new monsters, but we may see more of the old ones. And what about those werewolves who supposedly live there, mentioned in CoS? Also, you forgot to mention Azkaban, whither our friends Malfoy, Dolohov, Avery, Macnair, the Lestrange brothers, et al. were sent in OoP. Will there be another mass breakout in Book 7? I was expecting it in HBP. Carol, wondering whatever happened to Sturgis Podmore now that he's released from Azkaban and whether he ever returned Moody's best Invisibility Cloak From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 00:05:48 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:05:48 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Attacked! ( was: Cabinet First) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157971 --- "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > ... > > > > Remember, whatever Voldemort's plan was in the very > > beginning, does not necessarily reflect what his plan > > was at the very end. Draco succeeded in fixing the > > cabinet, regardless of his original motivations, > > Voldemort now had a way to get a force of DE's into > > the castle by stealth, he had a real chance of > > actually killing Dumbledore, and with Dumbledore out > > of the way, he had a real chance to take over the > > school. > > > > Pippin: > Would Voldemort believe that Dumbledore can be killed? bboyminn: Why does he care, he's not personally going to do it. It's up to Draco and the Henchmen (great name for a rock band) to accomplish the task. That's the way it is with evil overlords, they get other people to do their dirty work. Besides as the leader (in his own mind) he is far to valuable to risk on a dangerous mission. > Pippin continues: > > Slughorn had told him that Dumbledore doesn't want > anyone to know about horcruxes. I don't think Voldemort > would believe that Dumbledore *hadn't* constructed a > horcrux. ... > > ... > > Pippin > bboyminn: I don't honestly think any one in the books would ever conceive that Dumbledore would create his own Horcrux. He is far to noble, and Horcruxes are far to Dark and immoral for Dumbledore to even consider. I think it is because the Horcruxes are Dark and immoral that Dumbledore suppresses knowledge of them at the school. Further, I can't imagine that Voldemort would suspect Dumbledore of such Dark Magic. So, yes, Dumbledore can be killed, but his extreme knowledge and skill in magic help keep him safe, and make him a formidable and dangerous foe to anyone who challenges him, as Voldemort personally found out in the Ministry of Magic Duel. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Sep 7 00:37:52 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:37:52 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157972 Orna wrote: > > I can easily imagine Draco boasting to Voldemort ? > > eager to rent his services for him to show loyalty after > > Lucius was disgraced. [snip I must confess I can't see > > Voldemort just reaching openly out for Draco ? he would > > somehow make it seem to Draco ?that it's his volunteering. > > That's because I think that`s how Voldemort acts Carol responds: > Exactly. If Draco volunteered his services, his story > parallels those of Regulus and Young!Snape and brings the > theme of "Slytherin kid joins the DEs and finds it's not > what he thought it was" into the new generation. If > Voldemort went after him (and when have we seen that > happen?), there's no parallel. houyhnhnm: I was congratulating myself on having the sense to stay out of this thread, but it was really just frustration because of the super slow download times from Yahoo. But I got rid of some obnoxious adware; now things are going lickety split and my good sense has flown out the window. I'm not heavily invested in this argument from a Draco standpoint. What's been bothering me as I've followed this thread is the idea of *anyone* approaching Voldemort. I just can't see him as being approachable, especially by a sixteen-year-old kid. What about the possibility that it was Aunt Bellatrix whom Draco approached? She who is so anxious to sacrifice the sons she doesn't have (and so anxious to redeem herself in Voldemort's eyes after the botched job at the MoM). She is one of the few who strike me as having a high enough status to broach an idea to LV. I just can't see Voldemort's door being open to any DE's wand ape who cares to wander in. Avuncular, he's not. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 7 02:20:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:20:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? References: Message-ID: <007c01c6d224$255215f0$0f78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 157974 distaiyi: > Even in the Gospels Jesus shows his human side, how can anyone expect > more of Dumbledore. Wise, yes. Cunning, yes, obviously. Powerful, you > betcha. But human? Really? Yep, and JKR showed us his humanity more > and more as Harry gets older. > > Good lord, abuse JKR and Dumbldore for taking the very human action of > defending an abused child... Magpie: Gotta say I don't remember scenes in the Bible where Jesus acted like a jerk with no particular results in mind. This scene doesn't come across as a defense of an abused child to me. Dumbledore's there to get something from them. He engineered the situation in which the abuse occurred and did nothing about it while it was going on. He shows up one day years afterwards and teases the Dursleys for ten minutes for his own amusement and that's the big defense of Harry? He just seemed even more of a weirdo to me--funny how in the last book he described Harry's time at the Dursleys as simply making him "a little underfed" when he came to Hogwarts--that's when he's describing the results of his own actions. Yup, I disliked this scene, perhaps especially even more after a chapter of "Even the Muggle Prime Minister is an idiot!" I didn't get many laughs out of it, so I couldn't have a reaction where I just enjoyed it whether it was good or not. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 7 03:47:29 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 03:47:29 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Attacked! ( was: Cabinet First) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157975 > > > Pippin continues: > > > > Slughorn had told him that Dumbledore doesn't want > > anyone to know about horcruxes. I don't think Voldemort > > would believe that Dumbledore *hadn't* constructed a > > horcrux. ... > > > > ... > > > > Pippin > > > > bboyminn: > > I don't honestly think any one in the books would ever > conceive that Dumbledore would create his own Horcrux. > He is far to noble, and Horcruxes are far to Dark and > immoral for Dumbledore to even consider. Pippin: I agree with you. But Voldemort doesn't think that way, IMO. Canon devotes an awful lot of space to convincing us that Voldemort just doesn't get nobility. He doesn't understand that anybody could have power and choose not to use it, or use it to the detriment of oneself. Volumes of Dumbledore's strategy are based on this: the way he hid the Stone in the mirror, his certainty that Voldemort will discount the magic that protects Harry at the Dursleys, that Voldemort will never doubt that he killed Draco and Narcissa too. I doubt that canon is going to show us that Dumbledore's understanding of Voldemort was fundamentally incorrect. Harry's very survival is the result of Voldemort's inability to anticipate that Lily would sacrifice her life for her son. Voldemort would be absolutely convinced that even though Dumbledore wants everyone to think he's against horcruxes because they're dark and immoral, the real reason he's suppressing knowledge of them is that he wants to keep the secret of their power to himself. Of course we know Dumbledore is not like that, but Voldemort, IMO, is incapable of understanding moral repugnance or any action motivated by it. Pippin From kjones at telus.net Thu Sep 7 04:13:33 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:13:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OoP clues? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FF9C6D.7080002@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 157976 justcarol67 wrote: > It seems to me that we're in desperate need of a new topic again, so > here's my attempt to start a new thread. JKR has indicated that we > should look at OoP, which she concedes is a little too long, for clues: snip > Carol resumes: > So all the subplots are necessary for the resolution--house elfs and > boggarts and all. What do those who think Phoenix is a "bad" book with > a lot of wasted pages think should have been cut because it won't play > a part in book seven? And what do OoP's defenders think will prove to > be important besides the locket that won't open and the Veil and the > Love Room in the DoM? > Anyone want to volunteer a list of Book 5 subplots that need to be > resolved in Book 7 and speculations on where JKR might take them? > > Carol, who wouldn't mind endlessly debating Snape but reluctantly > concedes that there's more to the HP books than Sevvie KJ writes: Good job, Carol! One of the things that I found most noticeable from OotP to HBP is Harry's emotional state. He was angry, vindictive, and moody all through OotP. This seems to be a demonstration of how the Voldemort connection affected Harry. It would be more an indication of Voldemort's feelings rather than Harry's. While Harry was able to come up with an explanation for why he was so angry all of the time, it may not have been the real answer. He even snarled at Hedwig! He ordered Hedwig to peck both Ron and Hermione and was not even sorry that they both had cut fingers. In HBP, while Voldemort is occluding, Harry is much more himself. He is relatively patient with McLaggen and Lavender, and much more able to be reasonable. His thinking is noticeably clearer and he is more proactive than reactive. I wonder if this will make him more able to detect Voldemort's mind games in the final book. I liked the introduction of Emmeline Vance, soon not to be with us, and Sturgis Podmore, also soon not to be with us, and Tonks, who became incredibly graceful in HBP. Does anyone remember the scrolls and rolls of parchment in the first OotP meeting? Harry saw what looked like the plan of a building. What building would be involved in future plans? And then there's Ragnok of Goblin fame, who is anti-wizard because Bagman owes him money as well. (and you thought I didn't know who Ragnok was, Carol) So we have Goblins, Werewolves, Centaurs, and Giants, most who have good reason to dislike or even hate wizards. Someone, (Harry?) is going to have to draw all these disparate entities together. What I think is one of the biggest clues in the book is when Snape is completely distracted by Trelawney's scream, and without thinking speaks to Harry just as he would any other student. Snape had been about to snarl something nasty, when he heard the scream and the scuffling. He looked around frowning, and then asked,"Did you see anything unusual on your way down here Potter?" Interesting that he would ask Harry anything, particularly with the presumption that he would trust the answer. So what other questions did Order of the Phoenix leave us with? KJ From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Thu Sep 7 04:34:12 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:34:12 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157977 Abergoat writes: Ooo, fun thread! Carol will not be surprised I couldn't pass this one up. AnitaKH wrote: > St. Mungo's Hospital this is fraught with all kinds of > possibilities. Are others heading back there for treatment? Is > it holding a "key to everything" Enquiring minds want to know! Abergoat writes: Yes, that suggestive name...Janus... Carol wrote: > Well, there's the unresolved identity of Agnes, the dog-faced woman > and the fate of Healer What's her Name, who was suspended with pay. Abergoat writes: Agnes. My favorite topic! (Next to goats.) Going to the 'Janus' ward had nearly no payoff in book 5 nor did we learn something we needed for book 6. So, to me, this strongly suggests there was something very significant in that ward. Bode is now dead, the Longbottoms we already knew about (and we know the candy wrappers weren't a clue). We didn't need to see Gilderoy again even if he does come back for book seven, which I doubt. So that leaves us with with dog lady that has a son that visits her according to the nurse. I am very interested in dog lady...is she a horcrux victim? Do we know her son? Agnes...Argus... Will the missing relic follow tarot and be a wand? Can squib Filch do magic with the wand of Rowena Ravenclaw when he couldn't with any other? Abergoat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 06:01:53 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:01:53 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Attacked! ( was: Cabinet First) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > > Pippin continues: > > > > > > Slughorn had told him that Dumbledore doesn't want > > > anyone to know about horcruxes. I don't think > > > Voldemort would believe that Dumbledore *hadn't* > > > constructed a horcrux. ... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Pippin > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I don't honestly think any one in the books would ever > > conceive that Dumbledore would create his own Horcrux. > > He is far to noble, and Horcruxes are far to Dark and > > immoral for Dumbledore to even consider. > > Pippin: > I agree with you. But Voldemort doesn't think that way, > IMO. Canon devotes an awful lot of space to convincing > us that Voldemort just doesn't get nobility. ... > > Pippin > bboyminn: I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't agree with you. I think Voldemort does understand Nobility, I think he understands Dumbledore's Nobility, and he thinks it is a weakness. In his mind, he can't fathom why anyone would have access to power and not take it and use it. I think he knows that Dumbledore is too noble to create a Horcrux and he sees that as a gross flaw in Dumbldore's logic. He sees it as a way in which Dumbledore will defeat himself by making himself weak and vulnerable when he had it in his power to make himself invincible. But Voldemort thinks that way because he fears death and can't imagine that anyone else would not also fear death. Dumbledore on the other hand know that death is not the end but is a new beginning. So, in this sense, Voldemort does not understand nobility. He doesn't understand it in the sense that he sees no logic in it, and he sees those who stand on it as a matter of principle as weak and vulnerable people that will be easy to defeat. I suspect it is this false logic that will help do Voldemort in at the end. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Thu Sep 7 06:18:42 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:18:42 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157979 "Steve" wrote: > > > 7.) The DA Club - OK, everyone else has written this off, > but I won't give up, I'm determined to get the DA Club > back into the plot. So I speculate... that they simply > won't be able to find a DADA teacher, and now more than > ever, they need one. So, since there is no one to teach > the class and we can reasonably assume that the teaching > position is as thoroughly jinxed as it can be. They will > try an alternative method of making sure the students > are as thoroughly trained as they can be. They will > invite Harry to stop by once or twice a month, to > continue the DA Club under the guise that the training > will be as valuable for Harry as for the students. In the > spirit of bringing the school together (Houses united), > Slytherins will be in the new club. Lots of interesting > subplots ensue. > Laurawkids: YES! Don't give up on this one. This caused me to think. The WW and Muggle World are being taken over by Dementors. DE's will be all over the place. Our grand old Dumbledore is dead! This is when all young wizards and witches are expected to step up and serve their country - and form the true Dumbledore's Army. Why wouldn't now be the time to switch gears for awhile and use this castle as a basic training camp?! Draco is right: when Voldemort is in power, who cares about OWLS and NEWTS? You just want the killing to end. There are times when it is necessary to suspend normal activity and hunker down and go to war. Who cares about the kids being smart, let's just settle for them being alive. Why would we limit the trainees to the original DA? We need all the help we can get. That would easily include the Slytherins. If Hitler informed JKR's thoughts, I can see this happening. Laura, who would wave a little Hogwart's flag if I had one. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 06:18:08 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:18:08 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: <44FF9C6D.7080002@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157980 > justcarol67 wrote: > > It seems to me that we're in desperate need of a new topic again, so here's my attempt to start a new thread. JKR has indicated that we should look at OoP, which she concedes is a little too long, for clues: > Tonks: Well there is the whole thing with Harry and the snake and being able to see from within the snake. And LV trying to take over Harry's body. This would be important in book 7 if Harry is going to take LV into himself somehow. Or if he must do something with the snake. The mystery room at the MoM is important. I guess I am going to have to get the CD's and listen to it all again. Tonks_op From tiomotzz at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 03:14:18 2006 From: tiomotzz at yahoo.com (robin) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 03:14:18 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <007c01c6d224$255215f0$0f78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157981 > distaiyi: > > Even in the Gospels Jesus shows his human side, how can anyone > > expect more of Dumbledore. Wise, yes. Cunning, yes, obviously. > > Powerful, you betcha. But human? Really? Yep, and JKR showed > > us his humanity more and more as Harry gets older. > > > > Good lord, abuse JKR and Dumbldore for taking the very human > > action of defending an abused child... > > Magpie: > This scene doesn't come across as a defense of an abused > child to me. He shows up one day years afterwards and > teases the Dursleys for ten minutes for his own amusement and > that's the big defense of Harry? He just seemed even more of > a weirdo to me-- Robin: Hmmm, this scene didn't bother me in the least. I think DD was right or least justified in pointing out the lack of compassion displayed by the Dursleys. I don't think he acted a 'jerk'; not when you compare his behavior to that of the Dursleys in general. Not really even without the comparison. I think the Dursleys deserve whatever reflection of their own actions and attitude that they receive. From tiomotzz at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 03:32:00 2006 From: tiomotzz at yahoo.com (robin) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 03:32:00 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157982 > Carol: > > Anyone want to volunteer a list of Book 5 subplots that need to be > resolved in Book 7 and speculations on where JKR might take them? Robin: Hmmm,,, I wonder if the "Weasley is our king", no matter how great, is really necessary to the plot? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Sep 7 04:15:28 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:15:28 -0700 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <007c01c6d224$255215f0$0f78400c@Spot> References: <007c01c6d224$255215f0$0f78400c@Spot> Message-ID: <2795713f0609062115i70645626n96d0f451fa58092c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157983 Magpie: >> Gotta say I don't remember scenes in the Bible where Jesus acted like a jerk with no particular results in mind. This scene doesn't come across as a defense of an abused child to me. Dumbledore's there to get something from them. He engineered the situation in which the abuse occurred and did nothing about it while it was going on. << Lynda: Oh, I'm quite sure that Dumbledore had results in mind in that scene. And I do see it as a scene in which Dumbledore is calling them on their treatment not only of Harry but Dudley as well. As for engineering the situation...since I've never considered JKR's writing of Dumbledore showing him to be anywhere close to omniscient, I don't think he intentionally sent Harry to an abusive situation. After the protective spells were set, there was very probably nothing he could do to get Harry out of the situation without completely unworking the spell which would have put the Dursleys in danger.(JMHO) Lynda From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 7 12:25:07 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 05:25:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157984 > Carol: > > Anyone want to volunteer a list of Book 5 subplots that need to be > resolved in Book 7 and speculations on where JKR might take them? Sherry now: Well, I don't have a list, but JKR did say that there was something important about the death of Sirius. She said this in response to someone asking her why she had to kill off Sirius. I think it was a child who asked the question, so I think the reason is more important than the old hero's journey requiring the hero to be alone. She could have just explained that right on the spot. So, I'm waiting for that one. In fact, I'm far more interested in what is important about the death of Sirius, than I am about whose side is Snape really on. I'm sure we're going to see Grawp again, even though I hated that whole chapter since we missed Ron's big victory to meet Grawp. And of course, I'm with Carol in hoping that Mrs. Figg gets to be the one to do magic and will do it defending Harry or Privet Drive in some way. Sherry From ornawn at 013.net Thu Sep 7 13:59:40 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:59:40 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157985 Carol responds: > Exactly. If Draco volunteered his services, his story > parallels those of Regulus and Young!Snape and brings the > theme of "Slytherin kid joins the DEs and finds it's not > what he thought it was" into the new generation. If > Voldemort went after him (and when have we seen that > happen?), there's no parallel. Orna: Thanks. I forgot Young!Snape If Harry is to find a way to understand Snape (if he is DDM!) there must be parallels in persons he will be able to feel closer too, to help him on the path. Because I can't imagine that Snape just "telling" Harry something will bring about change. Draco and perhaps Regulus? serve this purpose. Harry feeding Dumbledore poison on Dumbledore's orders serves this purpose. IIRC We have never seen Voldemort go after anybody begging him to join the DE. It is unimaginable. He can force people to do things, possess them to do things, he can punish his followers, but he never "asks" anybody to join, to be part of. It is completely out of character for him. He might lure somebody in, challenge him in a way difficult to resist ? that's all power moves, he is capable to do, and enjoys doing them. >Magpie: >But Voldemort approaching Draco IS mentioned. It's implied in >Narcissa's telling us how he's assigned a task to Draco she thinks >is supposed to kill him, and Bellatrix saying it's an honor to be >asked and Snape saying Voldemort wants Draco to try first. Orna: I understood it meant this particular mission was chosen for Draco by Voldemort. I didn't understand it as meaning Voldemort approached Draco and invited him to join forces. Bellatrix says " I will say this for Draco: He isn't shrinking away from his duty, he seems glad of a chance to prove himself " Narcissa says he has chosen Draco. It could be read as Voldemort choosing Draco, as you say. But I find it very unlikely that Voldemort just sends a message to Draco ? "I have a mission for you", without Draco sending any initiative of his own to join the Des, or something like this. But he did send invitations to the giants. And Dumbledore is surprised the Des haven't approached Slughorn yet. >Magpie: >But this is exactly the change in the story the book doesn't >support. You're wanting the extra bitterness and importance of it >being just that much more of a personal comeuppance--ha ha, you >tried to suck up to Voldemort and it bit you on the butt. >Yes, but how he begins to follow this path is important. He's >wanted this life and gets his chance when he's offered a mission. Orna: I don't want extra bitterness because of the comeuppance theme ? I want it because it is important if Draco got where he got because of his active choice. You could see it also as his choice because the mission was his chance to fulfill a dream, but I like it more, if he did make some active step towards having this mission. (Not that my personal tastes matter much). But I think that if Voldemort initiated the mission ? it is a bit more difficult to put responsibility on Draco. Because even if he was happy about it ? did he really have a choice? Does Voldemort offer missions, and accept refusals? Would Voldemort entrust him with such a secret mission without having Draco swear loyalty to DE? You might argue for Voldemort telling him I have a mission for you, are you willing to join? Possible, but not very refusable, so how could Draco get the full moral responsibility for this choice? Orna From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 13:55:27 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:55:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157986 > >Tonks: >Well there is the whole thing with Harry and the snake and being able >to see from within the snake. And LV trying to take over Harry's body. >This would be important in book 7 if Harry is going to take LV into >himself somehow. Or if he must do something with the snake. > wynnleaf The idea that LV can take over Harry's body, and can get into his mind is one of the biggest unresolved problems of OOTP -- in my opinion. Dumbledore seems to sort of put this problem aside saying that LV seems to have closed the link between he and Harry, to keep Harry from seeing what he's doing. But that's a huge assumption isn't it? Especially when LV could change his mind about that at any time and Harry still has no working ability at occlumency to be able to resist LV. I think that's a weakness we'll see come back to haunt Harry in Book 7 -- particularly in light of Snape's final warning to him about keeping his mouth shut and his mind closed. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Get the new Windows Live Messenger! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Thu Sep 7 14:05:59 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:05:59 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157987 Sherry wrote: > Well, I don't have a list, but JKR did say that there was something > important about the death of Sirius. She said this in response to > someone asking her why she had to kill off Sirius. I think it was a > child who asked the question, so I think the reason is more > important than the old hero's journey requiring the hero to be > alone. Abergoat offers: I've heard some talk that if Sirius went through the veil with the mirror then Harry may be able to get advice for the land of the dead. JKR suggested the mirror might be used again and she also suggests it wouldn't have been helpful before but it might now - the difference being before Harry just didn't want to let go of Sirius, now he needs information on horcruxes and moral support to go forward. Abergoat From ornawn at 013.net Thu Sep 7 14:07:55 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:07:55 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157988 >houyhnhnm: >What's been bothering me as I've followed >this thread is the idea of *anyone* approaching Voldemort. >I just can't see him as being approachable, especially by >a sixteen-year-old kid. >What about the possibility that it was Aunt Bellatrix >whom Draco approached? Orna: Actually ? he has to be approachable ? because he wants new young worshipping Des. In CoS Riddle is "patient" enough to listen to Ginny's endless boring stories only because his experience has told him, that in the end it might prove useful for him. So I think there must be ways to approach him, which youngsters who are keen on it would be able to find. But it might technically work the way you suggested ? that it went through Bellatrix. Orna From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 7 14:53:13 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:53:13 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157989 > Orna: > I understood it meant this particular mission was chosen for Draco > by Voldemort. I didn't understand it as meaning Voldemort approached > Draco and invited him to join forces. Bellatrix says " I will say > this for Draco: He isn't shrinking away from his duty, he seems glad > of a chance to prove himself " Narcissa says he has chosen Draco. It > could be read as Voldemort choosing Draco, as you say. But I find it > very unlikely that Voldemort just sends a message to Draco ? "I have > a mission for you", without Draco sending any initiative of his own > to join the Des, or something like this. > But he did send invitations to the giants. And Dumbledore is > surprised the Des haven't approached Slughorn yet. Magpie: I don't understand what you need here. Bellatrix just described this as a duty, something required of him, not something he demanded. Draco's never made a secret of his desire to join the DEs. His family is already completely bound up in the organization. Seems to me he's right there for Voldemort to tap. Crabbe, Goyle or not might have been tapped the same way. Orna: > I don't want extra bitterness because of the comeuppance theme ? I > want it because it is important if Draco got where he got because of > his active choice. You could see it also as his choice because the > mission was his chance to fulfill a dream, but I like it more, if he > did make some active step towards having this mission. (Not that my > personal tastes matter much). Magpie: But that's what I'm saying--ultimately personal tastes don't matter when it comes to what's in the book. Wanting Draco to have gotten where he is because of his personal choice is wanting the story to be written differently. The fact is, he isn't in this situation due to his active choice. He's in this particular situation because of his father. His story may echo Regulus' and Snape's in some ways, but he's not a carbon copy of either of them. One of the differences JKR is capitalizing on is the generational one. Orna: But I think that if Voldemort > initiated the mission ? it is a bit more difficult to put > responsibility on Draco. Because even if he was happy about it ? did > he really have a choice? Does Voldemort offer missions, and accept > refusals? Would Voldemort entrust him with such a secret mission > without having Draco swear loyalty to DE? You might argue for > Voldemort telling him I have a mission for you, are you willing to > join? Possible, but not very refusable, so how could Draco get the > full moral responsibility for this choice? Magpie: Easy. He doesn't. And I think Dumbledore is stressing that in the last scene. His moment of choice comes at the end, at the place the book spends all those pages getting to. That's the big moment of the whole story, imo, where the possibility of choice becomes a reality to him. Before that it's been all bad faith. -m From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 15:09:58 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:09:58 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <007c01c6d224$255215f0$0f78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157990 > Magpie: > Gotta say I don't remember scenes in the Bible where Jesus acted like a jerk Actually I don't recall saying that Dumbledore, much less Jesus, acted like a jerk. I said both showed their humanity. Now if you're equating humanity with being a jerk... well that'd be your definition not mine. My point was, and remains, that in early books Harry presents Dumbledore as something approaching super-human, but as Harry matures he sees Dumbledore more and more as a man (versus a "super-man") and JKR does an excellent job of presenting his humanity. I'll concede that Dumbledore could have, at any point, stepped in and said something to the Dursleys. Knowing the Dursleys as we do, how do you think they would have reacted to that? I propose their reaction would have been thoroughly negative and Dumbledore would have been forced into a deeper confrontation with them making it worse on Harry. Dumbledore, by allowing Harry to stay in this abusive home, was choosing the lesser of two evils. If you've read Ender's Game it's the same choice humanity made for their best and brightest children (versus a single man's choice for a child which wasn't his). From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 7 15:37:06 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:37:06 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157991 distaiyi: > > Magpie: > > Gotta say I don't remember scenes in the Bible where Jesus acted > like a jerk > > Actually I don't recall saying that Dumbledore, much less Jesus, acted > like a jerk. I said both showed their humanity. Now if you're equating > humanity with being a jerk... well that'd be your definition not mine. Magpie: Okay, I don't recall Jesus teasing people with his super magical powers. If you recall teasing people with your super magical powers with showing their humanity...well, that'd be your definition, not mine. :-) The question was why people didn't like this scene, and as somebody who didn't enjoy the scene, that was my answer. I get nothing out of it. I don't feel like the Dursleys are getting any sort of lesson so it's not satisfying to me on that score. I don't think Dumbledore's stepping in would have made things worse for Harry, especially since we've seen improvements in the way Harry gets treated when wizards step in. Dumbledore never seemed super human to me in this particular way, so the revelation to me wasn't that he was human, but that he had the same attitudes that I disliked in other characters. You can't argue someone out of their emotional reaction to a scene (well, sometimes you can, but I don't think this is one of these cases), so it seemed more like a role call. My reaction to this scene was more like, "Piss off, Dumbledore." -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 7 16:34:29 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:34:29 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Attacked! ( was: Cabinet First) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157992 > bboyminn: > > I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't agree with > you. > > I think Voldemort does understand Nobility, I think he > understands Dumbledore's Nobility, and he thinks it is > a weakness. In his mind, he can't fathom why anyone would > have access to power and not take it and use it. Pippin: But how do you explain Voldemort's failure to anticipate that Lily would willingly sacrifice her life? He knew that it would be a very powerful countercurse (CoS), but it doesn't seem to have dawned on him that she might use it. bboyminn: > I think he knows that Dumbledore is too noble to create a > Horcrux and he sees that as a gross flaw in Dumbldore's > logic. He sees it as a way in which Dumbledore will defeat > himself by making himself weak and vulnerable when he had > it in his power to make himself invincible. Pippin: Hmmm....Now I'm imagining an ESE Order member who grew impatient with Dumbledore's Fabian philosophy (Red Hen observes that many Order members seem to be named for members of the Fabian Society). One who thought that decency, mercy and morality were fine for one's friends but that enemies don't deserve such niceties. But Voldemort is cruel even to his allies. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 7 17:06:21 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:06:21 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157993 Magpie: why people didn't like this scene, and as somebody > who didn't enjoy the scene, that was my answer. I get nothing out > of it. I don't feel like the Dursleys are getting any sort of > lesson so it's not satisfying to me on that score. I don't think > Dumbledore's stepping in would have made things worse for Harry, > especially since we've seen improvements in the way Harry gets > treated when wizards step in. Pippin: We've also seen things get worse. We've seen Harry spirited away from the Privet Drive protection, far from Mrs. Figg and whatever the Ministry is doing to keep an eye on things, with little food, no means of escape except a rowboat an eleven year old couldn't control in choppy seas, in company with a gun-toting Vernon who is clearly losing his grip. The wizards weren't able to force the Dursleys to give Harry his Hogwarts letter, which was the goal of all that interference. It appears that the Dursleys behave in unfortunate but predictable ways if they're let alone, but react to pressure by becoming highly unstable and dangerous. What I saw in that HBP scene was confirmation that Dumbledore was not in denial about the way the Dursleys treated Harry. He knew what was going on. It was his choice and he is culpable * if he had a better one.* But let's get some perspective here. It appears the Dursleys are unable to harm Harry physically, although they've tried. He's been underfed, but not dangerously so. The most likely long-term effect of verbal abuse is said to be an increased susceptibility to anxiety and depression. I think Rowling has depicted that honestly, movingly and accurately in Harry. We see him struggle with depression in PoA and with anxiety in OOP, and developing magnificent coping skills. I don't think Dumbledore subjected him to abuse in order to develop those skills, though I can't say the same for Rowling. She's got a chip of ice in her heart, by her own admission. But we're talking about DD. If it was a choice between an increased susceptibility to anxiety and depression or certain death at the hands of a psychotic murderer, which would you choose for your child? Pippin From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 17:14:29 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:14:29 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Attacked! ( was: Cabinet First) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157994 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote > But how do you explain Voldemort's failure to anticipate > that Lily would willingly sacrifice her life? He knew that it > would be a very powerful countercurse (CoS), but it doesn't > seem to have dawned on him that she might use it. > Steven1965aaa: Some thoughts, 1. Voldemort's worst fear is death. IMR, in the duel scene in the MOM in OOP Dumbledore said that Voldemort's failure to understand that there are worse things than death is his greatest weakness. The idea of willingly giving one's life for another is completely foreign to him. Certainly, he is well aware of the fact that his own mother was not even willing to stay alive for him when he was a baby. 2. According to Dumbledore Voldemort has never understood, and has therefore always underestimated, the power of love. He sure underestimated it in GH, to his detriment. 3. It never happened before. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 17:26:03 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:26:03 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <007c01c6d224$255215f0$0f78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157995 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > >He shows up one day years afterwards and teases the Dursleys for ten minutes for his own amusement .... Steven1965aaa: I don't see "teasing". Contrast the Dursleys' behavior with Snape at Spinner's end who invites Bella and Narci in, invites them to sit, and offers them a drink even though they show up unannounced and uninvited. The Dursleys did none of that so DD did it for them. And unlike Bella and Narci, DD was actually invited into their home - by Harry who is after all a member of their family. Its true that the glasses wound up hitting them in the head but as DD said it would have been better manners to drink it. I don't see offering someone a drink as "teasing" (although the couch thing was a little rough around the edges). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 17:30:10 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:30:10 -0000 Subject: What about Hogwarts? Slytherins and More In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157996 See responses below. --- "laurawkids" wrote: > > "Steve" wrote: > > > > > > 7.) The DA Club - OK, everyone else has written this > > off, but I won't give up, I'm determined to get the > > DA Club back into the plot. ... > > > > Laurawkids: > > YES! Don't give up on this one. ... > Steve: Thanks, at least somebody likes my idea. > Laurawkids: > > Why would we limit the trainees to the original DA? > We need all the help we can get. That would easily > include the Slytherins. > > If Hitler informed JKR's thoughts, I can see this > happening. > > Laura, who would wave a little Hogwart's flag if I had > one. > Steve: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it would just be the old DA member continuing on. I meant to imply that the Club would be open to the whole school including Slytherins, and that Harry would use the original DA members as his assistants to teach everyone who was interested. This is actually an old idea I've had for a long time. I think having Slytherins in the DA Club would help Harry sort out who is friends or allies were and who he should watch out for. JKR has said that all Slytherins are not bad, and that we get a warped view of them because we see them mostly in association with Draco. I speculate that if the DA Club is reformed, that when the attack on Hogwarts comes, Harry will find some of the Slytherins fighting on his side. Thus uniting the Houses. I can't believe they are all so blind that they can not see that if Voldemort wins, he will leave the wizard world with a disfunctional wreak of a society. I honestly don't believe Voldemort and his crew are capable of functionally running a country, and once the war is won, that will be exactly the task at hand. Slytherins are suppose to be cunning and ambitious. I keep thinking that there must be /some/ of them who see that having a mad megalomaniacal tyrannical dictator in charge is not going to be good for business, and that which is not good for business, is not good for personal prosperity. Slytherins wouldn't oppose the war on moral grounds, it would be pure self-interest and greed. They would look at the possibilities and ask, under which circumstance can I make more money, under which circumstance will I have the freedom to become more rich and powerful. To some, if they are at the very top of Voldemort's organization, if they are in the inner circle, they can rob society blind, and thereby be very rich and powerful. But for those outside the inner circle, you are screwed (pardon the French). It will be /you/ that the Death Eaters are 'robbing blind', and that is just not good for personal prosperity. So, on practical grounds, I can only assume that any clear thinking Slytherin would see Voldemort as a lost cause. You heard it here first...again. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 18:09:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:09:11 -0000 Subject: Crabbe and Goyle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157997 Any thoughts on Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle? They'll be lost without Draco, or so Harry seems to think, and Crabbe's father, at least, is in Azkaban--unless he's the baby-headed Death Eater, in which case he may be in St. Mungo's). (Goyle's father doesn't seem to have participated in the MoM raid and is probably still at large.) Does anyone think that C&G will be scared off from joining the Death Eaters by the events on the tower? Or will they want to follow Draco into exile? I can't imagine Slughorn taking them under his wing--or Blaise Zabini being their new leader. Maybe Theo Nott, whose father is also in Azkaban, will try to direct them one way or the other. For that matter, will Theo become a Death Eater or will Draco's experience make him think twice about the dangers of being a Death Eater as opposed to revenge and "glory"? And why wasn't he in the Slytherin sixth year compartment if Blaise Zabini was? Carol, hoping that the Slytherin contingent (other than Draco) will return to Hogwarts for Book 7 From dsueiro at gmail.com Thu Sep 7 16:56:54 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:56:54 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Attacked! ( was: Cabinet First) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8de2fdd80609070956t3021d236l99e98e12e6b9f877@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 157998 Pippin: > But how do you explain Voldemort's failure to anticipate > that Lily would willingly sacrifice her life? He knew that it > would be a very powerful countercurse (CoS), but it doesn't > seem to have dawned on him that she might use it. > Diego: It doesn't seem to be the first time we see Lord Voldemort forgetting to take into account something he already knew. In CoS, we saw a rather similar situation: JKR in CoS: > "Phoenix tears. - ." said Riddle quietly, staring at Harry's arm. "Of > course ... healing powers ... I forgot. . ." Diego From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 18:38:02 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:38:02 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 157999 Phoenixgod2000: My students are testing but I have to be quick. The little buggers can cheat at the drop of a hat :) > Pippin: > What I saw in that HBP scene was confirmation that Dumbledore > was not in denial about the way the Dursleys treated Harry. He knew > what was going on. It was his choice and he is culpable * if he had a > better one.* I refuse to believe that leaving Harry with the Dursleys was the best of all possible worlds for a wizard of Dumbledore's power, skill, and age. It might have been the best for the Cinderfella story JKR wants to say, but I don't buy it in a world of magic on the level we've seen in the story. > But let's get some perspective here. It appears the Dursleys are > unable to harm Harry physically, although they've tried. He's > been underfed, but not dangerously so. I would say letting Dudley chase him around and locking him in cupboard under the stairs should qualify as harming Harry physically. > The most likely long-term effect of verbal abuse is said to be > an increased susceptibility to anxiety and depression. the most long likely long term effect of persistent mental and emotional abuse from a very young age is to develop anti social tendencies--possibly even antisocial personality disorder. Another words--Tom Riddle Jr. > But we're talking about DD. If it was a choice between an increased > susceptibility to anxiety and depression or certain death at the hands > of a psychotic murderer, which would you choose for your child? Something just occured to me. If Dumbledore could go the Dursleys in book 6 and use magic on them to take them to task and intimidate them slightly and not break the wards, why couldn't he have done the same in Harry's younger years? Is he so busy he couldn't pop in once a month to have Tea with Petunia and check on the fricken' savior of his darn world? He could easily have insured that Harry was being well treated. I may think even worse of DD now. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 7 19:42:23 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:42:23 -0000 Subject: Crabbe and Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158000 Carol wrote: > > Any thoughts on Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle? They'll be lost > without Draco, or so Harry seems to think, and Crabbe's father, at > least, is in Azkaban--unless he's the baby-headed Death Eater, in > which case he may be in St. Mungo's). (Goyle's father doesn't seem to > have participated in the MoM raid and is probably still at large.) Potioncat: Goyle's father doesn't seem to have been involved in the raid on Hogwarts either. I was actually surprised that Crabbe and Goyle stayed for DD's funeral. Didn't that seem odd? I haven't had a chance to go back and check, but there were a good number of Slytherins there. Or, at least I don't recall Harry noting that any had left. As for Theo, I always thought it interesting that he wasn't in the compartment with Draco on the way to Hogwarts. It could be as unimportant as Seamus and Dean not hanging out with Harry and it was important that Blaise could talk about him. I guess he could have been in a different compartment snogging Miss Greengrass. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 20:14:15 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:14:15 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158001 --- "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > ... > > > > Pippin: > > > What I saw in that HBP scene was confirmation that > > Dumbledore was not in denial about the way the > > Dursleys treated Harry. ... It was his choice and > > he is culpable * if he had a better one.* > phoenixgod2000: > > I refuse to believe that leaving Harry with the Dursleys > was the best of all possible worlds for a wizard of > Dumbledore's power, skill, and age. ... > > > > Pippin: > > > > But let's get some perspective here. It appears the > > Dursleys are unable to harm Harry physically, although > > they've tried. He's been underfed, but not dangerously > > so. > phoenixgod2000: > > I would say letting Dudley chase him around and locking > him in cupboard under the stairs should qualify as > harming Harry physically. > > ... > > > Pippin: > > > > But we're talking about DD. If it was a choice between > > an increased susceptibility to anxiety and depression > > or certain death at the hands of a psychotic murderer, > > which would you choose for your child? > phoenixgod2000: > > Something just occured to me. If Dumbledore could go > the Dursleys in book 6 and use magic on them to take > them to task and intimidate them slightly and not break > the wards, why couldn't he have done the same in Harry's > younger years? ... bboyminn: Keep in mind that the gap between abuse and disipline changes with changing social views. What we call abuse today is extremely liberal compare to what was considered abuse in the past. Point? It is not absolute. Keep in mind that we are talking about a society that condoned the caning of errant students up until the mid-80's. Shaun would be able to narrow that down and beter put it in perspective. Also, let us not forget that Dudley didn't limit is bullying to Harry. From what the books imply, he generally bullied and intimidated everyone he possibly could. Note his beating up of Mark Evans, a little boy, with the help of his many friends. Also, note that Vernon is generally disrespectful of, and intimidating and bullying toward everyone one outside his family. Given what we see, he is not too kind to his employees. So, this isn't limted to Harry. Now to Dumbledore, I think Dumbledore chose this particular time to speak to the Dursley's because their control over Harry was coming to an end. One month after Harry returns to the Durleys, he will be 17, the protection will end, and Harry will be free to leave and to live his own life. Though I admit, I a big fan of Harry now having to protect the Dursley at Grimmauld Place; that's just too fun to pass up. Up until that time, Dumbledore tolerated the Dursley treatment of Harry. He didn't approve, but he tolerated. But why would Dumbledore tolerate it? Well, first, let us not forget that the Dursleys have legal rights here. They are Harry's only living relatives, and as such have a legal right to control Harry's future. Next, as Harry's only blood relatives, they represented a level of magical protection that Harry couldn't get any where else. Referring of course to the Blood Protection Charms that Dumbledore added to Harry. Further, Dumbledore felt it was necessary to keep Harry isolated from the Wizard World. Even if his general where abouts was not an absolute secret, it was still necessary to keep him separated from the wizard world for his own protection. Given all this, I think everytime Dumbledore heard of Harry's less than ideal living conditions, he said to himself, at least he is safe. Keeping Harry safe was far far higher priority than Harry being happy. I suspect that Dumbledore was afraid if he put too much pressure on an unstable lot like the Dursleys, Harry would lose his most powerful protection. The Dursleys did have some legal right to care for Harry, but they didn't necessarily have a legal obligation. They could have simply refuse to continue to care for Harry, and then Dumbledore would have lost Harry's most powerful protection. We could speculate that Harry could have been placed with a muggle family living in Germany or Italy, and that would have kept him anonymous and protected him. But let us not forget that Voldemort knows where Harry is living (GoF -Graveyard Scene), but he also acknowledges that that knowledge doesn't do him any good because Dumbledore's protections there are too powerful. Those powerful protections would not be in place if Harry was in Germany. Yes, there are many other choices available to Dumbledore, but none of them equals the superior protection of Harry living with the Dursleys. Uncomfortable as it is in the short term, it is the place of greatest long term safety. We can argue the merits and demerits of Harry living with the Dusleys, but in the end, even if it wasn't the best choice, it was indeed the safest choice. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 7 21:15:55 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:15:55 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158002 > Pippin: What I saw in that HBP scene was confirmation that Dumbledore was not in denial about the way the Dursleys treated Harry. He knew what was going on. It was his choice and he is culpable * if he had a better one.* > But we're talking about DD. If it was a choice between an increased > susceptibility to anxiety and depression or certain death at the hands > of a psychotic murderer, which would you choose for your child? Magpie: This is a total tangent, though. The question was, for people who didn't like the scene, why? I answered that it did nothing for me, that I got nothing out of Dumbledore showing up and teasing the Dursleys for fifteen minutes or whatever, and that it didn't give me any satisfaction as being a great scene of justice. So to me it was just watching more magical teasing. Justfying Dumbledore's motives is an entirely different question, and there I go with he left him with the Dursleys because of the blood protection--but mostly I consider that just something I have to accept for the plot. I mean, that Harry had to live there for the blood protecting, and Dumbledore's making sure he wasn't abused as he was was just so that JKR could set up a sympathetic situation (Harry's had minor triumphs at the ends of other books thanks to wizards). But I'm not making a case here that Dumbledore should or shouldn't have left Harry with the Dursleys, I'm saying why I didn't enjoy the scene, as I was asked. Dumbledore comes off very badly in it for me and defenses like this: Steven1965aaa: I don't see "teasing". Contrast the Dursleys' behavior with Snape at Spinner's end who invites Bella and Narci in, invites them to sit, and offers them a drink even though they show up unannounced and uninvited. The Dursleys did none of that so DD did it for them. And unlike Bella and Narci, DD was actually invited into their home - by Harry who is after all a member of their family. Its true that the glasses wound up hitting them in the head but as DD said it would have been better manners to drink it. I don't see offering someone a drink as "teasing" (although the couch thing was a little rough around the edges). Magpie: ...only make him come off worse to me. Dumbledore's not being any more polite than the Dursleys are in the scene, imo. Snape invites Narcissa and Bella in because he chooses to. "It would have been better manners to drink it" reminds me of that thing that bigger kids do where they crab a little kid's hand and smack him in the head with it and say, "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Why are you hitting yourself?" That's the way the scene comes across to me, which should probably explain why I don't particularly like it. I get why other people do like it, this is why I don't like it. Also, I rarely forget reading these books that I'm a Muggle, so I'm always going to identify with the Muggles to a point in any scene. I don't like this kind of thing, so I don't like the scene. As for it making Dumbledore human, yeah, it's perfectly human. But "it makes him human" in fandom is usually used to refer to bad behavior or flaws that a person doesn't want discussed as such. I mean, all the character are human and so are all their flaws. Which I think is also implied by saying it makes him human, like Jesus. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 21:32:27 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:32:27 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158003 > Magpie: > This is a total tangent, though. The question was, for people who > didn't like the scene, why? I answered that it did nothing for me, > that I got nothing out of Dumbledore showing up and teasing the > Dursleys for fifteen minutes or whatever, and that it didn't give me > any satisfaction as being a great scene of justice. So to me it was > just watching more magical teasing. Alla: Actually, I would probably agree that it did not come off to me as Dumbledore **protecting Harry**. Um, too little, too late, but it certainly come off to me as saving Dumbledore from being erm... choose your own word here. He comes off to me in this scene as not knowing the details of what Harry went through, which is of course a bit naive, but to me is much better than dismissing Harry being "a little underfed" as you mentioned earlier. Basically I love this scene because it sort of saves Dumbledore for me and of course the more humiliation Dursleys go through, I will only cheer up. > Magpie: > Also, I rarely forget reading > these books that I'm a Muggle, so I'm always going to identify with > the Muggles to a point in any scene. I don't like this kind of > thing, so I don't like the scene. Alla: Now, **that** I find to be a fascinating statement. What I hear you saying is that you indentify with Dursleys only **because** they are Muggles? Is that right? I am ashamed to be a Muggle when I read about Muggles like them :) I am amazed that the mere fact of Dursleys being Muggles can make you sympathise with them. It is a genuine amazement, nothing more. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 22:29:26 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:29:26 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158004 > >>Magpie: > > > > Also, I rarely forget reading these books that I'm a Muggle, so > > I'm always going to identify with the Muggles to a point in any > > scene. I don't like this kind of thing, so I don't like the > > scene. > > > >>Alla: > Now, **that** I find to be a fascinating statement. What I hear > you saying is that you indentify with Dursleys only **because** > they are Muggles? Is that right? > I am ashamed to be a Muggle when I read about Muggles like them :) > I am amazed that the mere fact of Dursleys being Muggles can make > you sympathise with them. It is a genuine amazement, nothing more. Betsy Hp: This *does* raise an interesting question. Who does the reader identify with? Generally in books of this sort, I identify with the hero and his or her ilk. It's been a while, but I think I started out that way with Harry when I first read SS. But at some point (and I'm not really sure where) I started identifing with Muggles more. So yeah, wizard using magic to pick on Muggle (not defending, mind you, but being aggressive towards) I side with the Muggle. Even if the Muggle is an absolute drip. As the Dursleys are. Now, Arthur shaming the Dursleys in GoF totally works for me. Because in that scene it's decent guy vs. rude people. But when Dumbledore uses his magic to pick on the Dursleys, I'm not really cheering him on. (Honestly, that's one of the things that has me convinced he was dying from the moment he appeared. He's indulging himself in some petty revenge because he's not got the time for anything more. It's fine -- he looses his temper, and he's got cause. But I don't call it praiseworthy, myself.) Because by involving magic it's wizard vs. Muggle now. And I have to support my team. Even if the people under attack aren't my favorite representatives. So it's not like I was outraged on the Dursleys' behalf. But I was more like, "See? Even the best of them can't stop themselves from misusing their power. Darn, arrogant, wizards." Because I'm a Muggle. And I'd be just as helpless to defend myself as the Dursleys' were. I'd have had to drink the stupid mead, even though I'm not a drinker and would probably hate the stuff. I'd have to fake it in order to not anger the all-mighty wizard. And that ain't right. But yeah, in the Potterverse I really do identify with the hardly ever seen Muggles. Not wanting to be a witch. Not wanting to go to Hogwarts. A bit odd, I guess. Anyone else feel the same way? I wonder how JKR sees it? Betsy Hp (thought about changing the subject line but I think I managed to stay on subject, though I thought I was going to stray -- also I'm a bit rambly today...) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 22:30:30 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:30:30 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158005 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > While this view won't please a lot of people, I can't > help but say 'I have a theory'. > > Taking the general belief that Souls are eternal, and > combining that with what we know in the books, I > speculate that souls take on three forms. > > Core or Self Soul - as I've said, this is the bulk of > the soul, and it contains the sense of Self, memories, > identity, and attachment to the earthly body. These are > the aspects that are lost when a pure complete soul > crosses over. > > Free Soul Pieces - When a Horcrux is destroyed, the soul > piece becomes disembodied. That is, it is the body that > is destroyed not the soul piece itself. Remember, I am > operating under the assumption that the soul is eternal > and can not be destroyed. > > The Free Soul Pieces are the most confusing since they > are bound to the earth but they are not /earthbound/. > That is, they are held on earth by the fact that other > aspects of themselves /are/ earthbound, embodied and > therefore tied to the earth and the earthly life. > > Since, the Free Soul Piece are not embodied, they do not > act as anchors to hold Voldemort to the earth. They are > simply waiting around until it is possible for all aspect > of the soul to cross over. Mike: Interesting theory, but I have a couple of questions. First, when Voldemort's body was destroyed at GH, why didn't his Core Soul also become a Free Soul Piece? Or did it? And why don't the two Free Soul Pieces from the Diary and the Ring try to regenerate themselves into a body, like we know the diary tried? Or are they out there trying right now? Just to through in a clockwise stir, what if Ken and Sluggy are right and DD is wrong? (huh?! DD wrong?!) Well, 3 pages after DD explains about the quantity and continuation of LV soul pieces, he told us LV used Nagini to kill Frank Bryce, and we know that was wrong. Besides, how many Horcrux makers had their body destroyed, came back in a new body, and wrote down their experience for people like Dumbledore to understand the concept? I know of one and he aint explainin' it to noone. Do ya wanna bet that *if* anybody else accomplished this feat, they didn't explain how they did it either. Why would they? So someone could figure out how to kill them. But what if Ken and Sluggy are right, did LV have to go pick up one of his Horcruxes and use that along with Bertha Jorkin's death to regenerate that Baby!Mort body? Is that why he was hanging around Albania all that time. I always wanted to know what was in Albania, or conversely, why didn't LV go straight to one of his faithful DEs after GH and get this regeneration going. What kept him from doing the regeneration immediately and/or why was he afraid to stay in Britain? Wouldn't it be fortuitous if LV already used one of his Horcruxes and it wasn't the Locket or the Cup? That would leave only one that Harry doesn't know for sure what it is, but also mean Harry would think he has at least one more to go before he goes after Voldemort. TOO complicating? Mike From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 22:51:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:51:28 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158006 > Betsy Hp: > > So yeah, wizard using magic to pick on Muggle (not defending, mind > you, but being aggressive towards) I side with the Muggle. Even if > the Muggle is an absolute drip. As the Dursleys are. Alla: Okay, and that is something that I cannot understand at all. Not identifying with Muggles as group, see below, but identifying with Dursleys as part of it. I am just not getting how even if we agree that wizards are being agressive towards them, how that can cause empathy towards them, but to each their own of course. To me Dursleys as human beings are absolute grips as you said, they suck and I could care less whether they are Muggles or Wizards, because yeah, we are talking about two different races, but I suppose to me what matters the most is that both those races are humans. And despite the fact that it is indeed something very crucial - that one race can do magic and another does not, at the same time to me it is sort of superficial if that makes sense ( maybe because I like RL comparisons and I cannot find RL comparison to Wizard v Muggle distinction, so when I evaluate Dursleys I evaluate them as humans first and foremost. Ugh, I am rambling too. Betsy Hp: Because by > involving magic it's wizard vs. Muggle now. And I have to support > my team. Even if the people under attack aren't my favorite > representatives. Alla: See above, to me all those *characters* are on my team as humans if that makes any kind of sense. Betsy Hp: > So it's not like I was outraged on the Dursleys' behalf. But I was > more like, "See? Even the best of them can't stop themselves from > misusing their power. Darn, arrogant, wizards." Because I'm a > Muggle. And I'd be just as helpless to defend myself as the > Dursleys' were. I'd have had to drink the stupid mead, even though > I'm not a drinker and would probably hate the stuff. I'd have to > fake it in order to not anger the all-mighty wizard. And that ain't > right. Alla: I guess to me it is a question of child abusers getting what they deserve, not poor helpless Muggles against wizards, that is just not how I view the situation, but again JMO. Betsy Hp: > But yeah, in the Potterverse I really do identify with the hardly > ever seen Muggles. Not wanting to be a witch. Not wanting to go to > Hogwarts. A bit odd, I guess. Anyone else feel the same way? I > wonder how JKR sees it? Alla: Oh, that part I understand. I think I mentioned in the past that magical world bleaked on me too, not that I viewed it as super shiny, but I probably would not want to live there either, and honest to goodness, unless we would see some signs about drastic changes beginning to happen, I would **not** want my child to go to Hogwarts. Nevertheless, it did not bleak on me that much, I certainly would love to visit, but because of the characters that live there, not because of the society. > Betsy Hp (thought about changing the subject line but I think I > managed to stay on subject, though I thought I was going to stray -- > also I'm a bit rambly today...) > Alla: heeee, I ramble so much more :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 01:22:18 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 01:22:18 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158007 Mike: > Interesting theory, but I have a couple of questions. First, when > Voldemort's body was destroyed at GH, why didn't his Core Soul also > become a Free Soul Piece? Or did it? And why don't the two Free Soul > Pieces from the Diary and the Ring try to regenerate themselves into > a body, like we know the diary tried? Or are they out there trying > right now? > > Just to through in a clockwise stir, what if Ken and Sluggy are > right and DD is wrong? (huh?! DD wrong?!) Well, 3 pages after DD > explains about the quantity and continuation of LV soul pieces, he > told us LV used Nagini to kill Frank Bryce, and we know that was > wrong. Besides, how many Horcrux makers had their body destroyed, > came back in a new body, and wrote down their experience for people > like Dumbledore to understand the concept? I know of one and he aint > explainin' it to noone. Do ya wanna bet that *if* anybody else > accomplished this feat, they didn't explain how they did it either. > Why would they? So someone could figure out how to kill them. > > But what if Ken and Sluggy are right, did LV have to go pick up one > of his Horcruxes and use that along with Bertha Jorkin's death to > regenerate that Baby!Mort body? Is that why he was hanging around > Albania all that time. I always wanted to know what was in Albania, > or conversely, why didn't LV go straight to one of his faithful DEs > after GH and get this regeneration going. What kept him from doing > the regeneration immediately and/or why was he afraid to stay in > Britain? > > Wouldn't it be fortuitous if LV already used one of his Horcruxes > and it wasn't the Locket or the Cup? That would leave only one that > Harry doesn't know for sure what it is, but also mean Harry would > think he has at least one more to go before he goes after Voldemort. > TOO complicating? > > Mike > Carol responds: I don't want to go into Horcruxes in any depth, but I'm pretty sure that the core soul piece, as Steve calls it, is "anchored" to the earth and can't die (go beyond the Veil) as long as a single Horcrux exists. There's no need to "use" a Horcrux to restore it. The existence of any Horcrux is all that's necessary. (Creating a rudimentary body is another matter altogether and involves, according to Voldemort, a few spells invented by Voldemort and performed by Wormtail and a potion whose ingredients include Nagini's venom and unicorn blood. (We know, of course, exactly the incantations used by Wormtail and the ingredients he added to the already brewing potion in the graveyard--bone, flesh, and blood. Possibly that potion was the same one used to create Baby!mort but with added ingredients and incantations.) At any rate, I think that the diary was a special case and that the *memory* (or memories) of Tom Riddle at sixteen was (were) placed in the diary some years before it became a Horcrux. Just because this particular soul bit enabled the memory to come to life (or nearly so) after taking most of Ginny's soul doesn't mean that other Horcruxes work in the same way. I don't think the cup, locket, ring, etc., are designed to interact with others the way the diary was designed to lure in a reader, who would then kill "Mudbloods" using the Basilisk. Essentially, they're just containers to "encase" the soul bit and keep the wizard who created the Horcrux from dying even if his body is destroyed. Any "interaction" is, IMO, the result of a protective curse like the one that snape somehow prevented from killing Dumbledore. The problem is, we're not told that "thrilling tale" or what "timely action" Snape took to save Dumbledore's life. But I don't think that the soul bit from a Horcrux can possess its destroyer. I think that once the container is destroyed, the Horcrux can no longer function, whether the soul bit itself is destroyed, as Dumbldore says, or whether it floats off beyond the Veil, which to me seems more likely in view of JKR's Christian beliefs. I can't quite accept the concept of a soul fragment being *destroyed* even though that's the word DD uses. But there's no suggestion that it continues to function in any way, including possession, once the Horcrux is destroyed. But the Core soul can't become a free soul piece as long as a single Horcrux anchors it to earth. Of that much I'm certain. It's the whole point of creating a Horcrux in the first place, and it's the reason that the Horcruxes are for the most part made of gold, which can't corrode and allow the soul bit to escape. If you're going to create a Horcrux that doesn't have some other function like the diary, you want to be sure it will last forever--or as close to forever as the human mind can imagine. One thing is clear. Harry's job is to destroy the Horcruxes. Only then can Voldemort be killed or permanently vanquished. Carol, wondering if Harry is as confused as we are From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 02:06:56 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:06:56 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158008 Magpie snipped: That's the way the scene comes across to me, which should probably explain why I don't particularly like it. I get why other people do like it, this is why I don't like it. Also, I rarely forget reading these books that I'm a Muggle, so I'm always going to identify with the Muggles to a point in any scene. I don't like this kind of thing, so I don't like the scene. As for it making Dumbledore human, yeah, it's perfectly human. But "it makes him human" in fandom is usually used to refer to bad behavior or flaws that a person doesn't want discussed as such. I mean, all the character are human and so are all their flaws. Which I think is also implied by saying it makes him human, like Jesus. Snow: Jesus is human when he showed that death affected him by crying over the loss of his friend Lazarus "Jesus wept" (which is by the way the shortest sentence in the Bible). Jesus showed human nature to inevitable worldly mortality. Dumbledore shows his human nature affecting him through his controlled but nonetheless childish way in which he approaches the Dursley's (the human nature part). Dumbledore is deliberately insulting to the persons who were entrusted with the care of Harry, who was a blood relative. Being a blood relative, Dumbledore gave Petunia the opportunity to act in a civilized manner and take care of her sister's child; it was her choice to be less than human in her behavior to him. However Dumbledore did give her the chance since Harry's mother's blood made this sad environment protected beyond Any Powers that Dumbledore possessed. I've heard you say in most of the posts to this subject that it was this particular scene that you are replying to and not the abuse issue. My question is how you can possibly see this scene out of context by discounting the origin that created Dumbledore's actions? This all ties together. If I saw anyone treat someone in such a manner without provocation I would have to ask myself why he would act in such a way. Fortunately for us we know Dumbledore would act a bit less than polite towards a family who was given a chance and failed miserably. I have no use for such people and feel that Dumbledore was all too gracious to them but at the same time realize that anything greater than what he did, in this scene, would surely bring him down to their level. There is a fine line between good and evil and between abuse and spoiling a child and yet the Dursley's managed to go overboard in both respects. If you are not abusing a child, you might be seen as spoiling them but if you are spoiling them, you might just be abusing them. I believe this to be Dumbledore's point. In the end I would have to say that the scene that occurred was very well stated. Snow From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 02:14:17 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:14:17 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158009 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > So yeah, wizard using magic to pick on Muggle (not defending, > > mind you, but being aggressive towards) I side with the Muggle. > > Even if the Muggle is an absolute drip. As the Dursleys are. > >>Alla: > Okay, and that is something that I cannot understand at all. Not > identifying with Muggles as group, see below, but identifying with > Dursleys as part of it. I am just not getting how even if we agree > that wizards are being agressive towards them, how that can cause > empathy towards them, but to each their own of course. > > I guess to me it is a question of child abusers getting what they > deserve, not poor helpless Muggles against wizards, that is just > not how I view the situation, but again JMO. Betsy Hp: It's the use of magic that tilts it for me. A wizard using his wit or intelligence or basic decency to put the Dursleys in their "place" I'm fine with. But when a wizard uses his magic he's taking advantage of an extreme power difference. A power difference I'm on the wrong side of. That it's done so easily suggests that abusing that power is an easy thing for wizards to slip into. And I don't like it. Which colors how I take that scene. In a way Dumbledore is punishing the Dursleys' abuse of power with his own abuse of power. (That he includes a sixteen year old he's already described as abused himself just shows his lack of control, IMO.) And the thing is, Muggle's can't defend themselves when a wizard chooses to go the magic route. Not physically, not legally. So even when it's the Dursleys I can't condone it. Just like I couldn't condone the school bully getting beaten up by his father. A grown man taking advantage of his superior strength to beat up a weaker boy is wrong. No matter how much of a drip the boy is. Similarly, a wizard taking advantage of his superior power to tease, annoy, intimidate a muggle, no matter how much a drip, strikes me as a bit distastful. Especially as I'm a muggle myself. Sets a bad trend, right? Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 8 02:52:33 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 22:52:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? References: Message-ID: <009b01c6d2f1$d61353e0$c78c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158010 Snow: I've heard you say in most of the posts to this subject that it was this particular scene that you are replying to and not the abuse issue. My question is how you can possibly see this scene out of context by discounting the origin that created Dumbledore's actions? Magpie: I said they were two different questions, so "I didn't enjoy this scene" can't be answered with "But don't you remember what the Dursleys did?" I know all the facts, and they don't match up the same way for me to give me the same emotional response, as happens with many scenes in canon that break down along similar lines. As a response to years of abuse, albeit years before, it seems a rather odd kind of response. I think it's very important to be able to separate the two. Otherwise it's easy to just sort people into "people who can not be done wrong to" and "people who can not do wrong." So, as I said in response to why I did not enjoy the scene, well, I didn't enjoy it and now I'm trying to analyze why--which is hard because it's a feeling, not an intellectual process. I doubt either of our emotional reactions are about our ethical sensibilities first; I've been known to enjoy scenes where a person is being childish or wrong or bad or mean as I think everyone has. If you enjoy a scene you automatically find reasons you should enjoy it, if you don't you find reasons why you shouldn't. I don't like the kind of thing DD is doing to begin with on a visceral level--the knocking somebody in the heads with the mead? That makes me want to clonk Dumbledore on the head with the mead, and it probably would have no matter who he was doing it to, because I hate that kind of teasing. Seriously, I hate it. It's like nails on a chalkboard for me, and it doesn't seem to even say much to the Dursleys. I also don't see the context that's being described, and trying to make this Dumbledore righteous response to abuse years after the fact doesn't make me think Dumbledore's just so compassionate he loses it a bit with these people. It makes it seem like an act to me. Betsy: > So it's not like I was outraged on the Dursleys' behalf. But I was > more like, "See? Even the best of them can't stop themselves from > misusing their power. Darn, arrogant, wizards." Because I'm a > Muggle. And I'd be just as helpless to defend myself as the > Dursleys' were. I'd have had to drink the stupid mead, even though > I'm not a drinker and would probably hate the stuff. I'd have to > fake it in order to not anger the all-mighty wizard. And that ain't > right. Magpie: That's pretty much how I feel, I think. It's not even that I don't *want* to be a witch, but that I'm not, and I wouldn't grovel about it. That's the thing--I'm not. I don't really know how people can always identify with wizards. As characters, sure. But it's not like "we" as readers don't have a place in that world. Why would anyone assume that s/he would be a wizard if this were all real? We can't do magic, we go to regular schools, we get stitches and talk on the telephone. I'm not a self-hating Muggle and it's not the job of wizards to discipline my people. It's not like I can discipline them back. Muggles are more often than not used or messed with in some way and then forgotten about again. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 04:15:39 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:15:39 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158011 > Betsy Hp: > It's the use of magic that tilts it for me. A wizard using his wit or intelligence or basic decency to put the Dursleys in > their "place" I'm fine with. But when a wizard uses his magic he's taking advantage of an extreme power difference. A power difference I'm on the wrong side of. That it's done so easily suggests that abusing that power is an easy thing for wizards to slip into. And I don't like it. Which colors how I take that scene. > Tonks: If a person with an IQ of 135 takes on a person with an IQ of 100 or 110 and uses their "wit" as you say, isn't that using a "power" that the second person doesn't have? Isn't that taking advantage of the lack of ability on the part of second person? So how is that any different that one having magic and the other not? I see the use of magic as just a skill that some have and others don't. Just like the skill of music or any other skill. There are always ways in which one person has an advantage over another. One is older and wiser, or younger and stronger, etc. I don't see DD in this scene as using magic against the Dursleys. I guess if he turned off the lights and levitated the Dursleys and sat fire to their sofa that would be taking advantage of his power, but a couple of wine glass out of the air, no big deal to me. He is showing off his power to the Dursleys, just as anyone in a position of power (of what ever type) might in that situation. But he does it gently and, as I said before, with respect. Think of what Hagrid would have done instead. Or what Hagrid has done instead when he first met the Dursleys. If you look at those two examples, I think we can see that DD was a gentleman in this situation. And think of what a DE might do with them. That would be abuse of magical power. So I think we have to keep perspective here. This is going to seem strange, but I was surprise that you said you saw yourself as a Muggle and identified with the Muggles in the stories. It just never occurred to me that some of the readers would still think of themselves as Muggles after knowing about and living vicariously in the WW for the last 9 years. I see myself as one of the Wizards. I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't want to see that there is a world outside of the world of matter as experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as similar to the world of the mystic or the spiritual world. It is just that the Muggles don't want to know about the world of the wizards. But the wizards know about both worlds. Some even live in Muggle areas and appear to be Muggles to the Muggles around them. Tonks_op Who thinks that Betsy might be more of a wizard that she want to admit. ;-) From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 04:24:28 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:24:28 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <009b01c6d2f1$d61353e0$c78c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158012 Magpie: I said they were two different questions, so "I didn't enjoy this scene" can't be answered with "But don't you remember what the Dursleys did?" I know all the facts, and they don't match up the same way for me to give me the same emotional response, as happens with many scenes in canon that break down along similar lines. As a response to years of abuse, albeit years before, it seems a rather odd kind of response. I think it's very important to be able to separate the two. Otherwise it's easy to just sort people into "people who can not be done wrong to" and "people who can not do wrong." So, as I said in response to why I did not enjoy the scene, well, I didn't enjoy it and now I'm trying to analyze why--which is hard because it's a feeling, not an intellectual process. I doubt either of our emotional reactions are about our ethical sensibilities first; I've been known to enjoy scenes where a person is being childish or wrong or bad or mean as I think everyone has. If you enjoy a scene you automatically find reasons you should enjoy it, if you don't you find reasons why you shouldn't. Snow: Ok first off I didn't `enjoy' it nor would I look for a reason to do so but I can accept why the scene happened and can appreciate why Dumbledore had reasons to act in such a manner given his past-limited choices in allowing Harry to live with the Dursley's to begin with. Dumbledore had no choice but to allow Harry to live with the very people that would abuse him to a degree. To what degree this abuse has affected him we can only surmise by his adult actions that he has now portrayed. Has Harry been affected by the abuse from the Dursley's and if he has, how is he displaying that affect? We are right back where you didn't want to be at the beginning. Dumbledore's actions in this scene are a direct result of Harry's disgruntled upbringing. You can't separate Dumbledore's feelings laying Harry (the wizarding world's only hope) on the doorstep of the Dursley's from his suppressed (as I view it) limited actions when last he spoke to the Dursley's in this very scene. Magpie snipped: I don't like the kind of thing DD is doing to begin with on a visceral level--the knocking somebody in the heads with the mead? That makes me want to clonk Dumbledore on the head with the mead, and it probably would have no matter who he was doing it to, because I hate that kind of teasing. Seriously, I hate it. It's like nails on a chalkboard for me, and it doesn't seem to even say much to the Dursleys. Snow: Now you are applying your own emotions to the scene. You don't like being treated that way therefore you don't like the Dursley's being treated the way Dumbledore treated them. I agree I don't like anyone to be treated in a disrespectful way but how did the Dursley's treat Harry and more so how did the Dursley's treat Dumbledore in this scene; they never changed, they are still disrespectful and subtlety abusive? I try to live my life by the turn-the-other-cheek analogy but there are times when the cheek just gets to red to turn it again; after all we are only human even if you are blessed with powers :) like Dumbledore. Magpie: I also don't see the context that's being described, and trying to make this Dumbledore righteous response to abuse years after the fact doesn't make me think Dumbledore's just so compassionate he loses it a bit with these people. It makes it seem like an act to me. Snow: I see it as actually repressed anger, which for the Dursley's sake Dumbledore is a very fair and compassionate man because I would have been way more insensitive than Dumbledore was in this scene if it would have been my child or charge. As I said in my previous post Dumbledore would not allow himself to abuse the Dursley's in the manner that they chose to abuse Harry because he would then stoop to their level and be no better than they are or were. Hope you understand Snow From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri Sep 8 04:31:03 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:31:03 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <009b01c6d2f1$d61353e0$c78c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > So, as I said in response to why I did not enjoy the scene, well, I didn't > enjoy it and now I'm trying to analyze why--which is hard because it's a > feeling, not an intellectual process. I doubt either of our emotional > reactions are about our ethical sensibilities first; I've been known to > enjoy scenes where a person is being childish or wrong or bad or mean as I > think everyone has. If you enjoy a scene you automatically find reasons you > should enjoy it, if you don't you find reasons why you shouldn't. > > I don't like the kind of thing DD is doing to begin with on a visceral > level--the knocking somebody in the heads with the mead? That makes me want > to clonk Dumbledore on the head with the mead, and it probably would have no > matter who he was doing it to, because I hate that kind of teasing. > Seriously, I hate it. It's like nails on a chalkboard for me, and it > doesn't seem to even say much to the Dursleys. I also don't see the context > that's being described, and trying to make this Dumbledore righteous > response to abuse years after the fact doesn't make me think Dumbledore's > just so compassionate he loses it a bit with these people. It makes it seem > like an act to me. Quick_Silver: Most opinions on this subject seem to be split between Dumbledore being filled with righteous anger at Harry's plight and Dumbledore being a bit off and behaving in a typical arrogant wizardly manner. When I first read this scene I didn't really find it all of that funny but at the same time I didn't really disapprove. I was mainly indifferent to what was going on and the ethics involved. So I went back tonight and re-read it and I personally get the impression that it's a bit of both. In some parts Dumbledore does seem to speak from "righteous" (in his eye's) anger and in other places he seems to enjoy himself (in Harry's opinion). However what struck me most about the scene was how staged it all seemed. Dumbledore walks in and starts dropping information left, right and center which I find quite surprising given that he's in the presence of Muggles. In his first few sentences to Vernon he openly mentions that even Privet drive might not be safe anymore. He then mentions in front of Harry and Vernon that he has been in correspondence with Petunia (although Harry thinks nothing of it at the time). Dumbledore then discuss the affairs of Sirius in front of the whole Dursley family in the process informing them at Sirius is dead (removing their fear of Sirius paying a visit) but also mentioning that Harry owns a house (removing their fear of Harry spending the summer that he can do magic at Privet Drive). Dumbledore then goes on to mention that Harry will be turning 17 next year and be capable of doing magic outside of school (along with losing their blood protection). Dumbledore then rounds it up by mentioning how damaged Dudley is and securing Harry one more month at their house next summer. So the impression I get on a re-read is that Dumbledore went there with a goal(s) in mind and everything he did in the Dursley's may have had a purpose. At the end of HBP Harry is returning to the Dursley's for one more month why because Dumbledore mentioned it 8 months before. So perhaps that scene is a stick and carrot scene the mead glass serve to remind the Dursleys of their fear and inability to counter magic (with no real lasting harm compare that to a pigs tail that needed surgery) which Harry will soon be able to do in their presence while he also reminds them that they will probably only have to tolerate Harry for one more month. At the same time Dumbledore can at least address Harry's issues with the Dursleys (since Dumbledore is respect by Harry) and point out to Harry that Dudley has his own problems. The reason for that is it removes the threat of Harry causing the Dursleys any magical mayhem (or at least not a lot of it) when he turns 17 (because in Harry's eyes Dumbledore will have addressed the issue). Quick_Silver From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Sep 8 04:04:41 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 00:04:41 -0400 Subject: DD and the Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158014 Phoenixgod2000: "Something just occurred to me. If Dumbledore could go the Dursleys in book 6 and use magic on them to take them to task and intimidate them slightly and not break the wards, why couldn't he have done the same in Harry's younger years? Is he so busy he couldn't pop in once a month to have Tea with Petunia and check on the fricken' savior of his darn world? He could easily have insured that Harry was being well treated." BAW: Dumbledore's making frequent and regular visits to a Muggle household would have attracted Death Eater attention to that house. They would have discovered who the boy the Dursleys were taking care of was and---well, you can guess the rest. The Ancient Magic protects Harry from Voldemort, but not from his minions. However badly Harry was treated at the Dursley's, he's still alive. Which is considerably better than the alternative. This is probably the only thing that kept DD from turning them into frogs. From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Fri Sep 8 05:47:22 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:47:22 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158015 > Carol responds: > snip< > The problem is, we're not told that "thrilling tale" or what "timely > action" Snape took to save Dumbledore's life. But I don't think that > the soul bit from a Horcrux can possess its destroyer. I think that > once the container is destroyed, the Horcrux can no longer function, > whether the soul bit itself is destroyed, as Dumbldore says, or > whether it floats off beyond the Veil, which to me seems more likely > in view of JKR's Christian beliefs. I can't quite accept the concept > of a soul fragment being *destroyed* even though that's the word DD > uses. But there's no suggestion that it continues to function in any > way, including possession, once the Horcrux is destroyed. Laurawkids: To take this out of order, I agree, I think if the freed soul part possessed it's owner, we would have seen it do so after Harry actually destroys the diary. We don't have any clues like that in Harry's case. You reminded me of the "timely action" comment. Could Snape have been sent back in time like Hermione was to rescue DD? Don't rule it out folks ; ) And how to get the horcrux dealt with without killing our hero, besides the classic trip behind the veil, which is very nice: 1. Harry's head slips into the bell jar. 2. It grows younger past the age of the GH incident. 3. The scar is no longer there, but there is some faint extra substance floating around. 4. Hermione, who "gets" it, pulls Harry's baby head out against the wishes of the others. 5. Skims the floater out, and it vanishes. 6. Stick Harry back in and gauge by the new cut on his face when you should pull him back out. You know, like many chemical reactions are done. This is not as deeply satisfying as the nice hero quest behind the veil, though. I do think Harry has/is a Horcrux just by the many times he does things "instinctively", or says things he does not really think. Also, the italics keep cropping up at appropriate moments. If Harry ends up being one, I think we will find out that the Horcrux spell can happen before the murder, as a readying for the object to "have room" for the added essence you are about to put in, like hollowing out a tomato before you stuff it with goodies along with what you just took out. Time for a snack! Laurawkids From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 07:22:18 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:22:18 -0000 Subject: OoP mini-mysteries? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158016 CH3ed: I haven't been able to keep up with the sheer volume of posts so this might have been discussed already. Sorry in advance. Talk about clues that might have been in OotP. Has anyone come up with a good guess of where AlbusD really went when he went away after Umbridge took over? Beside looking for Voldy's horcruxes? I'm tempted with Hermione's cover story of him being at a bar when Umbridge caught Harry using her floo outlet (it's rather humorous if it turned out AlbusD was hanging out at his brother's pub all that time). Also... what exactly caused the Headmaster's office to seal itself when AlbusD fled and Umbridge took over? Seems the Minister of Magic get to appoint Headmaster... so wouldn't the Minister's edict be able to overrule the zeal? Or is that one of the Founders' little 'rebellion' magic? If Umbridge had been able to get inside the Office and ask the portraits where they thought AlbusD went, do you think they'd be bounded by honor to tell her (since she was the official Headmistress)? CH3ed :O) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 8 07:34:39 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:34:39 -0000 Subject: DD and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158017 > BAW: > Dumbledore's making frequent and regular visits to a Muggle household > would have attracted Death Eater attention to that house. They would > have discovered who the boy the Dursleys were taking care of was > and---well, you can guess the rest. > The Ancient Magic protects Harry from Voldemort, but not from his > minions. > only thing that kept DD from turning them into frogs. > Hickengruendler: Than why didn't the Death Eaters attack Privet Drive as soon as Voldemort returned? Judging by his graveyard speech, Voldemort knew very well, where Harry lived. If the protection only saves him from Big He could have sent his minions to kill the Dursleys and capture Harry, but he didn't. The protection has to work against Voldie's minions as well, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. Just like Lily's sacrifice also protected Harry from Quirrell in the Chamber of the stone. (And yes, I know that at this time Quirrell was possesed by Voldie, but still). From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 09:39:13 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:39:13 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158018 > > Betsy Hp: > > It's the use of magic that tilts it for me. A wizard using his > wit or intelligence or basic decency to put the Dursleys in > > their "place" I'm fine with. But when a wizard uses his magic > he's taking advantage of an extreme power difference. > Tonks: > If a person with an IQ of 135 takes on a person with an IQ of 100 or > 110 and uses their "wit" as you say, isn't that using a "power" that > the second person doesn't have? Sydney: Oooh, I think the power differential is much bigger than that. It's like Oscar Wilde making fun of a person with Down's Syndrome. It wasn't funny to me, it was just sad. I didn't think much of that scene, but then, I've never liked the Dursleys scenes in general. A lot of the pleasure I get from HP is how you can pretty much always see the point of view of everyone in the scene-- even if you don't agree with it, you feel it's coming from a human place and you understand their goals, and that gives her sequences a terrific improvisational vigor. Even Voldemort I feel JKR's put effort into getting into his head and trying to 'act' him honestly. The Dursleys are just plastic; I wasn't surprised when JKR said Vernon was the character she most disliked in the series. She never bothers to get into his head at all-- I mean, it's not like it's ridiculous for a muggle to be afraid of someone who can do magic. I'd have an undercurrent of fear myself every time I dealt with a wizard, I think. But, I don't know, I just don't feel JKR really engages with the fear as anything other than a joke, and that really holds the scenes back, I think. I think it's this that gives this scene the 'staged' quality that Snow refers to. I feel that way about all the Dursley scenes, actually. They're like actors who aren't quite sure who they are or what their motivations are, and that's exactly when scenes get 'stagey'. Actually, I should qualify 'the Durselys'. I think Petunia and Dudley are in for some revelations, maybe. But the tone of their scenes is pretty much set by Vernon. Tonks: Think of > what Hagrid would have done instead. Or what Hagrid has done > instead when he first met the Dursleys. If you look at those two > examples, I think we can see that DD was a gentleman in this > situation > And think of what a DE might do with them. That would be abuse of > magical power. So I think we have to keep perspective here. Sydney: I'd rather think of what Arthur Weasely did, which was respectful but expressive of his disdain. Arthur Weasley's takedown of the Dursleys was so much classier to me. He was geniunely indignant and addressed the Dursleys as equals, saying, as one adult human to another, I find your behaviour apalling. And I certainly hope I don't go through life with 'hey, at least I'm not a mass-murdering psychopath!' as a moral baseline. I thought what Hagrid and the Twins did was absolutely apalling and I really don't want to use it as a standard. Plus, it's all over now. It's like the boss coming in after a project has tanked and saying, 'well, you should have done this and that' and having a go at a pipsqueak manager. Sure it's nice to see the pipsqueak manager squirm, but 9/10ths of me is thinking, gee, boss, and where were you when all this was going on, seeing as you appear to know everything and have all the power here? Tonks: > I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't want to > see that there is a world outside of the world of matter as > experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as similar to the world > of the mystic or the spiritual world. Sydney: See, I think to a large extent this is how Rowling sees it, and it's fine on a symbolic level. But then she has to go and make it an explicitly genetic thing. That's where I can't just pretend that, yeah, I would totally just happen to have this vanishingly rare genetic mutation! You know, it reminds me a bit of the moment in the new Star Wars movies when they test Anakin's blood for The Force. At that point, the entire spiritual structure of the series just collapsed. The Force wasn't something that was available to anyone. It was available only to the very few who were born with it. It's some form of creepy Hyper-Calvinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism) with an explicitly genetic angle. In JKR's world she at least doesn't go that extra step and be explicit about the spiritual symbolism of 'having magic'. And I'm really glad she doesn't, because frankly the implications aren't pretty. It makes the Death Eaters spiritually superior to even the best of muggles, for one thing! Betsy: >So even when it's the Dursleys I can't condone it. Just like I >couldn't condone the school bully getting beaten up by his father. Sydney: Wow, that's eerie... one of my 'formative experiences', I guess you'd call it, is when I got into a fight with the school bully in Jr. High. I was, what, 12 maybe? Anyways, it was the classic bully guy, the kind everyone calls by their first and last name, and I think he was teasing me and I challenged him to a fight. Which was dumb because he was this huge kid and I'm a scrawny girl. I got a lot of points in the ol' schoolyard for showing up. I think I lasted about 10 seconds and he laid me out with a punch in the gut. The kid wasn't at at school for the next two weeks, and we found out he'd been hospitalized by his dad for hitting a girl. So that was my introduction to 'irony'. --Sydney From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 8 10:29:39 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:29:39 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158019 > Sydney: > The Dursleys are just plastic; I wasn't surprised when JKR > said Vernon was the character she most disliked in the series. She > never bothers to get into his head at all-- I mean, it's not like > it's ridiculous for a muggle to be afraid of someone who can do magic. > I'd have an undercurrent of fear myself every time I dealt with a > wizard, I think. But, I don't know, I just don't feel JKR really > engages with the fear as anything other than a joke, and that really > holds the scenes back, I think. Hickengruendler: Not even in OotP? I would argue at the very least the Dementor attack on Dudley showed that the Dursleys' fear is at least somewhat understandable, even though this idn't excuse the abysmal way they treated Harry. She also showed several other scenes involving muggles, which emphasize that the Dursleys have a reason to be frightened. Tom Riddle senior was pretty much a punching ball by the whole Gaunt family. First hexed Morfin, then bewitched by Merope, then killed by Voldemort. Frank Bryce was an indirect victim of Voldemort's murders throughout nearly his whole life, only to be killed by him literally in the end. And then of course there are the scenes involving the Muggle torture after the QWC and the mass killings Voldemort did in Order to make Fudge resign. Even though these scenes didn't involve the Dursleys personally (except the Dementor attack), they did help making their fear understandable, IMO. In course of the series Muggles, and this includes the Dursleys, nasty as they may be, almost consequently play the roles of victims. I do like the Dumbledore scene, though, mostly because it is so harmless. The Dursleys never were in any harm here, and I do think they deserve a few slight hits on the head. (Not to mention that it isn't even clear, if he did it on purpose. The moment he realized what happened, he made it stop.) I have much more problems with, for example, the Ton-Tongue-Toffee scene, which I find really quite mean- spirited. Hickengruendler From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Sep 8 11:24:44 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:24:44 -0400 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158020 Ken: ... believe Slughorn's version then on the night of the attack at GH the part of Voldemort's soul that was in his body was sent into the next life and something, his spirit(?), was anchored to the Earth by his horcruxes. This spirit(?)lived on because of the horcruxes and now inhabits his regenerated body which would then seem to have no soul except for the bits stored in horcruxes. doug: I can see the confusion engendered by the different terms 'soul' vs 'spirit'. I have always read them as the same thing. The synonyms for 'soul' are many and varied, and some have their own meaning which excludes the soul-concept overlap. As to what it means here, it can be read as such, that the spirit of Voldemort -Vapourmort- was not the soul of Voldemort. I would choose to err on the side of simplifying the nature of soul, rather than parcelling it up into finer and finer discrete bits. Ken: [Dumbledore] says that the seventh piece of Voldemort's soul, the part that was in his body at GH, was that part of him that lived on all those years when he had no body and it now inhabits his regenerated body. On the same page DD says that all his horcruxes remained intact. That implies that *none* of Voldemort's soul was sent on the night of the GH attack. doug: ? of course, because the seventh soul - usually inhabiting Body - bit was anchored by the horcruxes to this mortal plane. Ken: If that isn't the case then DD really, really, really needed to comment on Slughorn's (apparent) mistake since it is *absolutely critical* that Harry understand how horcruxes really work. His silence is a HUGE mistake if it isn't just an editing error on Rowling's part. doug: There are some who think that Dumbledore is infallible and should explain everything. Until the seventh book is published, and the story is wrapped up nice and tidy, I read everyone with great skepticism. BTW I come down on the side of Harry-has-a-soul-bit-but-isn't-a- horcrux side of this whole thing. Hello Carol.... :-) bboyminn: Since some aspects of his soul were still embodied (stored in the Horcruxes) on earth, the core part of his soul could not cross over to the afterlife. So with regard to souls /dying/ or crossing over, it is /all or nothing/. doug: Fascinating. bboyminn: Since, the Free Soul Piece are not embodied, they do not act as anchors to hold Voldemort to the earth. They are simply waiting around until it is possible for all aspect of the soul to cross over. So Voldemort, despite parcelling out bits of himself has 100% soul, not 1/7th or 1/64th... ? and Voldemort can continue to draw on the power of his complete soul... hmmm... I have heard this idea expressed one other place. generally it has been thought that once a soul bit has been 'freed' from it's embodiment it moves on. No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic. ____________________ From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 8 06:49:02 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Brett) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 06:49:02 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158021 > Abergoat offers: > I've heard some talk that if Sirius went through the veil with the > mirror then Harry may be able to get advice for the land of the dead. > JKR suggested the mirror might be used again Argus Pyrites adds: Well, I for one hope that this is handled delicately, if at all. I've enjoyed that death is death in Mrs. Rowling's world. The comment by Luna about hearing the voices beyond the veil, worried me then, and the mirror comment from the interview worries me more. Course, Harry broke his mirror... ('reparo' anyone?) Another clue from OotP?? - Petunia's comment about that "awful boy" (As I'm new, it might be that this has already been well covered in a different thread (But I haven't read 'every post ever' just yet). I'll be brief and assume it has.) If that comment does NOT refer to James(as I believe it does), then who? Snape? (second most likely?)Peter? Remus? Sirius? From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 8 12:54:58 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:54:58 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158022 Argus Pyrites: > Another clue from OotP?? - Petunia's comment about that "awful boy" > (As I'm new, it might be that this has already been well covered in > a different thread (But I haven't read 'every post ever' just yet). > I'll be brief and assume it has.) > > If that comment does NOT refer to James(as I believe it does), then > who? Snape? (second most likely?)Peter? Remus? Sirius? > Hickengruendler: Since you are new, you might not have read this interview, yet. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh- ITVcubreporters.htm This part relates to the "awful boy" question: "David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia know about dementors and all the other magical facts she knows? JK Rowling: Another very good question. She overheard a conversation, that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer is in the beginning of Phoenix, she said she overheard Lily being told about them basically. Is that true? JK Rowling: Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7." Note that JKR openly said, that Petunia overheard Lily. But she did not mention, to whom Lily said and in fact used the term "someone". If it were simply a conversation between James and Lily, as Harry understandably thought, I think JKR would have said so. No need to make a secret out of it. My money is on Snape. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 8 12:58:16 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:58:16 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158023 > Steven1965aaa: > > I don't see "teasing". Contrast the Dursleys' behavior with Snape at > Spinner's end who invites Bella and Narci in, invites them to sit, > and offers them a drink even though they show up unannounced and > uninvited. The Dursleys did none of that so DD did it for them. And > unlike Bella and Narci, DD was actually invited into their home - by > Harry who is after all a member of their family. Its true that the > glasses wound up hitting them in the head but as DD said it would have > been better manners to drink it. I don't see offering someone a drink > as "teasing" (although the couch thing was a little rough around the > edges). Hickengruendler: Not that I want to excuse the Dursleys, and I already said, that I don't have any problems with this scene. But at least Snape knows Narcissa and Bellatrix. Dumbledore probably was a total starnger to them, at the very least to Vernon. And given his comment "You must be Petunia", I don't think they met either, so they undoubtly had some correspondence. I want to see you, if you would invite a stranger in, who rings at your door in the middle of the night. > From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 8 13:21:24 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:21:24 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158024 In Post 158021 > Argus Pyrites wrote: > > Well, I for one hope that this is handled delicately, if at all. > I've enjoyed that death is death in Mrs. Rowling's world. The > comment by Luna about hearing the voices beyond the veil, worried me > then, and the mirror comment from the interview worries me more. > Course, Harry broke his mirror... ('reparo' anyone?) Potioncat: I used to be better at this, but I cannot find the quote I want. JKR has something along the line of the mirror being more useful, and less useful than we expect. Personally, I think even if Sirius had the mirror on him and went on to the next life, he's beyond Harry's reach. Perhaps Harry will use the broken shards of the mirror for communication in this life between Hermione, Ron and himself. I think Luna was correct that their loved ones 'live' in that other world and they will be reunited one day---but in the afterlife, not this one. This is partly opinion and partly based on JKR's comments about life and death. In post 158022 "hickengruendler" wrote: > Note that JKR openly said, that Petunia overheard Lily. But she did > not mention, to whom Lily said and in fact used the term "someone". > If it were simply a conversation between James and Lily, as Harry > understandably thought, I think JKR would have said so. No need to > make a secret out of it. My money is on Snape. Potioncat: My money is on Snape too. The fact that he is a Half-blood and would have been comfortble in Muggle areas makes all the more likely in my mind. Comfort being a relative term, of course. Welcome, Argus Pyrites! I hope you enjoy our madness. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 13:30:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:30:35 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158025 > Betsy Hp: > It's the use of magic that tilts it for me. A wizard using his wit > or intelligence or basic decency to put the Dursleys in > their "place" I'm fine with. But when a wizard uses his magic he's > taking advantage of an extreme power difference. A power difference > I'm on the wrong side of. That it's done so easily suggests that > abusing that power is an easy thing for wizards to slip into. And I > don't like it. Which colors how I take that scene. Alla: I think I understand sort of, but let me ask couple more questions just to make sure I do and again, this is just curiosity on my behalf, because I do understand that I am trying to figure out your emotional reaction, which really needs no justification or explanation. I understand dislike of wizards abusing their power, etc ( I am willing to put aside for a second that I don't think that Dumbledore abused any powers of his in that scene), but to me it is still a long road to travel from thinking that wizard abuses his power to empasizing with people against whom he does it. Is the main source of your empathy with Dursleys the idea that wizards can do it to your as muggle? Basically that you can be in the same situation as they are? I mean if it is so, I guess I understand the reaction ( not share at all, but at least understand where you are coming from and this is all I wanted to figure out), since my empathy with Sirius started with two things - his love for Harry and the second one his unfair imprisonment. I am sure many know that in the Soviet Union millions of people were unjustly imprisoned starting from Stalin regime and continuing into 70s of the twentieth century. No, thank goodness neither myself or anybody in my family was not in prison, but it was SO easy to imagine being in such situation. All one has to do is to actively act in opposition to regime and one can easily find himself to be in prison and **not** in the prisons with the level of comfort of american prisons ( no, I had not been in american prisons either :), but from what I have read and seen on TV, they really look as resorts in comparison) So, Sirius unfair imprisonment strikes something for me on subconscious level very deeply ( besides you know universal hurt/comfort etc), is that the same for you with Dursleys? I guess it never enters my mind that I can find myself in the situation like Dursleys, because I **know** with absolute certainty that I would never abuse a child, so I have no reasons to fear that his family and friends would come after me with a vengeance, magic or not :) And I understand that you may say that if wizards can abuse their power against anybody, then they can do it against anybody, including people who did nothing to them, but the thing is .... I don't see anybody who is not a DE doing so. That is why I cannot To me, there is a sense of deep, **animalistic** if you wish fairness of Dursleys getting their dues and on the page of the book, I can really care less about the means they get their dues. :) But thanks for explaining your reaction, I think I got it now. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 13:46:09 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:46:09 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <009b01c6d2f1$d61353e0$c78c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158026 > Magpie: > I said they were two different questions, so "I didn't enjoy this scene" > can't be answered with "But don't you remember what the Dursleys did?" I > know all the facts, and they don't match up the same way for me to give me > the same emotional response, as happens with many scenes in canon that break > down along similar lines. As a response to years of abuse, albeit years > before, it seems a rather odd kind of response. I think it's very important > to be able to separate the two. Otherwise it's easy to just sort people > into "people who can not be done wrong to" and "people who can not do > wrong." Alla: I completely disagree. I think two are inseparable in this scene, and in fact they should not be separated, because without Dursleys years of abuse Dumbledore would not have come and would not have acted as he did IMO. I mean, as I mentioned to me that had read that Dumbledore hoped that Dursleys would not have abused Harry when he placed him here. Was it naive? Sure it was. Do I think it takes Dumbledore off the hook? Not quite, but at least that sort of helps me to forget the character I wanted to slap at the end of OOP, not forget completely but at least soften the blow. I mean, I am not sure at all that this scene can be analysed on its own without taking the reasons for it into consideration. > Magpie: > That's pretty much how I feel, I think. It's not even that I don't *want* > to be a witch, but that I'm not, and I wouldn't grovel about it. Alla: Well, yeah, because we cannot be, but would you have not taken the opportunity if you could? I mean as I said earlier I would not want to live in Potterverse, but it is not like I hate it either, it is just not an escapism world for me, but a reflection of our world as I mentioned in the past. But would I want to do magic if I could? Sure, if for nothing else then to treat diseases we cannot. I would have grasped the opportunity. Magpie: That's the > thing--I'm not. I don't really know how people can always identify with > wizards. As characters, sure. Alla: Huh? Yes, of course as characters, how else we can identify with them? I don't follow you. I identify with wizards I see as **good characters" or **sympathetic characters" as human beings. Magpie: But it's not like "we" as readers don't have > a place in that world. Why would anyone assume that s/he would be a wizard > if this were all real? We can't do magic, we go to regular schools, we get > stitches and talk on the telephone. Alla: I don't follow you at all. Are you asking what would be the advantages of being wizard if it was all real? Well, see above, possibility to treat the diseases we cannot is first and foremost, longer life span too ( Nooo, I am not talking about immortality, hehe, but if my loved ones and myself could live say hundred and fifty and be healthy enough, I would **love** that) JMO, Alla From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Sep 8 13:53:32 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:53:32 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158027 Argus Pyrites wrote: > Well, I for one hope that this is handled delicately, if at all. > I've enjoyed that death is death in Mrs. Rowling's world. The > comment by Luna about hearing the voices beyond the veil, worried me > then, and the mirror comment from the interview worries me more. > Course, Harry broke his mirror... ('reparo' anyone?) Abergoat writes: I see your point. The portraits already make death a bit odd though. And it is possible that Draught of the Living Death is needed to speak with the dead, even when the mirror is used. I think JKR could manage to use the mirrors while making it clear that once someone is gone they do not return and that what is neceaary to speak with the dead is onerous, if not even dangerous, and needs to be done only in an emergency. All just guesswork of course. Argus Pyrites wrote: > If that comment does NOT refer to James(as I believe it does), then > who? Snape? (second most likely?)Peter? Remus? Sirius? Abergoat wrotes: Snape is the odds-on favorite. Petunia did not want to take Harry, Dumbledore made the perfectly clear in OotP. I suspect Petunia overheard something that makes her vulnerable to Voldemort (she learned something that Voldemort would like to know). A few of us think that Petunia overheard the 'awful boy' planning to enter the Death Eaters as a spy for Dumbledore's side...or simply to kill Voldemort in revenge for something that was done, possibly to the boy's family. Which brings us back to the Dog Lady at St. Mungo's and the question as to whether she is a horcrux victim and whether she is related to Snape. Clearly I do not have any takers on the idea ;) Abergoat From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 8 15:15:02 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:15:02 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158028 > Carol responds: > I don't want to go into Horcruxes in any depth, but I'm pretty sure > that the core soul piece, as Steve calls it, is "anchored" to the > earth and can't die (go beyond the Veil) as long as a single Horcrux > exists. There's no need to "use" a Horcrux to restore it. The > existence of any Horcrux is all that's necessary. Ken: This core soul anchored to the Earth by a horcrux idea is the way I have long held horcruxes to work. And then one day it struck me that it was totally wrong, Slughorn clearly says that part of the soul goes beyond when a horcrux owner is attacked. Presumably it is the part inside the wizard (what many of you call the core soul) not the part inside the horcrux that goes on since the horcrux itself was not attacked. And then a few days after that I realized that DD *totally* contradicts this. DD says that *all* of the horcrux owner's soul remains Earthbound. Taken together his statements imply that only the soul bits stored in horcruxes can be sent on (by attacking the horcruxes) while the "core soul" is still bound to the Earth by any intact horcrux and that your "core soul" can only be sent on after all your horcruxes are destroyed. This enormous discrepency is either an editing error after Rowling changed her mind about how horcruxes work, or it is a clue to ... to what? > Carol: > At any rate, I think that the diary was a special case and that the > *memory* (or memories) of Tom Riddle at sixteen was (were) placed in > the diary some years before it became a Horcrux. Just because this > particular soul bit enabled the memory to come to life (or nearly so) > after taking most of Ginny's soul doesn't mean that other Horcruxes > work in the same way. I don't think the cup, locket, ring, etc., are > designed to interact with others the way the diary was designed to > lure in a reader, who would then kill "Mudbloods" using the Basilisk. > Essentially, they're just containers to "encase" the soul bit and keep > the wizard who created the Horcrux from dying even if his body is > destroyed. Any "interaction" is, IMO, the result of a protective curse > like the one that snape somehow prevented from killing Dumbledore. > Ken: I agree. I think the diary was a most unusual horcrux and I believe DD backs us up on this one. > Carol: > The problem is, we're not told that "thrilling tale" or what "timely > action" Snape took to save Dumbledore's life. Ken: I don't know what it means but has anyone else noticed that Snape takes "timely action" on TWO occasions when DD returns from a horcrux hunt? When I thought it likely that DD was still alive I thought it might be a clue to the fact that DD is still alive. Now, ... well now it could just be an ironic coincidence I suppose. > Carol: > > But the Core soul can't become a free soul piece as long as a single > Horcrux anchors it to earth. Of that much I'm certain. It's the whole > point of creating a Horcrux in the first place Ken: I disagree, or at least I am *not* sure. By Slughorn's account the horcrux owner is kept "alive" if *any* part of the soul remains Earthbound. Slughorn's account is what makes it seem like there must be a *third* component of a human being and I have called that the spirit since a fair amount of human thinking has historically described us as consisting of body, soul, and spirit. LV even describes his exisitence during his interregnum as that of a spirit or to be accurate as less than a spirit. Slughorn says that what you all are calling the core soul is sent on when the horcrux owner is "killed" and only the bit in the horcrux remains Earthbound. Slughorn's account pretty much demands that a human being have a spirit that is distinct from both the body and soul if we are to explain LV's continued senitent exisitence in the period between his two bodies. DD's account matches what you are saying, Carol, and given his reputation I am inclined to agree with both of you. Yet I still have to wonder if the discrepency between our two horcrux experts is intentional and a clue to something or a justification for an unexpected turn in book 7. DD's account does not require that humans have a spirit that is distinct from the soul. > > Carol, wondering if Harry is as confused as we are > Ken: If he isn't he should be!! It may take Hermione to point this out to him if it isn't just an editing error. I wish someone would ask JKR about this in an interview sometime soon. I've had another wild, random horcrux related thought. I believe JKR still owes us some additional information about ghosts and why some wizards become ghosts and others do not. Nearly Headless Nick mentions his fear of death as being a contributing factor. Tom Riddle certainly has that. Do you suppose that *one* way that a wizard can guarantee becoming a ghost is to create a horcrux and that *all* horcrux owners are doomed to becoming ghosts instead of journeying on? I know that this cannot be the only way, at least I doubt very much that Moaning Myrtle had a horcrux. We've all wondered how, when, and from whom Tom learned to create a horcrux, maybe it was as simple as asking one of the Hogwarts ghosts. Hmmm, I wonder if a ghost could help you find a horcrux? Nah, I suppose DD would have done that if it were possible. Ken From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 8 16:38:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:38:18 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158029 > Sydney: > > Oooh, I think the power differential is much bigger than that. It's > like Oscar Wilde making fun of a person with Down's Syndrome. It > wasn't funny to me, it was just sad. > > I didn't think much of that scene, but then, I've never liked the > Dursleys scenes in general. A lot of the pleasure I get from HP is > how you can pretty much always see the point of view of everyone in > the scene-- even if you don't agree with it, you feel it's coming from > a human place and you understand their goals, and that gives her > sequences a terrific improvisational vigor. Even Voldemort I feel > JKR's put effort into getting into his head and trying to 'act' him > honestly. The Dursleys are just plastic; I wasn't surprised when JKR > said Vernon was the character she most disliked in the series. She > never bothers to get into his head at all-- I mean, it's not like > it's ridiculous for a muggle to be afraid of someone who can do magic. > I'd have an undercurrent of fear myself every time I dealt with a > wizard, I think. But, I don't know, I just don't feel JKR really > engages with the fear as anything other than a joke, and that really > holds the scenes back, I think. Pippin: I think this is one place where the change in Rowling's fortunes worked against her. It's cheeky to poke fun at the middle class when you are poor and desperate and the only thing between you and the wolf at the door is the dole. Doing it when the Dursleys' lifetime income wouldn't be a drop in your personal bucket is something else. I wouldn't be surprised if JKR had something a bit harsher in mind when she conceived the scene and found she had to tone it down when she got there or feel like a bully herself. Irony. But we can see from the reactions on our own list that Dumbledore can't chastise Muggles, even Muggles who deserve it, without undermining his position as the WW's foremost champion of Muggle rights. If he feels, as he says he does, that he has no right to sacrifice the rights of nameless faceless innocents for Harry's happiness, then he can't afford personal vengeance. The only methods available to him are the ones he would prescribe to any other wizard who thought his family was being treated badly by Muggles, and those methods would doubtless have resulted in Harry being taken away from the Dursleys and the protection they could provide. Sydney: > > Plus, it's all over now. It's like the boss coming in after a project > has tanked and saying, 'well, you should have done this and that' and > having a go at a pipsqueak manager. Sure it's nice to see the > pipsqueak manager squirm, but 9/10ths of me is thinking, gee, boss, > and where were you when all this was going on, seeing as you appear to > know everything and have all the power here? Pippin: What power does Dumbledore have? It amazes me that people who are worried that Harry will sustain more psychological damage than Dumbledore could straighten out with one of his little talks do not see that the Dursleys have *already* sustained such damage, and Dumbledore's little talks would be as effective as shouting instructions at a hurricane. Vernon, in particular, seems to be holding on to the crumbling edge of sanity by his fingernails. Sure, DD could scare him. We saw how much use that was with Riddle. Phoenixgod: I refuse to believe that leaving Harry with the Dursleys was the best of all possible worlds for a wizard of Dumbledore's power, skill, and age. It might have been the best for the Cinderfella story JKR wants to say, but I don't buy it in a world of magic on the level we've seen in the story. Pippin: Then you refuse to believe canon. Voldemort or his servants have found their way into every magical fortress and concealed stronghold we know of: Gringotts, Azkaban, Hogwarts, Godric's Hollow, Grimmauld Place, St Mungo's and the Ministry itself. Even the fear of Dumbledore did not hold them off forever. The mind link means that no disguise would have prevented a resurgent Voldemort from learning that Harry is alive. Pippin > Tonks: > > > I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't want to > > see that there is a world outside of the world of matter as > > experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as similar to the world > > of the mystic or the spiritual world. > > > Sydney: > > See, I think to a large extent this is how Rowling sees it, and it's > fine on a symbolic level. Pippin: I don't think she does, because we have beings like Binns, who is absurdly in denial about any sort of unseen reality. Wizards are capable of experiencing as concrete things which we can only imagine, but it doesn't actually make them more spiritually aware. JKR has explained I think that magic is a metaphor for the talents that some people have. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 8 16:38:13 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:38:13 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158030 > Snow: > > Ok first off I didn't `enjoy' it nor would I look for a reason to do > so but I can accept why the scene happened and can appreciate why > Dumbledore had reasons to act in such a manner given his past- limited > choices in allowing Harry to live with the Dursley's to begin with. Magpie: Well, I don't mind talking about these side issues, but the fact still remains that I was asked why I didn't enjoy the scene and tried to think of an answer. Why didn't you enjoy the scene? It seems like you're doing what I described here, saying that you didn't have trouble with Dumbledore's actions because you think he had reasons to act this way. Snow: > Dumbledore had no choice but to allow Harry to live with the very > people that would abuse him to a degree. To what degree this abuse > has affected him we can only surmise by his adult actions that he has > now portrayed. Has Harry been affected by the abuse from the > Dursley's and if he has, how is he displaying that affect? > > We are right back where you didn't want to be at the beginning. > Dumbledore's actions in this scene are a direct result of Harry's > disgruntled upbringing. You can't separate Dumbledore's feelings > laying Harry (the wizarding world's only hope) on the doorstep of the > Dursley's from his suppressed (as I view it) limited actions when > last he spoke to the Dursley's in this very scene. Magpie: Yes, I can separate those two things. Dumbledore made a decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys knowing it could be hard on him. He doesn't like the fact that the Dursleys mistreated Harry. The two things are easily separated, even as I understand that Dumbledore's motivated by his anger over their mistreatment of Harry. Then there is the third aspect, which is how Dumbledore chooses to act in the scene. I didn't enjoy watching his actions in the scene, so I didn't enjoy the scene, even while knowing he left Harry at the Dursleys for the blood protection and that he doesn't like the Dursleys because they mistreated Harry. > Snow: > > Now you are applying your own emotions to the scene. You don't like > being treated that way therefore you don't like the Dursley's being > treated the way Dumbledore treated them. I agree I don't like anyone > to be treated in a disrespectful way but how did the Dursley's treat > Harry and more so how did the Dursley's treat Dumbledore in this > scene; they never changed, they are still disrespectful and subtlety > abusive? Magpie: Of course I'm applying my own emotions to the scene. I was ASKED about my emotions to the scene, and this is what they are. The fact that the Dursleys did worse to Harry doesn't change my irritation reading the scene. My emotional reaction to the scene counts as much as someone else's does. It's not like I'm hiding it. Snow:> > I try to live my life by the turn-the-other-cheek analogy but there > are times when the cheek just gets to red to turn it again; after all > we are only human even if you are blessed with powers :) like > Dumbledore. Magpie: So why didn't you enjoy the scene, since you said you didn't? I don't feel like I owe it to Dumbledore or Harry to like the scene just because there's earlier scenes of the Dursleys abusing Harry, even some that might not annoy me as much. It's not like I'm talking about real people and saying what Dumbledore did was worse than locking a kid in a cupboard and treating him like dirt for years. I'm reading a children's book and reacting to the author's choices in the scene. The Dursley/Harry scenes have one tone and work one way, this one works another way. > Snow: > > I see it as actually repressed anger, which for the Dursley's sake > Dumbledore is a very fair and compassionate man because I would have > been way more insensitive than Dumbledore was in this scene if it > would have been my child or charge. Magpie: And ironically, a scene of you being more insensitive might have annoyed me less-who knows? Especially if it was your child. Obviously Dumbledore wouldn't abuse anyone the way the Dursleys abused Harry. The scene still irritates me. > Tonks: > If a person with an IQ of 135 takes on a person with an IQ of 100 or > 110 and uses their "wit" as you say, isn't that using a "power" that > the second person doesn't have? Magpie: What an odd way to erase this kind of power imbalance. So if I started tipping people halfway out of wheelchairs to get their attention it would be on the level of making a reference in a conversation that goes over some peoples' heads? Sydney: I'd rather think of what Arthur Weasely did, which was respectful but expressive of his disdain. Arthur Weasley's takedown of the Dursleys was so much classier to me. He was geniunely indignant and addressed the Dursleys as equals, saying, as one adult human to another, I find your behaviour apalling. And I certainly hope I don't go through life with 'hey, at least I'm not a mass-murdering psychopath!' as a moral baseline. I thought what Hagrid and the Twins did was absolutely apalling and I really don't want to use it as a standard. Plus, it's all over now. It's like the boss coming in after a project has tanked and saying, 'well, you should have done this and that' and having a go at a pipsqueak manager. Sure it's nice to see the pipsqueak manager squirm, but 9/10ths of me is thinking, gee, boss, and where were you when all this was going on, seeing as you appear to know everything and have all the power here? Magpie: Exactly. It's not like the scene filled me with rage, but I really didn't like it. And the defenses of it unfortunately make it worse to me. I don't feel the need to argue people into disliking it themselves if they didn't have the same reaction, but no one's ever been able to a) erase the power balance I see b) make it seem like a logical answer to the previous abuse of Harry or c) make the fact that DD isn't an actual psychopathic murderer make me feel ashamed of not praising his behavior. What will these wizards do when the DEs are defeated, with no one to point to as worse? Seems they'll always produce DE-types. Sydney: You know, it reminds me a bit of the moment in the new Star Wars movies when they test Anakin's blood for The Force. At that point, the entire spiritual structure of the series just collapsed. The Force wasn't something that was available to anyone. It was available only to the very few who were born with it. Magpie: Yes, that was totally horrifying. More horrifying than in HP, I think, because with Rowling it's a genetic thing right off, and the magic doesn't have that spiritual aspect, imo. It's like if only some people in the world had the access to electricity or something. Doing magic doesn't at all mean that you're the kind of person who sees with more than 5 senses or anything like that, it just means you can do magic. Sure a lot of the Muggles we see are really really ordinary, but so are some Wizards. Tonks: > I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't want to > see that there is a world outside of the world of matter as > experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as similar to the world > of the mystic or the spiritual world. Magpie: Well, I guess that's a way to look at it but it bears no resemblance to the WW that I've read about in canon, I have to say. There the definition is a lot more practical and every single person reading the book is a Muggle, because none of them can do the magic in the books. I actually don't know why you'd connect them to the mystical or spiritual world at all, because as a people they're not very mystical or spiritual at all. Alla: I guess it never enters my mind that I can find myself in the situation like Dursleys, because I **know** with absolute certainty that I would never abuse a child, so I have no reasons to fear that his family and friends would come after me with a vengeance, magic or not :) Magpie: See, I understand exactly where you're coming from there, but for me I have the exact opposite reaction. I know that I would never abuse a child, but it still seems far more important that that is not what I'm relying on to keep from having magic used against me. I'm very very nervous at the idea that my behavior is what's keeping me from having magic used against me. I just don't see any reason to trust that I'd always be one of the "good ones" and I consider it demeaning that my not having magic used against me is a reward for my good behavior. Alla: I completely disagree. I think two are inseparable in this scene, and in fact they should not be separated, because without Dursleys years of abuse Dumbledore would not have come and would not have acted as he did IMO. Magpie: Sure, I know that Dumbledore wouldn't have done it if they hadn't done what they did, but I don't think that automatically means that whatever Dumbledore did was the Dursleys' fault. I think it's important to separate the two, even if one ultimately decides Dumbledore's reaction was completely right. We both seem to have the same reactions about where Dumbledore stands in terms of his own culpability in Harry's situation. This scene was somewhat successful in making you feel differently than you did in OotP. For me it made it worse, maybe because we saw the sitaution framed in a different way. I'd love it if this scene did feel like it answered some problem I had, but I didn't feel that way, unfortunately. Alla: Well, yeah, because we cannot be, but would you have not taken the opportunity [to do magic] if you could? I mean as I said earlier I would not want to live in Potterverse, but it is not like I hate it either, it is just not an escapism world for me, but a reflection of our world as I mentioned in the past. Magpie: Oh yeah, I'd totally take the opportunity to do magic. Why not? Magpie: That's the > thing--I'm not. I don't really know how people can always identify with > wizards. As characters, sure. Alla: Huh? Yes, of course as characters, how else we can identify with them? I don't follow you. I identify with wizards I see as **good characters" or **sympathetic characters" as human beings. Magpie: Sorry, what I meant was that as characters we identify with them as fellow-humans, and we identify with specific characters for specific reasons (I have felt the way Ron feels in this scene, for instance). Or you identify with the good guys, etc. But I was saying I don't know why a person would never identify with a Muggle since within the universe of these books we are all without a doubt Muggles. Tonks has associated Wizards with people who are more spiritually aware, so I assume that means that wizards are a better kind of people (or a different kind, at least), but that's totally not what's in the books, imo. And I don't know, I don't know if I like looking at it that way, like assuming that Wizards are really a metaphor for some special class of human being that presumably I am. Magpie: But it's not like "we" as readers don't have > a place in that world. Why would anyone assume that s/he would be a wizard > if this were all real? We can't do magic, we go to regular schools, we get > stitches and talk on the telephone. Alla: I don't follow you at all. Are you asking what would be the advantages of being wizard if it was all real? Well, see above, possibility to treat the diseases we cannot is first and foremost, longer life span too ( Nooo, I am not talking about immortality, hehe, but if my loved ones and myself could live say hundred and fifty and be healthy enough, I would **love** that) Magpie: No no--I'm not asking what the advantages are to being a witch or a wizard. I'm saying that within the rules of this universe you don't choose what you are one way or another. So in saying "Why do people assume they'd be a wizard if all this was real?" I'm not asking if people would choose it, I'm saying why would you assume you'd be born as one of the elite? Maybe this is again a personality thing, but I naturally assume that if there's a super elite I probably won't be born into it. I'd be ordinary. What's call the Muggle World in canon is the world that I live in. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 17:24:01 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:24:01 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158031 > Magpie: > No no--I'm not asking what the advantages are to being a witch or a > wizard. I'm saying that within the rules of this universe you don't > choose what you are one way or another. So in saying "Why do people > assume they'd be a wizard if all this was real?" I'm not asking if > people would choose it, I'm saying why would you assume you'd be > born as one of the elite? Maybe this is again a personality thing, > but I naturally assume that if there's a super elite I probably > won't be born into it. I'd be ordinary. What's call the Muggle > World in canon is the world that I live in. zgirnius: Right. I think your reaction is actually quite logical. Because, if it is real...well, it is. This has all been happening under our noses, and we, the Muggles, have no clue! From coverton at netscape.com Fri Sep 8 15:15:44 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (coverton at netscape.com) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 08:15:44 -0700 Subject: Why the Dursleys were afraid of Dumbledore? Message-ID: <20060908081544.82444B64@resin04.mta.everyone.net> No: HPFGUIDX 158032 Hi group. The topic was brought up about DD and the Dursleys. I think they were afraid 'cause they have limited understanding of the magical world. And they look on Harry as a burden that they didn't want to deal with. Remember when they tried to "squash the magic out of him"? I think they'd just as soon forget about Harry and live normally. And if Harry does beat Voldemort will they really understand? Your fellow member, Corey From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 18:37:16 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:37:16 -0000 Subject: Things that could have been edited in OotP(was: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158033 > >>Carol: > > > JKR has indicated that we should look at OoP, which she concedes > is a little too long, for clues: > > >>Kemper: > I hate Gwarp and the chapter 'Hagrid's Tale' (I immediately > thought of Chaucer but can't see how it relates to any of his > tales). > I really don't know how to add any more. I think Hagrid's tale > could've been hella edited... but I'm no editor. > Betsy Hp: Lord yes! Hagrid did not need an entire chapter. Unless giants are going to play an integral part in the last book (please, please, no) we really didn't need such an upclose and personal look at their social structure. A paragraph or two would have sufficed, IMO, to explain Gawp's presence. (I mean, if JKR wanted to give us such a glimpse into a magical creature's life, why not werewolves?) > >>Robin: > Hmmm,,, I wonder if the "Weasley is our king", no matter how great, is > really necessary to the plot? Betsy Hp: See, pre-HBP I would have said that Ron's quidditch issues *were* an important part of OotP. This is where Ron finally steps out of his brothers' (and sister's) shadow and realizes his own worth. Except it wasn't. We had to do it all over again in HBP, though this time Harry plays a starring role. Frankly I liked the OotP version better because Ron has to figure it out for himself while Harry is distracted and it allows him to step out of Harry's shadow too. But if JKR was just going to have Ron fall back into old habits in HBP, why bother with the "Weasley is our King" subplot in OotP? And why *does* she rewrite the story? Why not have Hermione and Harry both worried for Ron (because they did miss his grand triumph in OotP) and have Ron surprise them? What on earth was gained except a chance for Ginny to come across as totally bitchy (even the twins had more sympathy for Ron, and that's saying something) and for Ron to seem that much more pathetic and reliant on Harry's goodwill? Anyway, those are plot points I question. Betsy Hp (views expressed about Ginny are fully my own ) From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 18:44:06 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:44:06 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158034 > Pippin: > I think this is one place where the change in Rowling's fortunes worked > against her. It's cheeky to poke fun at the middle class when you are poor > and desperate and the only thing between you and the wolf > at the door is the dole. Doing it when the Dursleys' lifetime income wouldn't > be a drop in your personal bucket is something else. Sydney: You know, I hadn't though of that angle at all! Perhaps there is a bit of, 'what philistines those petit-bourgeois are'. JKR skipped over middle-class-- she went straight from 'broke' to 'insanely rich'. So as a middle-class muggle maybe I feel the authorial voice is taking a few too many swipes at the middle class and muggles in general in the Dursley scenes, independent of how nasty they are specifically. Pippin: > But we can see from the reactions on our own list that Dumbledore can't > chastise Muggles, even Muggles who deserve it, without undermining his > position as the WW's foremost champion of Muggle rights. Sydney: I think he's totally free to chastise the Dursleys. In fact, I wish he'd done it ages ago. But if he uses magic to push them around and humiliate them, then, yeah, it does sort of make him look like a hypocrite. Is Dumbledore a big 'muggle-rights' champion? He's certainly supporting the rights of diverse magically-powered people, but I can't remember where he's specifically supporting non-magic rights. Pippin: >The only methods available to him are the ones he would > prescribe to any other wizard who thought his family was being treated > badly by Muggles, and those methods would doubtless have resulted > in Harry being taken away from the Dursleys and the protection they > could provide. > What power does Dumbledore have? It amazes me that people who are > worried that Harry will sustain more psychological damage than > Dumbledore could straighten out with one of his little talks > do not see that the Dursleys have *already* sustained such damage, and > Dumbledore's little talks would be as effective as shouting instructions > at a hurricane. Vernon, in particular, seems to be holding on to the > crumbling edge of sanity by his fingernails. Sydney: By 'other methods', do you mean calling child services or something? That might be a bad idea (although given the Dursley's middle-class dread of scandal, maybe it would have worked) but on the other hand just dropping by every once in a while to show that someone out there gives a crap about what happens to Harry when he was, say, five, might have slowed down the abuse a little. And by 'show someone cares' I don't mean whack them with a curse, I mean, just call them like a civilized human being, have a G&T , say, 'Look, none of us thinks this situation is optimal, but how can we make it work better for everyone? and by the way you should know this kid DOES have friends out there'. If there's a huge concern about letting Harry know he's magic so he won't grow into a 'pampered prince' (Dumbledore's explanation for why he didn't say anything), then put on a suit and be 'an old friend of your parents come to see how you are'. Every time Wizards appear in the Dursley's lives they seem to wind up using magic to punish them or mess up their lives, and then vanish. He and Petunia were ready to have the Weasleys over when they came to pick up Harry in GoF, and they wrecked their house, were an hour late, and tried to kill their child. Maybe if Wizards could have restrained themselves for long enough to come to the front door and have a strained-but-polite dinner Vernon wouldn't have to hang on to his sanity, he could acclimatize. I'm not saying this would make the Dursleys lovely people. Obviously they're the sort of people it's torture to have to deal with. But in life sometimes-- in fact, all the time-- you have to suck it up and deal with unpleasant people and negotiate. There's a lot of options between 'threaten with magic' and 'do nothing'. We muggles have to figure out stuff like that every day. And if Dumbledore is this genius epitome of goodness, you'd think he'd have a few more 'Dealing With Difficult People' skills up his sleeve. He IS the CEO here-- he put Harry there, this is his project, he wants Harry not to be a pampered prince, he wants to train the kid to kill Voldemort. If these pipsqueak managers are the guys he's stuck with for Phase One, then he's in charge of using whatever management methods he can come up with to make sure sweatshop methods are not being used to complete Phase One. If you can follow my strained analogy... > Phoenixgod: > > I refuse to believe that leaving Harry with the Dursleys was the > best of all possible worlds for a wizard of Dumbledore's power, > skill, and age. It might have been the best for the Cinderfella > story JKR wants to say, but I don't buy it in a world of magic on > the level we've seen in the story. > > Pippin: > Then you refuse to believe canon. Sydney: Heh. See, above I got lured into the logic of the whole situation, which I think is a fatal mistake in HP... it's like trying to make the Pensive magic have something to do with how memory really works. I'm with Phoenixgod-- the whole thing is a setup for a magical lost orphan story and if you have to amp up your suspension of disbelief, you just have to do it. So actually, ignore everything I said above! I really just mark time reading the Dursleys' scenes, because I just can't bring myself to care about these cartoon people and their cartoon situation, except to get irritated by what I think winds up being the 'message' of the scenes, which is that with great power comes the ability to push around your annoying inferiors. I mean it does of course, but I just don't find it interesting. Perhaps I don't have enough Real Life simmering resentment of being powerless? I'm fortunate not to have had a lot of bad 'being powerless under mean people' stuff in my life, so the Dursleys (and Snape!) don't push my buttons. On the other hand, micro-managing beaurocrats and stab-you-in-the-back smiling posers are my bete-noirs, so I got a big kick out of both Lockhart's and Umbrige's exits. > > Tonks: > > > > > I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't want to > > > see that there is a world outside of the world of matter as > > > experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as similar to the world > > > of the mystic or the spiritual world. > > Sydney: > > > > See, I think to a large extent this is how Rowling sees it, and it's > > fine on a symbolic level. > > Pippin: > I don't think she does, because we have beings like Binns, who is > absurdly in denial about any sort of unseen reality. Wizards are > capable of experiencing as concrete things which we can only imagine, > but it doesn't actually make them more spiritually aware. > JKR has explained I think that magic is a metaphor for the > talents that some people have. Sydney: Didn't she say magic was 'imagination' somewhere? I can't remember. -- Sydney From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 18:46:30 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:46:30 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158035 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > Ken: > > This core soul anchored to the Earth by a horcrux idea > is the way I have long held horcruxes to work. And then > one day it struck me that it was totally wrong, Slughorn > clearly says that part of the soul goes beyond when a > horcrux owner is attacked. Presumably it is the part > inside the wizard (what many of you call the core soul) > not the part inside the horcrux that goes on since the > horcrux itself was not attacked. bboyminn: Could you provide a quote in which Slughorn says that? Because, while there is a certain ambiguity, I don't read that in Slughorn's statement at all. Slughorn- "Well, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. But of course, existence in such a form ..." You could interpret Slughorn as saying "for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged" as saying that the part remains but the core is gone. I don't read it that way though. What I read in that fragment is that the 'Core' is anchored by the 'part'. In either case, Slughorn doesn't specifically say any part crosses over. > > > Carol: > > > > But the Core soul can't become a free soul piece as > > long as a single Horcrux anchors it to earth. Of that > > much I'm certain. It's the whole point of creating a > > Horcrux in the first place ... > > Ken: > > I disagree, or at least I am *not* sure. By Slughorn's > account the horcrux owner is kept "alive" if *any* part > of the soul remains Earthbound. Slughorn's account is > what makes it seem like there must be a *third* component > of a human being and I have called that the spirit since > a fair amount of human thinking has historically > described us as consisting of body, soul, and spirit. bboyminn: I think the Spirit of which you speak is part of the Core soul which I also, less frequently, refer to as the Self- Soul. I would speculate that the 'Spirit' of which you speak is the abstract sense of Self. As I've said before, what separates a Soul-Bit from the Core-Soul is that the Core-Soul additionally contains the sense of earthly identity; the memories, the self-awareness, etc..., all the things that Voldemort is trying to preserve by circumventing death. I speculate that the Core-Soul and Spiritual-Self are always companions, and that the remote Soul-Bits are pure aspects of the unearthly spiritual realm. If you can find a quote where Slughorn clearly say that the human-embodied Core-Soul crosses over when the Horcrux protected human body is destroyed, I'd like to see it. I personally feel he is saying just the opposite, that the Core-Soul in combination with the Spiritual-Self (which encompasses the earthly identity) are held to the earth by the existance of remote inanimately embodied Soul-Bits. That is was the Core-Soul and what we are now calling the Spiritual-Self are what lived on in Albania, and what now live on in Voldemort's new body. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 18:54:27 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:54:27 -0000 Subject: What is a Wizard ( was DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <009b01c6d2f1$d61353e0$c78c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158036 > Magpie: It's not even that I don't *want* to be a witch, but that I'm not, and I wouldn't grovel about it. That's the thing--I'm not. I don't really know how people can always identify with wizards. As characters, sure. But it's not like "we" as readers don't have a place in that world. Why would anyone assume that s/he would be a wizard if this were all real? We can't do magic, we go to regular schools, we get stitches and talk on the telephone. Tonks: IMO a wizard's power is his ability to use the human mind to it's fullest capacity. Some people are born with the gift of intuition and with what Muggles call "psychic gifts" or what religious folks would call the gifts of the spirit in one form or another. One of these is the ability to "see" into the world outside of space and time, or the mystical world. Shaman can go there too. All of these folks are IMO, wizards. So it doesn't follow that *we* can not really ever be wizards. If you thing, as most Muggles do, that the WW is make-believe, then you are right. But if you know that there is another plain of existence, then you may be entertaining wizards unaware. In order to do the "magic" in the HP books one has to use the power of the mind. Now I am not saying that "real" wizards do the same type of magic as in the books. But you would be surprised just what a real wizard can do. Now before you all start thinking that I am a delusional nut case, let me remind you of some of the PBS specials by Bill Moyer on the power of the mind. Also read about the shaman. And the U.S. military has done research that would shock you as to what they think one can do with the human mind. I can find anything that I have lost just by asking my subconscious mind to find it. And it works. So you too might be a wizard. ;-) Tonks_op From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 19:01:09 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:01:09 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158037 > Tonks: > If a person with an IQ of 135 takes on a person with an IQ of 100 or > 110 and uses their "wit" as you say, isn't that using a "power" that > the second person doesn't have? Isn't that taking advantage of the > lack of ability on the part of second person? So how is that any > different that one having magic and the other not? a_svirn: Well, yes, using your extraordinary brainpower against someone, let's say, *ordinary* means taking advantage of a certain power imbalance. And you know what? It's not a pretty sight. It's a kind of snooty behaviour that earned Snape, for instance, his *slimy git* reputation. But thing is, hard words break no bones. A curse might, though, all that and more. There's the difference. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 19:10:30 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:10:30 -0000 Subject: DD and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158038 --- "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > > BAW: > > Dumbledore's making frequent and regular visits to a > > Muggle household would have attracted Death Eater > > attention to that house. They would have discovered > > who the boy the Dursleys were taking care of was and > > ---well, you can guess the rest. The Ancient Magic > > protects Harry from Voldemort, but not from his > > minions. > > ... > > > > Hickengruendler: > > Then why didn't the Death Eaters attack Privet Drive as > soon as Voldemort returned? Judging by his graveyard > speech, Voldemort knew very well, where Harry lived. If > the protection only saves him from Big. He could have > sent his minions to kill the Dursleys and capture > Harry, but he didn't. The protection has to work against > Voldie's minions as well, otherwise it wouldn't make any > sense. > bboyminn: I agree that the protection is against BOTH Voldemort and his Death Eaters. When Dumbledore is describing the 'protection', he speak primarily of Voldemort's remaining supporters, who he says are as terrible and ruthless as Voldemort himself. He seems to make it clear that his short term goal is to protect Harry from the revenge of Voldemort remaining supporters, but goes on to say that he /does/ think that Voldemort will return. So, the long term goal is to protect Harry from Voldemort. So- Short Term Goal - keep Harry safe from vengeful DE's. Long Term Goal - keep Harry safe from a returned Voldemort. I think the first few years of Harry's life, he was not likely to stray very far from the Dursley's house where his protection seems the strongest. Later, he may accompany them on a shopping trip or something, but given the way they treated him, that would be rare. ALso, while accompanied by the Dursleys, he would be in the presence of his mother's blood, and that much count as some protection. The first potential danger comes when Harry finally goes to muggle school and he has to be away from the protection of the Dursley's house. By then the DE's and the danger would have cooled and the risk would be lower. Plus still being very young, Harry wouldn't be very independant. It would be off to school and straight back to his protected home again. I still claim that Dumbledore made the best choice under the circumstances. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 20:03:17 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:03:17 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > > Steven1965aaa: > > > > I don't see "teasing". Contrast the Dursleys' > > behavior with Snape at Spinner's end who invites Bella > > and Narci in... The Dursleys did none of that so DD > > did it for them. ... Its true that the glasses wound > > up hitting them in the head but as DD said it would > > have been better manners to drink it. I don't see > > offering someone a drink as "teasing" .... > > Hickengruendler: > > Not that I want to excuse the Dursleys, and I already > said, that I don't have any problems with this scene. > But ... Dumbledore probably was a total starnger to > them, at the very least to Vernon. ... I want to see > you, if you would invite a stranger in, who rings at > your door in the middle of the night. > > bboyminn: OH MY GOD! Dumbledore annoyed the Dusleys, he should be shot! While people are free to react to the scene as they please, and those reactions can not be discounted, let us at least make an effort to keep the scene in perspective. Dumbledore offerred the Dursleys a drink. OH MY GOD! He should be shot! (sarcasm, in case you didn't get it) In many parts of the world the refusal to offer hospitality or the refusal to accept hospitality is a grave insult. Even if the offer is half-hearted and the acceptance is equally half-hearted, you do it as a matter of social courtesy. Keep in mind that Dumbledore didn't beat the Dursleys to a bloody pulp. The wine glasses simply annoyed them, and the solution was very simple; graciously accept the glasses but refuse the drink. Dumbledore was not trying to force the Dusley to /drink/ the wine/mead, all they had to do was take the glass from the air and set it on the table, and the whole incident would have been over with. One could speculate that they were confused and didn't know what to do with magical glasses, but they had Harry and Dumbledore's actions as a model, so I have trouble accepting a plea of ignorance. So, let us not lose our sense of perspective here, at worst the Dursley were annoyed for a few minutes, not tortured for hours. To the next aspect, yes, Harry forgot to warn the Dursleys that Dumbledore was coming, but once Dumbledore arrived it became very clear very quickly who he was and why he was there, and a basic minimal level of social courtesy would have been required; and I mean /minimal/ level of courtesy. The Dusleys could have observed basic courtesy while at the same time /not/ being the least bit friendly. They could have been very business-like and abrupt in their dealings with Dumbledore, and still stay in the realm of courtesy. In my mind, the whole scene re-enforces my view of the Dursleys as total failures as human beings. They talk of propriety and social status all the while betraying their total lack of both. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 20:53:59 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:53:59 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158040 > bboyminn: > > OH MY GOD! Dumbledore annoyed the Dusleys, he should be > shot! Alla: I was about to just nod in agreement with your post and keep reading but then stopped myself short. :) > Dumbledore offerred the Dursleys a drink. OH MY GOD! He > should be shot! (sarcasm, in case you didn't get it) Alla: Heeee, well yes, me too so far, but keep reading for stopping short part. In > many parts of the world the refusal to offer hospitality > or the refusal to accept hospitality is a grave insult. > Even if the offer is half-hearted and the acceptance is > equally half-hearted, you do it as a matter of social > courtesy. Alla: I am sorry, but what? I may be ignorant of many social customs and then ready to eat my words, but in what part of the word you are obliged to offer hospitality to **uninvited** if not stranger, although it does seem that Dursleys and Dumbledore never met in person, but definitely the person you are not feeling friendly about at all. I find this to be extremely strange defense of this scene. Let's be clear though, don't want to be misinterpreted. I have **no** problems with this scene, I enjoyed it tremendously, because as I stated it sort of saved Dumbledore for me and the more humiliation Dursleys suffer, I am all for it. But I completely disagree that Dursleys owed Dumbledore **any** hospitality whatsoever. You will get no argument from me that Petunia owed Harry a lot, I was brought up that family, especially close family takes care of each other and helps each other at the time of need and **no one** can convince me that Petunia had a right to treat the child of her dead sister as she did. Yes, she owed to Harry in my book and she is in my book a disgrace of the human being for not fulfilling her obligations as I see it, but as you said **Oh My God**, I see no hospitality obligations to Dumbledore here whatsoever. And this is from someone who was also brought up to have her house open to the friends any time basically and would never refuse the hospitality to the friend, who drops by (still have hard time to get used to american customs of always announce the visit even to the friends) But Dumbledore is **not** Dursleys friend as far as we know, so let me ask you again, what hospitality are you talking about? Bboyminn: >> So, let us not lose our sense of perspective here, at worst > the Dursley were annoyed for a few minutes, not tortured > for hours. Alla: Yes, me too. JMO, Alla From ornawn at 013.net Fri Sep 8 21:04:33 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:04:33 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158041 >Magpie: >I don't understand what you need here. Bellatrix just described >this as a duty, something required of him, not something he >demanded. Draco's never made a secret of his desire to join the >DEs. His family is already completely bound up in the >organization. Seems to me he's right there for Voldemort to tap. Orna: You may be right. But if you ask what I need ? I need a clear act to mark the transition from talking how much you like to be DE to committing yourself. The transition includes presumably getting the mark branded on your arm. But I would think it should include some act of your choice, of initiation as well. Only after this, anybody can speak of what your duty is. You don't have any duty to an organization you haven't joined. The way you tell it, here is Voldemort, knows Draco supports DE (and wants to take a revenge on Lucius), and sends a note to Draco ? I have a job for you? Could be, since as you say Draco and his whole family are completely there already. I don't think there is anything in canon contradicting the possibility that Draco did some more definite step, and the more this thread goes on, I find myself wanting JKR to give us the picture of it. (Again ? personal taste). . Actually we don't really know how any of the DEs really joined the Des, so either it will stay like this, or it will be revealed a bit more in book 7 >Magpie: >Easy. He doesn't. And I think Dumbledore is stressing that in the >last scene. His moment of choice comes at the end, at the place the >book spends all those pages getting to. That's the big moment of >the whole story, imo, where the possibility of choice becomes a >reality to him. Before that it's been all bad faith. Orna: That's a possible reading ? which I can accept ? since it leaves the burden of his moral choices, only where they actually take place. I haven't got any problem with this. >Magpie: >Before that it's been all bad faith. Orna: I would hardly call two murder attempts just "bad faith", even if they were indirect and sloppy from the POV of the target they were meant for. He was lucky nobody was hurt ? so his way towards making again perhaps another choice when DD talks with him - stayed open. Magpie His story may echo Regulus' and Snape's in some ways, >but he's not a carbon copy of either of them. One of the >differences JKR is capitalizing on is the generational one. Orna: I liked your thoughts about the generation-issue, the freedom of the young generation to choose the path, and mistakes the older generation seems to do there. It came to me, that in CoS Lucius restrained Draco from getting more involved. He might have done it of course just because it would direct attention to him. But there might be also some issue of some of the old generation being a bit protective or ambivalent of the younger one ? since they did go the whole DE-way, even though they are committed and loyal ? they know somewhere what it really means, what tortures are entangled with it. And perhaps Lucius didn't totally want his only son really-really to be there. He wouldn't say anything like this (perhaps not even to himself), but he might in various ways not really and wholly indoctrinated Draco towards it, even if explicitly never said anything like that. Narcissa certainly finds herself totally out of those boundaries ? when she goes to Snape (defying Voldemort's secrecy-order), when she dares nearly say that even Voldemort hasn't been able to "do it". And of course ? she doesn't care about anything anymore ? as long as Draco stays alive ? quite a sane and human choice, but basically putting her personal priorities above Voldemort's. This are all signs of critical thoughts, which might signify that some of the Des (not Bellatrix) have "second thoughts" on their path ?on different levels of consciousness, activity etc. I think that Draco joining the Des when Lucius isn't there anymore shows not only his identification with him, but perhaps also some rebel towards him, even if it doesn't look at first like it. Orna From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 8 21:40:02 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:40:02 -0000 Subject: What is a Wizard / Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158042 > Tonks: > IMO a wizard's power is his ability to use the human mind to it's > fullest capacity. Some people are born with the gift of intuition > and with what Muggles call "psychic gifts" or what religious folks > would call the gifts of the spirit in one form or another. One of > these is the ability to "see" into the world outside of space and > time, or the mystical world. Shaman can go there too. All of these > folks are IMO, wizards. So it doesn't follow that *we* can not > really ever be wizards. If you thing, as most Muggles do, that the > WW is make-believe, then you are right. But if you know that there > is another plain of existence, then you may be entertaining wizards > unaware. > > In order to do the "magic" in the HP books one has to use the power > of the mind. Now I am not saying that "real" wizards do the same > type of magic as in the books. But you would be surprised just what > a real wizard can do. Now before you all start thinking that I am a > delusional nut case, let me remind you of some of the PBS specials > by Bill Moyer on the power of the mind. Also read about the > shaman. And the U.S. military has done research that would shock > you as to what they think one can do with the human mind. I can > find anything that I have lost just by asking my subconscious mind > to find it. And it works. So you too might be a wizard. ;-) Magpie: I'm not sure how to respond to this. You seem to be giving me your view on psychic potential in the real world and it's fine but I don't see how it applies to this fictional world. Yes, I do think that the Wizarding World is make-believe, because it is. The Wizarding World is not "other planes of existance" or the imagination or the Otherworld that a Shaman travels to. It's Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley in the world Harry Potter the fictional character lives in. And in that world our own world, or a version of it, is the Muggle world, where we Muggles live. As none of us got any letter to study magic at a magic school, we are Muggles. Yes there can be more to the real world than the mundane and maybe we can't go to Hogwarts but there are fascinating things to be found and discovered in our own world. But that doesn't make me one of Rowling's wizards, and they are the subject of this thread. It's becoming the kind of witch that goes to Hogwarts which is closed to me by Rowling's own definition. I don't have those super powers and I'm not one of her fictional characters. Orna: You may be right. But if you ask what I need ? I need a clear act to mark the transition from talking how much you like to be DE to committing yourself. The transition includes presumably getting the mark branded on your arm. But I would think it should include some act of your choice, of initiation as well. Only after this, anybody can speak of what your duty is. Magpie: I guess I saw the whole story as an initiation of sorts. He's able to eagerly agree to what Voldmort wants him to do and he's able to express his desire to be a DE, but he only knows the reality of what he's agreeing to after he's tried it. The important thing, to me, is that the task is given to him and he's eager to prove himself through it. Orna: I would hardly call two murder attempts just "bad faith", even if they were indirect and sloppy from the POV of the target they were meant for. He was lucky nobody was hurt ? so his way towards making again perhaps another choice when DD talks with him - stayed open. Magpie: "Bad faith" refers to a false notion of self, one at odds with one's true nature but that one willingly accepts as a fact despite evidence to the contrary. He is acting as a DE, or trying to, as this is the role he is supposed to have. This doesn't make the near- deaths any less near-deaths, I agree. He's still responsible for what he's done, and what he's done is serious. But it's only at the end when he sees the possibility of a choice and might act as an individual, that he might break out of that bad faith. At the end Dumbledore is offering him a chance to make a choice that's more in tune with the person he really is instead of what he thinks he's supposed to be or what he wanted to be. Orna: I liked your thoughts about the generation-issue, the freedom of the young generation to choose the path, and mistakes the older generation seems to do there. It came to me, that in CoS Lucius restrained Draco from getting more involved. He might have done it of course just because it would direct attention to him. But there might be also some issue of some of the old generation being a bit protective or ambivalent of the younger one ? since they did go the whole DE-way, even though they are committed and loyal ? they know somewhere what it really means, what tortures are entangled with it. Magpie: I definitely thought this. Though like a lot of his generation Lucius doesn't really want to change. So maybe he wouldn't want his kid to make the same decision he made for practical reasons, but he's still brought him up with the same values. The only way you can really get out of Voldemort's clutches is to reject the whole package. Lucius keeps trying to be slippery and have it both ways. I don't think in Rowling's world you can stay on the sidelines being racist but choosing not to get involved, you know? That's a reason I thought Dumbledore's line to Draco about not using the word Mudblood seemed important, because it was somebody saying to him that the word did matter, and it mattered to Dumbledore even when he was about to die and this is the guy who offered him mercy. Draco hasn't rejected the values he was brought up with yet as far as we know, of course, but I think he would need to do that to truly make a different choice. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 21:47:17 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:47:17 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158043 > >>Betsy Hp: > > It's the use of magic that tilts it for me. > > > > That it's done so easily suggests that abusing that power is an > > easy thing for wizards to slip into. And I don't like it. > > Which colors how I take that scene. > > > >>Alla: > I think I understand sort of, but let me ask couple more questions > just to make sure I do... > > Is the main source of your empathy with Dursleys the idea that > wizards can do it to your as muggle? Basically that you can be in > the same situation as they are? > Betsy Hp: Yes, that's exactly it. Because I relate so much to being an easily abused Muggle I do (as icky as it is) empathize with the Dursleys in this scene (and others, actually). Not that I'd treat a child as they did (though let's remember that Dudley is being treated exactly as his parents are), but that I'd be as powerless as they are in this scene. That if I'd upset a wizard in any way I'd just have to take whatever "justice" he felt he should mete out. Or drink the mead he'd forced on me. > >>Sydney: > > The Dursleys are just plastic; I wasn't surprised when JKR > said Vernon was the character she most disliked in the series. She > never bothers to get into his head at all-- I mean, it's not like > it's ridiculous for a muggle to be afraid of someone who can do > magic. > I'd have an undercurrent of fear myself every time I dealt with a > wizard, I think. But, I don't know, I just don't feel JKR really > engages with the fear as anything other than a joke, and that > really holds the scenes back, I think. > Betsy Hp: Oddly enough I don't have too hard of a time imagining a three dimensional life onto the Dursleys. Though I agree that I think I do that *in spite* of JKR, rather than because of her. For me it all came down to Aunt Marge. There was a bit of solidarity there for a moment, when Aunt Marge came to visit. No one was thrilled to see her coming, and yet they had no choice and had to suck it up as best they could. I think that's when I began to see the Dursleys as more than cartoon baddies. (I read a theory that Aunt Marge raised Vernon, and he is what she created. Nothing canon for it, of course, but it's that sort of speculation I enjoy.) > >>bboyminn: > OH MY GOD! Dumbledore annoyed the Dusleys, he should be > shot! > Betsy Hp: Goodness, Steve, no one's suggesting shooting Dumbledore. I'm merely expressing a bit of disappointment that he released his anger (as understandable as that anger was) in such a petty and childish fashion. I mean, let's keep things in perspective. > >>Tonks: > > I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't want to > see that there is a world outside of the world of matter as > experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as similar to the world > of the mystic or the spiritual world. It is just that the Muggles > don't want to know about the world of the wizards. But the wizards > know about both worlds. Some even live in Muggle areas and appear > to be Muggles to the Muggles around them. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, see I have it as exactly opposite. The wizards are the insular xenophobes, with little that is beautiful and soul enriching surrounding them. They know nothing of art or music or literature. Their schools concentrate soley on that which is practical and pragmatic, thriving on and encouraging cut-throat competition with little love or mercy for their fellow man. They are the elites, surrounded by what they perceive to be rabble who'd swamp them with desperate cries for help if they revealed their sanctified existence. Not recognizing that *they*, the wizards, are the ones who are so hopelessly backwards. The Weasleys, the Malfoys, the Diggorys, the Smiths know nothing of Shakespeare or Chaucer or Lawrence or Potter (Beatrice, that is ) or Blake or Austen or Michelangelo or Galileo or Einstein. Nor do they seem to have any equivalent. As per JKR there is no fiction in the Wizarding World. (She'd be stuck writing "how to" books, IIRC.) There are no art courses of any kind offered at Hogwarts that we've seen. Their sense of humor seems to come straight from "Punch and Judy"; their sense of government from a similarly archaic time (no poli-sci major me, sorry , though I'm betting the Minister of Magic was condescending to Winston Churchill back in the day, and in no way should have been). In short, the Wizarding World is brutal and dark and I wouldn't want to be there for any length of time. At least, that's how I see it. Betsy Hp (agreeing with Sydney about the Jedi-blood crap and will keep my kids away from the prequels like it's the worst sort of nasty, raunchy porn) From ornawn at 013.net Fri Sep 8 22:09:23 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:09:23 -0000 Subject: Things that could have been edited in OotP(was: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158044 >Betsy Hp: >Lord yes! Hagrid did not need an entire chapter. Unless giants are >going to play an integral part in the last book (please, please, >no) we >really didn't need such an upclose and personal look at their social >structure. A paragraph or two would have sufficed, IMO, to explain >Gawp's presence. Orna: I do think their social structure and easy ways of sliding towards irrational killing and war, was perhaps JKR to telling us something about what she thinks about human-nation wars. And there was a sentence worth remembering not only for giants "giants like Karkus ? overload `em with information an' they'll kill yeh jus' to simplify things." BUT here come the really good news: The whole tale seems to be a not very entertaining way of telling us we don't have to hear (and fear) anymore about giants, since they have a nature of killing themselves all the time. So by the time book 7 gets published, we can be quite sure that none of the giants are left ? except ? Mme Maxime, Hagrid and Grawp ? and with them we can live happily ever after . Orna, who joins the please-no-more-giants petition. From mros at xs4all.nl Fri Sep 8 22:24:10 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 00:24:10 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. References: Message-ID: <000b01c6d395$82048540$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 158045 Steve: >>>Keep in mind that Dumbledore didn't beat the Dursleys to a bloody pulp. The wine glasses simply annoyed them, and the solution was very simple; graciously accept the glasses but refuse the drink. Dumbledore was not trying to force the Dusley to /drink/ the wine/mead, all they had to do was take the glass from the air and set it on the table, and the whole incident would have been over with. <<< Marion: The Dursleys are absolutely terrified of magic. They're so phobic about it that they even consider their nephew to be so dangerous and disgustingly, subhumanly terrifying that they tried to ignore him and shut him away in a closet whenever possible. It's like you give a devoutly religious couple the baby of the woman's estranged sister (she joined a satanic cult) and it has, in their eyes, horns on its head and cloven hoofs for feet. But they *have* to accept it, because otherwise the satanists come and sacrifice them and their own son to the devil. Something like that. I mean, they're not just irritated by magic, they're really and truly afraid of it. Doesn't anybody ever consider the possibility that the Dursley's are so keen on being 'normal' and 'middleclass ordinary' *because* they feel tainted by Lily's and Harry's magic? Petunia's insistence on being the perfect housewife, keeping her little middleclass semi-terrace sparkling clean, it always sounded so *desperate* to me. As if she tries to keep control in a chaotic, frightening situation by keeping her house immaculate (just this side to an obsessive compulsive disorder - note that compulsive obsessives perform rituals of compulsive cleaning to rid themselves of contaminants: Petunia's house is 'infected' by magic) and Vernon tries to bluff and blunder his way out of his fear and failing miserably. This family is suffering, I tell you. And it's not a situation of their own making. It was forced upon them. And Dumbledore *knows* they are terrified out of their skin by magic. And so he barges in, even when they insist they want him out (but since when do Wizards listen to the silly bleating of Muggles anyway?) and he freaks them out with his parlour tricks, rubbing their noses in the fact that he is Magic and he is In Their House and they Can't Do A Thing About It. It's all about showing dominance. Really, if Dumbledore was a dog, he would've peed in all the corners, showing the Dursleys he Owns Them. They have to sit there, in their own home, unable to chuck out their unwanted visitor, knowing that they might yet again have a wizard hexing their son on their hands and there it *nothing* they can do about it? (pig's tail? choking on enlarged tongue? Hey, if you want to subdue the recalcitrant Muggles who won't sit up and give paw when the big mighty wizard tells them to, just threaten or deform their offspring, that'll larn them uppity Muggles) Yes, I feel sorry for the Dursleys. Oh, they're not nice people. They're narrowminded and dull compared to the so-called wonderful world of magic (though personally, I wouldn't want to be a part of that world, more about that later) but how much of that narrowminded dullness is induced by heavy denial to the fact that they are forced to raise a magical baby? Why are the Dursleys so afraid of magic anyway? Fandom tells us that Nasty Petunia had a Saintly sister who was just plain *better* than her. Cleverer. More beautyful. Magic. And that Petunia, like the Evil Stepsister in a hundred fairytales, was just plain *jealous* of her more talented sister. Could be, of course. But Petunia herself tells us about 'turning teacups into rats' as an example of magic her sister alledgedly performed. But this could not have happed before Lily's seventeenth year, since it is forbidden for underage students to perform magic outside the school. But by the time Lily was seventeen, she had also hooked up with James. Around this time, Petunia met and fell in love with Vernon, on can assume (Dudley was born in the same year as Harry, so Petunia can't be very much younger or older than Lily. A few years perhaps) James was a notorious prankster and he had three friends who were also notorious pranksters. I'll lay money on James and Sirius tagteaming in hexing Petunia and Vernon for fun and games. Hey, it was just *fun* you know. And they were *Muggles*. Oh yes, Lily probably 'defended' her sister just as she 'defended' Severus Snape, i.e. not at all (that Pensieve scene was so much about James going 'hey, notice me, the Bad Boy' and Lily going 'Ooooh.. you're just so *giggle* nasty!' it's no wonder it infuriated Snape. To be hated and persecuted is one thing. To be used as a prop in a courting ritual is quite another) So, I'm guessing Petunia and Vernon have reason to fear magic. I'm giving kudos to Vernon by the way for sticking with Petunia. He could've left her. He could loudly blame her for having bad blood or whatever. Yet they're still a couple. There is genuine love between them and their son, although the whole situation has warped their family into a twisted, hollow thing. You know, what bothers me the most about that scene of DD and the Dursleys is how the magical world in general and DD in particular have *used* the Dursleys, without a single concern about what it did to *them*. Yes, it needs to be said. I've heard several people going on about how DD is to blame that Harry was treated rotten by the Dursleys because he put him there, but I've heard nobody complain about how DD is to blame that this muggle family is a nervous wreckage. They're in denial, they're trying obsessively to be as 'normal' as they can be, but they're ripe for therapy allright. Except they can't get therapy, because if they ever tried to explain to a therapist or a doctor that they have a nephew who's a wizard, they'd be carted of to the loony bin. They're totally on their own. There's no support group. There's no Muggle Families of Magicals Anomynous to go to. They've been forced to take in this child which they feared and wanted to have as little to do with as possible, they've had no help at all when a young Harry started to 'spark' and do little magical things. For nearly their whole adult lives they've lived in fear for this parasite in their midst. Because that's what this whole situation feels like, to me. There's this insect, a wasp I think, that lays it's eggs in living caterpillars. The larva develops inside the caterpillar and slowly starts eating it, from the inside out. By the time the new wasp hatches the poor caterpillar is finally allowed to die, it's body hardly more than a husk. Dumbledore *used* the Dursleys. He forced them to take Harry ("Remember my last, Petunia!"), gave them *no* support or help whatsoever. Didn't even tried to reason with them like one does with another human being, an equal. He needed Harry's bloodkin for his effing protection spell, and isn't that dandy! There was Petunia! And what Petunia wanted, desired or feared to do with her life was so much yesterday's litterbox linings. And lo, Harry is still not seventeen and ready to burst from caterpillar/hostfamily the Dursleys, but the caterpillar-family has dared to object. Well, can't have that. Let's show them that we can burst into their home, against their wishes. Let's show them who's *boss*. This seems to be the prevailing ethic of the WW: Might is Right. Yes, I feel very sorry for the Dursleys. They never asked for Harry to be delivered on their doorstep. They were never asked to foster a magical child. They were forced into it, and when they do not perform good enough as hosts, they are browbeaten into submission. Every interaction between wizards and the Dursleys leaves me with a dirty taste in my mouth. Marion, who wanted to write more about the WW's ethics but decides she wrote enough for one mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 8 22:12:37 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Brett) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:12:37 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158046 > Abergoat wrote: > Snape is the odds-on favorite. Argus Pyrites adds: I know that many people have taken that particular quote and run long with it. I haven't been convinced - yet, I'm still pondering this one. While I am of the 'Snape is good, he is a mole' school of thought; this particular quote, for me, need not tie in to that plotline. It very easily 'could' be one of Mrs. Rowlings sleight of hands, meaning to cover up that "awful boy" was Snape -- or it could be that it was meant to be taken at face value, and James was meant, and we are all just jumping at shadows. (Remember mark Evans?) > Abergoat said: > Which brings us back to the Dog Lady at St. Mungo's.... Argus Pyrites adds: See, now that is exactly why I've come to the HP4GU group. Fresh Ideas! New angles! Now, let me tell you why I think the turquoise Ford Anglia is a horcrux.... An unresolved plot point for me from OotP, perhaps a clue(?), has to do with Snape and the Occlumency lessons. IF Snape is Good, and Dumbledore has sacrificed all to be able to place him in a position to help Harry, then why wouldn't Snape try harder to help Harry learn this skill? In the book, as it occured, it made sense, but when one looks back on it, in particular remembering Snapes cries of "Blocked, again & Again, etc." from HBP; I've never understood why Snape didn't make it a top priority to force Harry to learn this skill that he seems to need so desperately. Why would Snape, who is perhaps committed to helping Harry at a Life or Death level; not find a way to break through the BS and get Harry to sit down shut up, and learn. Since I am of the "Snape is good, and going to be rather important to the plot of the book-that-is-yet-to-be-named" camp; this failure to help Harry with this has always bothered me. My thoughts have always been - it happened because Mrs. Rowling was focused on the short term goals of the current book at that point, at the expense of logical consistency in the overall plot (an understandable and forgiveable offense, in my opinion. But, does anyone else have any better thoughts or actual theories on this? [or is there an old thread to point me too? =)] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 8 22:31:36 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Brett) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:31:36 -0000 Subject: Things that could have been edited in OotP(was: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" wrote: > >Betsy Hp wrote : > >Lord yes! Hagrid did not need an entire chapter. > and Orna wrote : > Orna, who joins the please-no-more-giants petition. Argus Pyrites replies: Hmm. New to this group, and finding myself writing nothing but Minority Reports -- I must admit I liked the Hagrid chapter quite a bit. I enjoyed learning the new information about the magical workings 'hidden' in our world, and I enjoyed Hagrid getting a little 'screen' time. I would have prefered to see/hear it told by Mrs. Rowling in present tense, rather than by Hagrid, in the past tense, as that would have made it more exciting... but I liked it. Also, given that Mrs. Rowling stated that she (I paraphrase) 'could not find anything to cut from OotP, as it was all neccessary'; then I'm afraid giants will be back, in my opinion. Of course I believe that they will come in on the side of good this time. IF this does happen, I would hope that most of that 'giant story' occurred 'offscreen' in book seven, but I expect Hagger and Grawpy will be front and center regardless. Now, what I personally had too much of in OotP was Umbridge. Don't get me wrong I loved the impact she had on the story and on Hogwarts, but the character herself was boring and one-dimensional to me. I would have cut her dialouge down by half... I was sad that she was mentioned in HBP as being back at the Ministry, as I'd imagined her showing up at the end of The-Book-that-is-Yet-to-be- Named, smiling, arm in arm with Ronan... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 00:02:25 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:02:25 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > ... > > > In many parts of the world the refusal to offer > > hospitality or the refusal to accept hospitality is > > a grave insult. Even if the offer is half-hearted > > and the acceptance is equally half-hearted, you do > > it as a matter of social courtesy. > > Alla: > > I am sorry, but what? I may be ignorant of many social > customs and then ready to eat my words, but in what > part of the word you are obliged to offer hospitality > to **uninvited** if not stranger, ... > bboyminn: Well, Nigeria for one. When I was in college I work with a Nigerian. He was one of the most polite, intelligent, and civil people I have ever met. One time he invited my to meet him in his dorm room for whatever purpose. (nothing nefarious or even remotely slashy.) As I recall the excuse for my visit was very minor and would likely be very short. When I arrived they (he and his Nigerian friend) were frying up chicken wings which they quickly offerred me. Have eaten somewhat recently, and assuming I had interupted their dinner, I politely refused. They insisted. So was we ate chicken wings, they explained. In Nigeria, if you do not offer an invited guest some form of hospitality, and further if the person does not accept that hospitality, it is a grave insult. Even the poorest of the poor will observe this tradition. And I speculate that it is a common tradition in Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and probably in parts of Asia. Now, if you read what I said carefully, you will see that it is Dumbledore's hospitality that I am referring to. The Dursley should have made at least a token acceptance of Dumbledore's hospitility. Like I said, all they had to do was take the glass, they didn't have to drink the drink. Though, it is clear the Dumbledore initially expects the Dursley to observe the minimum tradition of hospitality and courtesy, and when they do not, he take matters (of hospitality) into his own hands. I find your assertion that Dumbledore is an uninvited stranger at their door in the middle of the night to be wrong. That /is/ who Dumbledore is for about 5 or 10 seconds, then it becomes clear who he is and why he is there, and that he indeed does have legitimate business there. At that point, I feel the Dursley's were socially obligated to offer Dumbledore AT LEAST the minimum of terse business-like get-to-the-point-and-be-gone courtesy. And, that seems to be all Dumbledore expected, yet, even that raw minimal basic level of courtesy was not extended. So, to be clear, I am saying that once who Dumbledore was was established, the Dursley's owed Dumbledore a very minimal level of polite courtesy. Part of that courtesy would have been to accept Dumbledore's offer of a drink even if they had no intension of actually drinking it. So, Dumbledore was not a stranger, and Dumbledore was not uninvited. Once that was established, there should have been a minimal level of courtesy. Though keep in mind, and given the Dursleys, I don't expect that /minimal/ level of courtesy to be much. More than it was, but not much. Further, I do not buy the argument of others that the Dursleys are so horribly frightened of Magic. Certainly, they are /worried/ about it, and dread anyone finding out they are associated with it, but I don't see it bordering on paranoid delusions. Again, both Dumbledore and Harry quietly pluck their glasses of wine from the air without trama or incident. The Dursleys could have easily done the same. While I admit the Dursley were generally annoyed and somewhat apprehensive, I deny any assertion that they were even remotely /fightened to death/. Again, I think the scene only re-enforces my view of just how socially sub-human and clueless the Dursley are. For all their pretense of social sophistication and propriety, they fall woefully short of the mark. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 00:21:08 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:21:08 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158049 > Betsy Hp: > Hmm, see I have it as exactly opposite. The wizards are the insular > xenophobes, with little that is beautiful and soul enriching > surrounding them. They know nothing of art or music or literature. First of all, thats not true. They certainly at least have art and music at the very least. This isn't a treatis on wizarding culture so we don't know much about them because Harry doesn't care all that much but they have the weird sisters and the wizarding wireless, celestia Warbeck and the apparently superior music of the french (according to Fleur at least :) Hogwarts seems fairly littered with paintings so they must have some magical artists coming around. As for literature, no, they don't seem to have much (that we know of) but I don't blame them. With magic, their lives are more interesting than book I can think of. Charlie wrangles Dragons for gods sake. Bill is freakin' Indian Jones marrying a fairy princess. Dumbledore is Gandalf the Grey come to life. In world with hundreds of prophecies, ghosts that teach classes, Olypmic events performed against dragons, magic is all the mystery and fantasy anyone could ever want. And for them it's real. I wouldn't read much either. > Their schools concentrate soley on that which is practical and > pragmatic, thriving on and encouraging cut-throat competition with > little love or mercy for their fellow man. their powers are practical and pragmatic in a way that is almost impossible to duplicate in the real world. They have to know know how to perform household charms, make potions to fix their children's booboos, and do their jobs. I still haven't used the calc I slaved over in high School and my perfect score on the Egg Drop physics test isn't all that useful either. I also use everything I learned Auto still. More about RL school needs to be practical. And really, only about half their classes are practical. Potions, Transfiguration, Charms, and Defense Against the Dark Arts. All the others are all theory. COMC is hands on but really on practical for the Charlies of the world. > They are the elites, surrounded by what they perceive to be rabble > who'd swamp them with desperate cries for help if they revealed > their sanctified existence. Or hunt them down like animals. Can you imagine what would happen in the real world if a group of people with mind control, shapeshifting, trasmuting powers were to be revealed in out midst? They would be destroyed. Not recognizing that *they*, the > wizards, are the ones who are so hopelessly backwards. Letting the inner snob out a little :) I wouldn't say backward, I would say different. they have different technology, they are remarkably self sufficient when they have their wands about. I would say that our reliance of easily broken technology ultimates makes us more backward than they--or at least less sophisticated. Certainly they have better medical skills than we do. > The Weasleys, the Malfoys, the Diggorys, the Smiths know nothing of > Shakespeare or Chaucer or Lawrence or Potter (Beatrice, that is ) > or Blake or Austen or Michelangelo or Galileo or Einstein. Nor do > they seem to have any equivalent. First of all, there are plenty of real world people who wouldn't know those names so the ignorance of wizards isn't unforgivable. Secondly, I'm sure there are wizard equivelants of those names. They do after all have trading cards about them :) its just that Harry has bigger things on his mind than tell us about them. > As per JKR there is no fiction in the Wizarding World. (She'd be > stuck writing "how to" books, IIRC.) There are no art courses of > any kind offered at Hogwarts that we've seen. We also haven't seen any clubs at Hogwarts either, but we know they're there so art could be as well. Magic also seems to be an art on its own for those who choose to see it as such. > In short, the Wizarding World is brutal and dark and I wouldn't want > to be there for any length of time. At least, that's how I see it. I think the wizarding world is an amazing place and I would jump through the looking glass in a minute. Magic is the ultimate wish fufillment. Wizards can have whatever they want as long as they learn how to do it. even youth, wealth, immortality can all be had. Think about the uses of magic in the bedroom alone. Think about being able to whistle up your favorite foods and easy clean up. Think about being able to take to the air on brooms or wings you can make yourself. think about the animagus form and how amazing it would be to have a shape as simple as a housecat. The wizarding world isn't dark and brutal. Its a place of possibilties limited only by your will and your imagination. phoenixgod2000 From kjones at telus.net Sat Sep 9 00:26:40 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:26:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45020A40.904@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 158050 snip > Argus Pyrites adds: snip > An unresolved plot point for me from OotP, perhaps a clue(?), has to > do with Snape and the Occlumency lessons. IF Snape is Good, and > Dumbledore has sacrificed all to be able to place him in a position > to help Harry, then why wouldn't Snape try harder to help Harry > learn this skill? In the book, as it occured, it made sense, but > when one looks back on it, in particular remembering Snapes cries > of "Blocked, again & Again, etc." from HBP; I've never understood > why Snape didn't make it a top priority to force Harry to learn this > skill that he seems to need so desperately. Why would Snape, who is > perhaps committed to helping Harry at a Life or Death level; not > find a way to break through the BS and get Harry to sit down shut > up, and learn. > > Since I am of the "Snape is good, and going to be rather important > to the plot of the book-that-is-yet-to-be-named" camp; this failure > to help Harry with this has always bothered me. My thoughts have > always been - it happened because Mrs. Rowling was focused on the > short term goals of the current book at that point, at the expense > of logical consistency in the overall plot (an understandable and > forgiveable offense, in my opinion. > > But, does anyone else have any better thoughts or actual theories on > this? [or is there an old thread to point me too? =)] KJ writes: My theory on this is that neither Dumbledore nor Snape were good candidates to teach Harry Occlumency. Every time Harry looked DD in the eye during OotP, he wanted to attack and bite him. Not good for effective teaching. Snape on the other hand knew that Harry was an open conduit for Voldemort. Snape is trying to convince Voldie that he is a loyal DE, and perhaps, being seen teaching Harry Occlumency would be a very dangerous thing for Voldemort to observe through Harry's eyes. It would be even worse if Voldemort could see Snape successfully teaching Occlumency. If Snape had a brain in his head, he would try to appear as incompetant as possible. Snape showed obvious discomfort when he discovered how far into Harry's mind Voldemort could reach. This whole Occlumency thing was so poorly done, I'm beginning to believe that it was a trap set for Voldemort which worked until it got out of control. No one thought that Harry had any way of getting to the MoM. JMO KJ From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 01:12:54 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 01:12:54 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158051 > Snow (me) previously: > > Ok first off I didn't `enjoy' it nor would I look for a reason to do > so but I can accept why the scene happened and can appreciate why > Dumbledore had reasons to act in such a manner given his past- limited > choices in allowing Harry to live with the Dursley's to begin with. Magpie: Well, I don't mind talking about these side issues, but the fact still remains that I was asked why I didn't enjoy the scene and tried to think of an answer. Why didn't you enjoy the scene? It seems like you're doing what I described here, saying that you didn't have trouble with Dumbledore's actions because you think he had reasons to act this way. Snow: First I would like to say that it is quite difficult at times to communicate through the Internet (I think we all deserve a pat on the back for the attempt to try to understand each other given our different backgrounds let alone our lingual (miss) interpretations). Understanding someone's meaning in their post can be, at times, as difficult as the books themselves. I forget to appreciate, however, that everyone has formed their own theories and thoughts about all the characters that affect that persons ultimate conclusions, of any given scene, based on their own assumptions (including myself). In effect we are not on the same page even though we are discussing the same scene. Ok, that said, let's continue. My opinion of whether or not I liked the scene is far from important, the scene is the one that played out and the story thus far is the basis for this scene to happen at all. I can understand and therefore appreciate the reasoning behind such a scene given the characters previous actions that brought us to this point. Snow (me) previously: > Dumbledore had no choice but to allow Harry to live with the very > people that would abuse him to a degree. To what degree this abuse > has affected him we can only surmise by his adult actions that he has > now portrayed. Has Harry been affected by the abuse from the > Dursley's and if he has, how is he displaying that affect? > > We are right back where you didn't want to be at the beginning. > Dumbledore's actions in this scene are a direct result of Harry's > disgruntled upbringing. You can't separate Dumbledore's feelings > laying Harry (the wizarding world's only hope) on the doorstep of the > Dursley's from his suppressed (as I view it) limited actions when > last he spoke to the Dursley's in this very scene. Magpie: Yes, I can separate those two things. Dumbledore made a decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys knowing it could be hard on him. He doesn't like the fact that the Dursleys mistreated Harry. The two things are easily separated, even as I understand that Dumbledore's motivated by his anger over their mistreatment of Harry. Then there is the third aspect, which is how Dumbledore chooses to act in the scene. I didn't enjoy watching his actions in the scene, so I didn't enjoy the scene, even while knowing he left Harry at the Dursleys for the blood protection and that he doesn't like the Dursleys because they mistreated Harry. Snow: You do have every right to separate the scenes but in doing so the second scene, the topic we are speaking about, loses its rational and can be viewed questionably. Dumbledore explained to the Dursley's that he left Harry on their doorstep with the "hope that you would care for him as though he were your own". HBP pg. 55 Dumbledore may have anticipated the end product, of which he is very open about when he chastises their behavior of Harry over the years, but he certainly did have hope that they would act human. The Dursley's made there less than poor choice to be neglectful, at best, to Harry and Dumbledore had already made his decision so there was no turning back. This house was where his mother's sacrifice could protect Harry beyond anything that Dumbledore could have ever created as a protection then Dumbledore added his own protections so that even Voldemort himself admitted he could not touch the boy there. The deal was sealed when Petunia took him in there's no turning back. Dumbledore was stuck with his decision and Harry's mistreatment. How can you possibly deny Dumbledore a few subtle, reminders on this visit, as to their continued rude behavior? These people or muggles don't even have the understanding that they have done anything wrong in their eyes. Dumbledore was attempting to show them that their abusive behavior has not ceased to exist and they still do not recognize to what extent it remains to be so when he refers to Dudders. (Dumbledore, gotta love him, always the teacher even in his last on the Tower when he attempts to teach the unworthy deatheaters with his responses) Snow (me) previously: > > Now you are applying your own emotions to the scene. You don't like > being treated that way therefore you don't like the Dursley's being > treated the way Dumbledore treated them. I agree I don't like anyone > to be treated in a disrespectful way but how did the Dursley's treat > Harry and more so how did the Dursley's treat Dumbledore in this > scene; they never changed, they are still disrespectful and subtlety > abusive? Magpie: Of course I'm applying my own emotions to the scene. I was ASKED about my emotions to the scene, and this is what they are. The fact that the Dursleys did worse to Harry doesn't change my irritation reading the scene. My emotional reaction to the scene counts as much as someone else's does. It's not like I'm hiding it. Snow: As I have said, you are certainly entitled to apply your own emotions to any scene in any of the books. My point was that in doing so you may misinterpret the meaning of the given scene that was intended by the author because of your own emotions. I feel that, everyone, whether they realize it or not bases their opinions from their own point of view based on their emotions and mental awareness of their past experiences. People sometimes can't help but to become connected with a particular scene because it may trigger a part of their own experience. This is exactly where I attempt to become objective to the point of excluding my own emotions so I don't cloud my vision of the actual events that are going on. I don't know how to say this any better but I assure you that my response was not meant as an insult to you personally and you Do have every right to view a scene in whatever manner you wish. Snow (me) previously: > I try to live my life by the turn-the-other-cheek analogy but there > are times when the cheek just gets to red to turn it again; after all > we are only human even if you are blessed with powers :) like > Dumbledore. Magpie: So why didn't you enjoy the scene, since you said you didn't? I don't feel like I owe it to Dumbledore or Harry to like the scene just because there's earlier scenes of the Dursleys abusing Harry, even some that might not annoy me as much. It's not like I'm talking about real people and saying what Dumbledore did was worse than locking a kid in a cupboard and treating him like dirt for years. I'm reading a children's book and reacting to the author's choices in the scene. The Dursley/Harry scenes have one tone and work one way, this one works another way. Snow: I believe I have already answered this but then again there's that whole Internet in-clarity I spoke of at the beginning of this post. I will answer again, since you asked twice what I didn't like I will reluctantly elaborate but it has no bearing on the story. I am not Holier-than-though and would have to protect a child to the nth degree, so given the logistics that Dumbledore could not totally prevent Harry's abuse (as I see it) once his initial decision had been invoked, I would have been more than severe (in this scene) when I finally had my final conversation with the very persons who I entrusted to care for Harry. In short, Dumbledore didn't do enough convincing in this last scene to make me proud But (discounting my person emotions) I can also appreciate that Dumbledore is a Holier-than-though-type-of-person and could not stoop to the level I would have gone less he become as abusive as the Dursley's themselves. (you can't teach a child not to hit by hitting them) That's not to say that this Holier type person was not tempted to do so which I think took great control on his part to not do what he really would have liked to. For all intense purposes I do agree with the scene because of this very fact as I have come to realize it therefore I don't see it as alarming, questioning or disappointing in the least. Snow (me) previously: > > I see it as actually repressed anger, which for the Dursley's sake > Dumbledore is a very fair and compassionate man because I would have > been way more insensitive than Dumbledore was in this scene if it > would have been my child or charge. Magpie: And ironically, a scene of you being more insensitive might have annoyed me less-who knows? Especially if it was your child. Obviously Dumbledore wouldn't abuse anyone the way the Dursleys abused Harry. The scene still irritates me. Snow: If (big if) this scene irritated me at all that would be why but then it's not my story and I do accept and appreciate what I previously have said that Dumbledore would be stooping to the Dursley's stupidity and ignorance if he had done any more than what he did. Cheers Snow From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 9 01:44:57 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 01:44:57 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158053 > Sydney: > > I think he's totally free to chastise the Dursleys. In fact, I wish > he'd done it ages ago. But if he uses magic to push them around and > humiliate them, then, yeah, it does sort of make him look like a > hypocrite. > > Is Dumbledore a big 'muggle-rights' champion? He's certainly > supporting the rights of diverse magically-powered people, but I can't > remember where he's specifically supporting non-magic rights. Pippin: I haven't got my books with me to check, but doesn't LV call Dumbledore a champion of Muggles and mudbloods in the graveyard in GoF? Even if Dumbledore didn't use magic, his enemies would be quick to accuse him of it if they thought there was an advantage. Also, if Voldemort's servants realized what Harry was gaining by the Dursleys protection and thought they could lever Harry out of it by making a scandal about how he was being treated, they certainly would. So Dumbledore has an incentive not to draw their attention, doesn't he? > Sydney: > > By 'other methods', do you mean calling child services or something? > That might be a bad idea (although given the Dursley's middle-class > dread of scandal, maybe it would have worked) but on the other hand > just dropping by every once in a while to show that someone out there > gives a crap about what happens to Harry when he was, say, five, might > have slowed down the abuse a little. And by 'show someone cares' I > don't mean whack them with a curse, I mean, just call them like a > civilized human being, have a G&T , say, 'Look, none of us thinks this > situation is optimal, but how can we make it work better for everyone? > and by the way you should know this kid DOES have friends out there'. Pippin: Does he? Who can Dumbledore trust with Petunia's life? Hagrid and Arthur, but we've seen that they aren't much at Muggle diplomacy. I have a feeling Fred and George were able to enter the house only because they were under age at the time. My point is the Dursleys aren't 'civilized human beings'. They're holding it together by the skin of their teeth, disturbed enough to abuse the son they love deeply. They are not people who could be straightened out with few counseling sessions. They are seriously messed up. And if the DE's realize that, they can easily use that as a lever to have Harry taken away. We know that Petunia can withdraw her protection from Harry, since Dumbledore visited her in HBP to make sure she wouldn't. So she's already accepted a less than optimal situation, ie having Harry in her home. It's not a given that she had to accept Harry just because he's her kin. It's canon that Aunt Marge wouldn't have thought worse of her. I think you're right, the real trouble is buying into the situation. It would be easy to accept that Dumbledore has a mystical power to protect Harry because his goodness makes it so. In fact some of us seem to think that he *must* have such a power and are angry at him or at JKR for not letting him use it. Instead we're presented with a situation where Petunia, and Petunia alone, has a mystical power to protect Harry because Lily's virtue and Lily's blood made it so. There's no logical foundation for that (and it wouldn't help if there was, it'd be like midichlorians) -- we just have to believe it or not. That is a bit difficult, like a religion where the priests, no matter what horrible things they might do as individuals, have a sacred power that lay people, no matter how kind and decent they might be, do not. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 9 02:01:09 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:01:09 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158054 Tonks: > I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't > want to see that there is a world outside of the world of > matter as experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as > similar to the world of the mystic or the spiritual world. > It is just that the Muggles don't want to know about the > world of the wizards. But the wizards know about both > worlds. Some even live in Muggle areas and appear to be > Muggles to the Muggles around them. houyhnhnm: I think I thought of the WW that way in the first book and about halfway through the second, then one little thing after another began to grate. I gradually became aware that I was uncomfortable because there was something missing. I would have to say now that I agree with Betsy Betsy Hp: > Hmm, see I have it as exactly opposite. The wizards are > the insular xenophobes, with little that is beautiful and > soul enriching surrounding them. They know nothing of art > or music or literature. Their schools concentrate soley on > that which is practical and pragmatic, thriving on and > encouraging cut-throat competition with little love or mercy > for their fellow man. houyhnhnm: It would be interesting if the aesthetic insensibility, the lack of creativity, and the absence of the numinous were all part of the price paid for magical ability, but I don't see any evidence that that was Rowling's intent. I also like to think of wizards as humans who never experienced the breakdown of the bicameral mind. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 9 02:29:50 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 22:29:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? References: Message-ID: <008301c6d3b7$d418aa60$4c86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158055 Snow: Dumbledore was stuck with his decision and Harry's mistreatment. How can you possibly deny Dumbledore a few subtle, reminders on this visit, as to their continued rude behavior? Magpie: I don't deny it to him (or suggest he ought to be shot for being rude *looks at other part of thread*). I just said I don't enjoy watching him do it, and it makes me think less of him. I do agree with you that one's feelings about a scene are often less than important, but in this case they are what I was asked about. I don't think you can argue somebody out of their emotional reaction to a scene. I understand other people have different reactions and they just have to understand mine are different from theirs. Snow: These people or muggles don't even have the understanding that they have done anything wrong in their eyes. Dumbledore was attempting to show them that their abusive behavior has not ceased to exist and they still do not recognize to what extent it remains to be so when he refers to Dudders. Magpie: That's another way the scene comes across differently to me. I read that and just think, Didn't do much of a good job of showing them anything then. He shows up, throws his weight around, does some scolding, says he wants Harry to stay there a while longer and makes a reference to the way they treat Dudley that confuses them all and then leaves. They're no more different when he leaves than they were when they showed up--which perhaps taps into another reason I don't enjoy these kinds of scenes with the Dursleys, because their staying the same always seems to be important to the scene. They're intentionally written as unchanging this way. But I'm certainly not disagreeing that this is what Dumbledore is probably doing in the scene in his eyes. I already see it the same way you do, so explaining it to me isn't going to make me like the scene any better. I think Dumbledore's a far better teacher and a far better everything else in the Tower. That scene, imo, was Dumbledore at his best. This scene was very off for me in reading it and I was glad to leave the Dursleys behind. Snow: As I have said, you are certainly entitled to apply your own emotions to any scene in any of the books. My point was that in doing so you may misinterpret the meaning of the given scene that was intended by the author because of your own emotions. Magpie: Er...that sounds like it's somehow twisted what I said. There seems to be no question of my misinterpreting anything in the scene, since we both agree on what is going on in it. I don't think I've misinterpreted the author's intention either. In the case of this particular scene I don't think my emotional reaction was what the author was going for--we obviously have different tastes on this kind of humor and I accepted that books ago! My having a different emotional reaction to what she intended doesn't make me or her wrong necessarily. An author can't dictate the emotional reaction of a reader. Obviously I'm not her ideal reader for this scene, and she didn't write it in a way that was going to get around my emotional resistance. The reason I am talking about my emotions in this scene is because that's specifically what I was asked about. I see exactly the same facts in the scene as everyone else, I suspect the author's emotional reaction to the scene is different from my own, and yet this is my reaction to it. Snow: I feel that, everyone, whether they realize it or not bases their opinions from their own point of view based on their emotions and mental awareness of their past experiences. People sometimes can't help but to become connected with a particular scene because it may trigger a part of their own experience. Magpie: Absolutely. That's what I'm referring to in describing why I don't like what DD is doing--if pressed I could probably come up with negative memories it reminded me of. Plus there's the Muggle thing talked about elsewhere, just a lot of things. Similarly there are other scenes that don't bother me or I find funny that other people are enraged by. JKR's books kind of lend themselves to that, imo. For all the talk I sometimes hear in fandom about how we're supposed to react to scenes and who we're supposed to like, she actually seems really good at creating ambiguous scenes tailor made for controversy when you get more than one person reading them. Snow: This is exactly where I attempt to become objective to the point of excluding my own emotions so I don't cloud my vision of the actual events that are going on. Magpie: I think we're both doing a pretty good job about being objective about the facts of the scene. At least I haven't been aware of any differences in what we think is happening. It's not like you think Dumbledore comes to the house to bring the Dursleys a present and I think he's come to poison them. One of the things the books do really well, imo, is have different people respond to things differently. James Potter: Great guy or total berk? Sirius thinks the first, Snape thinks the second, and neither of them is just wrong. Snow: I believe I have already answered this but then again there's that whole Internet in-clarity I spoke of at the beginning of this post. I will answer again, since you asked twice what I didn't like.I will reluctantly elaborate but it has no bearing on the story. Magpie: Just to be clear, I know it has no bearing on the story. I didn't answer the thread right away because it was a thread about our different emotional reactions, which is subjective, to a scene and not something that was more objective, like what happens in the scene. Snow: I am not Holier-than-though and would have to protect a child to the nth degree, so given the logistics that Dumbledore could not totally prevent Harry's abuse (as I see it) once his initial decision had been invoked, I would have been more than severe (in this scene) when I finally had my final conversation with the very persons who I entrusted to care for Harry. In short, Dumbledore didn't do enough convincing in this last scene to make me proud But (discounting my person emotions) I can also appreciate that Dumbledore is a Holier-than-though-type-of-person and could not stoop to the level I would have gone less he become as abusive as the Dursley's themselves. (you can't teach a child not to hit by hitting them) Magpie: Just to be clear, when you say a "holier than thou" person you mean that sincerely? Like, you're saying that Dumbledore actually is more saint-like or forgiving rather than the way the phrase is usually used? Because calling someone holier than thou usually means you're calling them hypocritically pious or sanctimonious and it doesn't seem like you're accusing Dumbledore of that. Your own emotional response to the scene doesn't change the facts of it, I agree, and nor does mine, but it does seem to explain why we'd be moved to speak up, doesn't it? I mean, I don't like what Dumbledore's doing because I think it's beneath him and you would have prefered to see a little more of it. So while we both agree about what's going on in the scene our different reactions can easily feel like they can't co-exist with each other. Snow: If (big if) this scene irritated me at all that would be why but then it's not my story and I do accept and appreciate what I previously have said that Dumbledore would be stooping to the Dursley's stupidity and ignorance if he had done any more than what he did. Magpie: Sure--I accept the scene too. And I appreciate that Dumbledore's supposed to be showing anger here over the mistreatment of a child. It's just never going to be a favorite of mine to read. Alla: That's funny. I thought in the quote you briefly mention yourself Petunia as much as tells us that she **was** jealous of Lily. But here it is: ""Knew!" shrieked Aunt Petunia suddenly. "Knew! Of course we knew! How could you not be, my dratted sister being what she was? Oh, she got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that-that school- and came home every vacation with her pockets full of frog spawn, turning teacups into rats. I was the only one who saw her for what she was-a freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family!" She stopped to draw a deep breath and then went ranting on. It seemed she had been wanting to say all this for years."Then she met that Potter at school and they left and got married and had you, and of course I knew you'd be just the same, just as strange, just as-as-abnormal-and then, if you please, she went and got herself blown up and we got landed with you!"" - PS/SS, chapter 4. Alla: I don't know - to me it **so** screams of jealousy, because her parents were so proud to have witch in the family. IMO of course. And of course Petunia already loved her so much that she called her a freak. I wonder how much she really loved her. Magpie: I wrote an essay on this once.:-) Basically, the way I see Petunia--and this is a lot to do with one small way in which I identify with her--I think she did love Lily, yes. That is, they had a normal, if imperfect, sister relationship until Hogwarts. A lot of my imaginings about those early years are obviously not canon at all, so they can't be taken as proof of anything, but I much prefer seeing Petunia as a real person who had real hurt over this issue instead of just the wicked stepsister who was ugly and didn't have magic powers and was always jealous and hated perfect Lily. Not because it makes Petunia's behavior towards Harry any better, but it's more realistic to me. Also--and I think JKR illustrates this well in canon a lot--real hurt breeds deeper bitterness and so more cruelty. She was jealous, I think, but to me it's not just in a superficial way. Granted my view of Petunia does slot in consistently to the way I see the two worlds in general and all that, but it makes me like Petunia as a character more, so I'm happy with it.:-) -m From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 9 02:37:00 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:37:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: <000b01c6d395$82048540$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158056 Marion wrote: Yes, I feel very sorry for the Dursleys. They never asked for Harry to be delivered on their doorstep. They were never asked to foster a magical child. They were forced into it, and when they do not perform good enough as hosts, they are browbeaten into submission. Every interaction between wizards and the Dursleys leaves me with a dirty taste in my mouth. Sherry now: Canon please? Where in canon does it say that the Dursleys were *forced* to take in Harry? No wizards barged into their home, waving wands in a threatening manner. No meade, no toffee, no giants. It was just a small child with a letter on their doorstep. Dumbledore, who believes so much in choices, I cannot imagine him ever forcing the Dursleys to take Harry in against their will. The Dursleys made their choice, for whatever reason they did. and then they spent the next ten years abusing the helpless child, who was not to blame for anything that happened to them in the years before he came. He did not deserve to be starved, locked in a cupboard under the stairs without air and sunlight to help him be healthy and to grow, locked in his room without enough food to survive for days, bars on the windows too, so that if there'd been a fire he would have been trapped, nor to be physically abused in other ways--thinking of Harry's thoughts in HBP he'd learned it was best to stay out of Uncle Vernon's reach. They called him names like Freak, told the neighbors he was such a delinquent that they sent him to a school for incurably criminal boys, made him wear such oversized and horrible clothes that he was the laughing stock in his school, allowed Dudley to use him as a punching bag, let Marge say such dreadful things about his parents and set her dog on him. Oh yes, I can see how the Dursleys are so terribly put upon and tortured and terrified by that little boy. Frankly, though I can understand simple sympathy for any human being, if someone thinks it's unfair for Dumbledore to chastise the Dursleys a bit, but I can't understand at all the idea that it seemed to me you were setting forth, that everything they did to Harry was something he deserved to get because he was supposedly forced on them and is now a miserable little bug parasite in their home, destroying them from the inside out. I genuinely cannot understand having any sympathy for them and none for the poor child Harry. Where Harry's experiences growing up with the Dursleys are concerned, my heart is 100 percent with him, because whatever happened to cause them to take him in, none of it is Harry's fault, and no child deserves the treatment he got. Of course, this is all just my opinion, naturally. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 02:41:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:41:43 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158057 ?? Marion: > Why are the Dursleys so afraid of magic anyway? > > Fandom tells us that Nasty Petunia had a Saintly sister who was just plain *better* than her. Cleverer. More beautyful. Magic. And that Petunia, like the Evil Stepsister in a hundred fairytales, was just plain *jealous* of her more talented sister. Alla: That's funny. I thought in the quote you briefly mention yourself Petunia as much as tells us that she **was** jealous of Lily. But here it is: ""Knew!" shrieked Aunt Petunia suddenly. "Knew! Of course we knew! How could you not be, my dratted sister being what she was? Oh, she got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that-that school- and came home every vacation with her pockets full of frog spawn, turning teacups into rats. I was the only one who saw her for what she was?Xa freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family!" She stopped to draw a deep breath and then went ranting on. It seemed she had been wanting to say all this for years. "Then she met that Potter at school and they left and got married and had you, and of course I knew you'd be just the same, just as strange, just as?Xas?Xabnormal?Xand then, if you please, she went and got herself blown up and we got landed with you!"" - PS/SS, chapter 4. Alla: I don't know - to me it **so** screams of jealousy, because her parents were so proud to have witch in the family. IMO of course. And of course Petunia already loved her so much that she called her a freak. I wonder how much she really loved her. Marion: > Could be, of course. But Petunia herself tells us about 'turning teacups into rats' as an example of magic her sister alledgedly performed. But this could not have happed before Lily's seventeenth year, since it is forbidden for underage students to perform magic outside the school. Alla: That cannot happen, why? Isn't it possible that Lily performed magic sometimes despite the prohibition, just as Harry did? I am also wondering whether turning tea cups into rats ( I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, but sounds like strange example to remember) is an accurate example of the magic Lily did. EDITED TO ADD: Hehe. I knew I read it somewhere. Here we go from JKR website: In "Philosopher's Stone" Aunt Petunia says that Lily came back from Hogwarts with frog spawn in her pockets and turned teacups into rats. If this is true, why wasn't Lily expelled? Aunt Petunia is exaggerating a little; you have to allow for her state of mind when she started shrieking these things. However, just like her son, Lily was not averse to testing the limits of the Statute of Secrecy, so you can safely assume she will have had a few warning letters ?V nothing too serious, though. Marion: But by the time Lily was seventeen, she had also hooked up with James. Around this time, Petunia met and fell in love with Vernon, on can assume (Dudley was born in the same year as Harry, so Petunia can't be very much younger or older than Lily. A few years perhaps) > James was a notorious prankster and he had three friends who were also notorious pranksters. > I'll lay money on James and Sirius tagteaming in hexing Petunia and Vernon for fun and games. Hey, it was just *fun* you know. And they were *Muggles*. Oh yes, Lily probably 'defended' her sister just as she 'defended' Severus Snape, i.e. not at all (that Pensieve scene was so much about James going 'hey, notice me, the Bad Boy' and Lily going 'Ooooh.. you're just so *giggle* nasty!' it's no wonder it infuriated Snape. To be hated and persecuted is one thing. To be used as a prop in a courting ritual is quite another) Alla: Well, could be as you say - any outlandish speculation is a fair game in the unfinished work, but as you seem to agree Lily hooked up with James when they were seventeen and canon as much as says it, but frankly I doubt very much that James and his friends had plausible canon time to show up in the house and torment Petunia and Vernon, especially torment them so much as to make them fear magic horribly. Petunia says as much - she met Potter, they left and got married. I wonder when James had time to do that, especially often. During Christmas break ( if Lily even went home) and summer vacation? I strongly suspect that Lily married very soon after graduation and left and never came back. Hey, just speculating here too :) But at least we know that canon timeline is very tight. And after school Lily and James had to be able to do lots of things before they died. Where constant hexing of Petunia and Vernon fits in, I am not even sure at all and we **know* that Lily did not have much relationship with her sister after she got married, no? As to Lily never defending Snape. I seem to remember that she was doing pretty good defending him and stopped only when he called her that word "mudblood". But as long as we are speculating, I'd like to offer another one. :) JKR as much as said that **awful boy** name would be important and I am not sure how it will be important if it is James, so if it is indeed turns out to be Snape, it seems to me that he may have spent more time at Lily's house than James ever managed. Speculating here of course, and we don't even need to go into LOLLIPOPS here, just friendship may do. So, maybe that awful boy also added to Petunia's fear of magic? I wonder. Marion: > Dumbledore *used* the Dursleys. He forced them to take Harry ("Remember my last, Petunia!"), gave them *no* support or help whatsoever. Alla: Any definite canon for Dumbledore **forcing** them to take Harry by any chance? I mean **remember my last** can be just as easily interpreted as Dumbledore offering Petunia something for taking Harry in? As in, I don't know, maybe protection for her family and her? And that may tight in with Rebecca's wonderful speculation that "more than meets the eye to Petunia" can mean that Petunia was disguised, specifically her eyes, which may turn out to be same as Lily's and Harry? > bboyminn: > > I find your assertion that Dumbledore is an uninvited > stranger at their door in the middle of the night to be > wrong. That /is/ who Dumbledore is for about 5 or 10 > seconds, then it becomes clear who he is and why he is > there, and that he indeed does have legitimate business > there. Alla: I am not inclined to argue over this much. Sorry. Especially when we seem to agree in evaluation of this scene in general. The fact remains though that Dursleys did not invite him to show up - that translates into *uninvited** for me. bboyminn: > At that point, I feel the Dursley's were socially > obligated to offer Dumbledore AT LEAST the minimum of > terse business-like get-to-the-point-and-be-gone courtesy. > And, that seems to be all Dumbledore expected, yet, even > that raw minimal basic level of courtesy was not extended. Alla: I am not disputing that it would have been **nice** of them, I am only disagreeing with **owed**, you know. :) bboyminn: > Further, I do not buy the argument of others that the > Dursleys are so horribly frightened of Magic. Certainly, > they are /worried/ about it, and dread anyone finding out > they are associated with it, but I don't see it bordering > on paranoid delusions. Alla: Oh, they are frightened all right,IMO, although just as you are, I am not buying the extent of it, but their fright does not make those people to me even remotely sympathetic. I see magic not as a metaphor for **elite class**, but as metaphor for those different from usual people and the ability to accept somebody who is different, somebody who is not like you, the ability to accept such person without calling them a freak, seems like very important to me. bboyminn: > Again, I think the scene only re-enforces my view of just > how socially sub-human and clueless the Dursley are. For > all their pretense of social sophistication and propriety, > they fall woefully short of the mark. > Alla: Indeed. JMO, Alla From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 03:45:07 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:45:07 -0000 Subject: Why the Dursleys were afraid of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: <20060908081544.82444B64@resin04.mta.everyone.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi group. > > The topic was brought up about DD and the Dursleys. I think they were afraid 'cause they have limited understanding of the magical world. And they look on Harry as a burden that they didn't want to deal with. Remember when they tried to "squash the magic out of him"? I think they'd just as soon forget about Harry and live normally. And if Harry does beat Voldemort will they really understand? > > Your fellow member, Corey > Hi Corey, I think I'd be petrified if I DID understand the WW! My guess is that Petunia, at least, knows all too well, and doesn't want any part of it. I mean, she had a sister at Hogwarts, one who came home every summer - imagine what she told her friends about Lily (did she say her sister was off at a female equivalent of St Brutus's?). So when the time came, Petunia married the most mundane man she could find and tried to forget about magic. Obviously, the Evans parents didn't mind (a cause of Petunia's jealousy - her sister was the favourite), so "that awful boy" (I assume it was James, but this list has plenty of ideas about it) was allowed to visit and she would have heard more. And then, when Harry arrived on their doorstep, she would have had to tell her husband more than he wanted to know. It does seem to me a case of denial rather than imperfect understanding. I do agree that they would really rather forget about Harry, though. From lilyp at superig.com.br Sat Sep 9 03:30:57 2006 From: lilyp at superig.com.br (lilypo2007) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:30:57 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: <45020A40.904@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158059 > > Argus Pyrites adds: > snip > > An unresolved plot point for me from OotP, perhaps a clue(?), has to > > do with Snape and the Occlumency lessons. Lilyp: Yes, but it is related to other stuff, besides the Snape is good x Snape is evil issue. That scene with the Marauders must have been there for a purpose. Other things that I think will come back: Mimbulus mimbletonia - it was stressed a lot in the book. Kreacher - He wasn't really important to the plot until now, was he? The Love Room in the DoM - why was it mentioned and reinforced? The new song of the Sorting Hat - The Hat wants the unity of the Houses, what will we see about it? Grimmauld Place - it was already mentioned in this thread, but the discussion didn't go far. I think the house will be important because JKR said Sirius'death was important and she also said he couldn't be married because of plot reasons. We didn't see why he had to die, but I bet it has to do with the fact that Harry inherits Kreacher and the house. The veil - What is the significance of that veil and of the things Luna said about it? Luna - Luna wasn't very important either in book five or six. Tonks at least is Remus' love interest, but Luna, why was she introduced and was a part of the sextet? I think she will be helpful in some important way. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sat Sep 9 04:13:32 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:13:32 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158060 Argus Pyrites wrote: > See, now that is exactly why I've come to the HP4GU group. Fresh > Ideas! New angles! Now, let me tell you why I think the turquoise > Ford Anglia is a horcrux.... Abergoat replies: Ooo, I do hope you'll share! That sounds like it would be at the popularity level of my certainty that Dumbledore's brother holds his head high and Albus isn't sure he can read because he is presently a goat... Argus Pyrites wrote: > An unresolved plot point for me from OotP, perhaps a clue(?), has to > do with Snape and the Occlumency lessons. IF Snape is Good, and > Dumbledore has sacrificed all to be able to place him in a position > to help Harry, then why wouldn't Snape try harder to help Harry > learn this skill? In the book, as it occured, it made sense, but > when one looks back on it, in particular remembering Snapes cries > of "Blocked, again & Again, etc." from HBP; I've never understood > why Snape didn't make it a top priority to force Harry to learn this > skill that he seems to need so desperately. Abergoat writes: Good point, hadn't really thought about it. Dumbledore put Snape in a very uncomfortable position...so it does seem like JKR needed to introduce Occlumency/Legilimency and this was how she decided to do it. Who knows, perhaps Dumbledore didn't actually think it would work but just wanted Harry exposed to these two branches of magic. I do think Lily was capable of Legilimency (Harry certainly is, even if only by accident) and that may be significant to the backstory between her and Snape that so many people (myself included) expect. Abergoat, who also believes Snape was always a mole From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sat Sep 9 04:28:10 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:28:10 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158061 Sherry wrote: > > Canon please? Where in canon does it say that the Dursleys were > > *forced* > > to take in Harry? No wizards barged into their home, waving wands in a > threatening manner. Abergoat offers: Dumbledore, OoP "But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. " 'grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly' sounds very similar to force, although there is a fine distinction - clearly there was choice. But that choice was compelled in some way. But WHY was she able to be 'compelled', why did Petunia HAVE to take in Harry? I doubt the reason does her much credit so I'm not sure I'll feel sorry for her in the end. Vernon, as horrible as he is, probably deserves some. I doubt his wife was completely truthful about her past when she married him. Abergoat From katbofaye at aol.com Sat Sep 9 05:03:10 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 05:03:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158062 "Magpie: I wrote an essay on this once.:-) Basically, the way I see Petunia-- and this is a lot to do with one small way in which I identify with her-- I think she did love Lily, yes. That is, they had a normal, if imperfect, sister relationship until Hogwarts. A lot of my imaginings about those early years are obviously not canon at all, so they can't be taken as proof of anything, but I much prefer seeing Petunia as a real person who had real hurt over this issue instead of just the wicked stepsister who was ugly and didn't have magic powers and was always jealous and hated perfect Lily. Not because it makes Petunia's behavior towards Harry any better, but it's more realistic to me. Also--and I think JKR illustrates this well in canon a lot--real hurt breeds deeper bitterness and so more cruelty. She was jealous, I think, but to me it's not just in a superficial way. Granted my view of Petunia does slot in consistently to the way I see the two worlds in general and all that, but it makes me like Petunia as a character more, so I'm happy with it.:-) -m" Petunia and Lily's relationship is more complicated than the black and white/ good and bad that comes up in Petunia's statements about her sister. Petunia never comes across as hateful to me. She is terrified. I see her as a snapping dog in a corner that will bite you and run out of pure animal terror. She is an extremely overprotective mother. Again begging the question why does Dudley need protecting? I agree with Magpie that Hogwarts forever changed Lily and Petunia's relationship because it separated them. Magic took Lily away to a world which Petunia could never be a part. Obviously the Evans parents were a problem if they made Petunia feel unloved. Petunia is far too dysfuntional to have been raised in a loving home. Maybe Lily was Petunia's only unconditional love and Magic took that away. Stealing Lily away from her sister. Petunia would hate everything associated with magic with an aversion. She would want to stomp out magic. But she would not have stopped loving Lily and therefore would take Lily's son in. She is not self aware enough to sort out Lily's abandonment with her feelings for magic (which in the end did take her sister away permanently) and her feelings for Harry. Her heart is in the right place (very deep down) as DD says in OOTP she did take Harry in and according to DD it is all that saved Harry. Petunia continued to do it even when her own son was attacked by Dementors. I am trying to think of the number of people for whom I would endanger my children. It is a very short list. JKR has deliberately made Petunia misunderstood. If JKR is misleading with the bad then the good has to be underneath somewhere. katssirius From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 06:35:57 2006 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:35:57 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lilypo2007" wrote: > Lilyp: snip > Other things that I think will come back: > Mimbulus mimbletonia - it was stressed a lot in the book. > Kreacher - He wasn't really important to the plot until now, was he? > The Love Room in the DoM - why was it mentioned and reinforced? > The new song of the Sorting Hat - The Hat wants the unity of the > Houses, what will we see about it? > Grimmauld Place - it was already mentioned in this thread, but the > discussion didn't go far. I think the house will be important because > JKR said Sirius'death was important and she also said he couldn't be > married because of plot reasons. We didn't see why he had to die, but > I bet it has to do with the fact that Harry inherits Kreacher and the > house. mz_annethrope: It's been ages since I've visited here so I may be suggesting something some one else has suggested. But about Kreacher and Grimmauld Place in the next book. It took two people to get the fake horcrux in the cave. DD told Harry he thought an enchantment was put on the boat so that only one wizard at a time could cross the lake. Harry didn't count as a wizard because he wasn't of age and his powers were insignificant compaired to DD's. This leaves the problem of R.A.B., how could he have gotten the horcrux alone if even DD couldn't? But what if R.A.B. is Regulus and he took Kreacher with him (not a wizard) to get the horcrux? If this happened Kreacher could be quite important in the next book. Also the portraits in the headmaster's office. Everard has another portrait in the MoM and Dilys has one at St. Mungo's. Then there's Phineas Nigellus who has a portrait at Grimmauld Place. I'm putting my bet on these portrait connections being significant in the next book. The heads in the portraits have to obey the current head of Hogwarts. What if the next head is a DE, or more likely, under the imperius curse? Then there's the tapestry, doxies, and Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes. mz_annethrope From lnnguyen at du.edu Sat Sep 9 06:48:47 2006 From: lnnguyen at du.edu (larryngocnguyen83) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:48:47 -0000 Subject: Harry as Murderer Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158064 Does anyone else find it disturbing that JKR justifies revenge killing? Yes, Voldemort is horrible, but DD (the seminal figure of moral good in the Books) and Harry in Book 7 continually talk about murdering him as a means of revenge, or eradicating evil. Wouldn't this seemingly be a glorified justification of the death penalty? Just a thought.... Larry From jcf at ieee.org Sat Sep 9 08:13:06 2006 From: jcf at ieee.org (John Fisher) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 01:13:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Murderer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158065 Eradicating evil (a practical necessity) is a far cry from revenge (an indulgence of selfish rage), in my opinion. I don't recall JKR ever framing the killing of Voldemort as revenge, or even as something necessitated by justice. Killing Voldemort is simply the only reliable way to stop him. Perhaps that's a step removed from simple self-defense, which can be handily accomplished with a number of non-lethal spells in the wizarding world, but it's hardly a Deep Violation of the Moral Law. The wizarding world is at war, and Voldemort is Osama Bin Laden...I mean, if OBL was capable of effortlessly killing scads of people with his brain and a little stick. The death penalty used to be the same way, about getting rid of the rabid dog in a society that couldn't afford to lock him up forever. Nowadays, it's generally touted either as an expression of justice or as a deterrent, neither of which seems to really apply here. -John On 9/8/06, larryngocnguyen83 wrote: > Does anyone else find it disturbing that JKR justifies revenge killing? > > Yes, Voldemort is horrible, but DD (the seminal figure of moral good > in the Books) and Harry in Book 7 continually talk about murdering him > as a means of revenge, or eradicating evil. Wouldn't this seemingly be > a glorified justification of the death penalty? > > Just a thought.... > > Larry From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 08:39:49 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 08:39:49 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158066 > >Magpie: > >Before that it's been all bad faith. > > Orna: > I would hardly call two murder attempts just "bad faith", Sydney: Magpie's pointed out what 'bad faith' means in this context, but you should read the whole essay-- "Draco Malfoy and the Dragon of Bad Faith" here: http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/86380.html Excerpt: "But more importantly, "bad faith" (or mauvaise foi in modern French) has a very specific meaning in the existentialist philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. Bad faith is a form of self-deception. To live in bad faith is to live as if you have no choice in the way you behave; it is to adopt a role and live your life according to that role regardless of your own feelings or desires.[...] Sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory: "I haven't got any options!" said Malfoy, and he was suddenly as white as Dumbledore. "I've got to do it! [...] I've got no choice!" (HBP, p552)" That essay just knocked my socks off! As JKR's degree is in French and Classics, I believe, she's certain to be aware of the implications of calling someone 'bad faith'. This angle reinforces the overwhelming impression that I've already had from what's in the book: that is, that *when* Draco started making independent choices is crucial to how his story plays out, and that if he'd made any sort of active start into joining Voldemort, instead of just drifting passively into it, it would most certainly be mentioned in the book. -- Sydney From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 09:04:38 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:04:38 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158067 Pippin: > Even if Dumbledore didn't use magic, his enemies would be > quick to accuse him of it if they thought there was an advantage. > Also, if Voldemort's servants realized what Harry was gaining > by the Dursleys protection and thought they could lever Harry out of > it by making a scandal about how he was being treated, they certainly > would. So Dumbledore has an incentive not to draw their attention, > doesn't he? Sydney: Harry's location isn't a secret. The Ministry certainly knows where he is. If the ministry knows, the DE's know. You don't have to 'call attention' to Harry, he's the most famous kid in the world and the DE's top target. It's not like they're going to forget he's there and only be reminded if Dumbledore draws their attention! > Pippin: > Does he? Who can Dumbledore trust with Petunia's life? Hagrid and > Arthur, but we've seen that they aren't much at Muggle diplomacy. Sydney: What about Lupin (ooops... forget I said that! )? McGonnegal? Moody? Kingsley, who blended right in as the PM's secretary, so is probably pretty good at Muggle relations? Hestia or some of the other Order members? Dumbledore himself? Pippin: > My point is the Dursleys aren't 'civilized human beings'. They're > holding it together by the skin of their teeth, disturbed enough to > abuse the son they love deeply. Sydney: Really? I thought they were caricatures of ordinariness, not portraits of people who are nearly insane and need to be handled with kid gloves! You can see Dudleys by the score on any British street.If they were so fragile, surely we wouldn't be encouraged to laugh at their blustering in the face of magic? Pippin: They are not people who could be > straightened out with few counseling sessions. They are seriously > messed up. And if the DE's realize that, they can easily use that as > a lever to have Harry taken away. Sydney: The DE's could have used that lever any time, if it was available to them. They know where Harry is; if they were actively after him, they could hang around his house for two hours and get the picture on their own. Pippin: > I think you're right, the real trouble is buying into the situation. > It would be easy to accept that Dumbledore has a mystical > power to protect Harry because his goodness makes it so. > In fact some of us seem to think that he *must* have such > a power and are angry at him or at JKR for not letting him use it. Sydney: It's not Petunia's blood protection that I have to suspend disbelief to buy. I'm cool with the idea that Harry had to live with them. It's the idea that it made sense for Dumbledore to vanish completely for 10 years, do nothing for another six, and yet that he could come down from On High and berate everyone as though his hands were clean here and there was nothing he could have done about how the Dursleys were treating Harry. Harry's treatment starts improving as soon as he realizes he's a wizard and can threaten the Dursleys with implications that his friends will help him (he does that between PoA and OoP, I believe). When Harry was three or five, that would have been an adult's responsibility. That is, Dumbledore's. -- Sydney From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 09:18:38 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:18:38 -0000 Subject: Harry as Murderer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158068 --- , "larryngocnguyen83" wrote: > > Does anyone else find it disturbing that JKR justifies > revenge killing? > > Yes, Voldemort is horrible, but DD (the seminal figure of > moral good in the Books) and Harry in Book 7 continually > talk about murdering him as a means of revenge, or > eradicating evil. Wouldn't this seemingly be a glorified > justification of the death penalty? > > Just a thought.... > > Larry > bboyminn: While you may have a valid point, I think you are overstating your case a bit. That's not so bad, we all do that when we are trying to emphasize a point, but I think you've gone beyond that. I don't recall Dumbledore and Harry in 'continual' discussions of murder for revenge. I do however recall the implication that the purpose was to eradicate evil, but that is a completely different thing. I'm reminded of a passage from 'Speaker for the Dead' which is the continuing story of Ender Wiggen from 'Enders Game'. In it, the Nordic language recognises four level of /foreigness/. Utlanning - Outlander or Otherlander- strangers we recognise as being human and of our world but from another city or country. Framling - this is the stranger we recognise as human but of another world. Ramen - the stranger we recognise as human, but of another species. (Human in this case means sentient humanoid) Varelse - which includes all the animals, for with them no true conversation is possible. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we can not know it. These are the basic concepts, but they have been expanded as a framework for all social interaction amoung the worlds and this includes war. To some extent, the human race can not justify going to war with any of the first three. Because it is possible to know and understand them, and thereby reason with them. But the forth, Varelse, can not be reasoned with, they can not understand and they can not be understood. Now this only metaphorically applies to Voldemort, he is Varelse, he is irrational and unreasonable, and there is no way to sway him. Because Voldemort is acting in an irrational and destructive way, and will not be swayed from that path, it is not /murder/ to stop him. It is justifiable homicide. Even if Voldemort's death, especially by Harry, is brought about by a preemptive strike, it still qualifies as self-defense. Voldemort clearly wants to and has tried to kill Harry, that makes Harry justified in defending himself. The concept applies especially to acts of killing in war. Also, I reject the 'revenge' aspect. Yes, Harry does want to avenge his parents death, but if Voldemort wasn't actively trying to kill Harry, Harry would not likely go looking for Voldemort. So, it is not revenge in the truest sense. As to eradicating evil, I think it is every citizens duty to do just that, whether the evil is a foreign threat, or is in our own government, or is prowling our streets, we have a moral obligation to act in order to keep evil at bay. I don't see this as a moral crime or offense. So, Harry will not act for selfish revenge. He will act in self-defense and the defense of those around him and in the defense of wizard world in general. He will not under any circumstance murder anyone, but if pushed to it, it could come to pass that he is forced to kill someone. Terrible as it may be, that is something that society typically forgives and in many case even honors. So regardless of whether Harry kills Voldemort and regardless of how he kills Voldemort, I don't and can't see his actions as /murder/. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 9 10:25:28 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:25:28 -0000 Subject: Things that could have been edited in OotP(was: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158069 > > Argus Pyrites replies: > I must admit I liked the Hagrid chapter quite a bit. I enjoyed > learning the new information about the magical workings 'hidden' in > our world, and I enjoyed Hagrid getting a little 'screen' time. I > would have prefered to see/hear it told by Mrs. Rowling in present > tense, rather than by Hagrid, in the past tense, as that would have > made it more exciting... but I liked it. Hickengruendler: I'm one of those, who hated the chapter. It's the only chapter in the entire series, that I never fully reread. I tried to do it two or three times, but I couldn't manage. It's just so horribly boring. I can't point the finger on why exactly I didn't like it (maybe it is, because we knew Hagrid and Maxime returned safely and therefore I didn't care if they were in danger for a short time?), but I thought the chapter was long and boring. The Grawp chapter I like a bit better, even though it is definitely too long. But IMO it was the appereance of the centaurs, which made it drag, not necessarily Grawp himself. And she had to include the centaurs to give Hermione an idea how to get rid of Umbridge. Quidditch is another thing I would have left to see gone for good. And I actually think JKR somewhat agrees with me. Given her statements, I don't think she enjoys writing it very much anymore. I give her credit for the idea and the way she developed the sport (including national leagues and Worldcup), but it got to repetetive for my taste since around book 3. I'm glad she said, that she wrote her last Quidditch match in HBP, because I really think the space can be used for more interesting things. That said, Umbridge I love as a character. Order is my favourite book, because of her. I didn't realise how much I like her until I read HBP, whose middle part I hate. She made OotP exciting, since you could never know what she would do next. Without her, I found the middle of HBP a snoozefest (in addition to the snogfest it already was ;-) ). The ending totally redeemed HBP, though. Argus Pyrites: > Also, given that Mrs. Rowling stated that she (I paraphrase) 'could > not find anything to cut from OotP, as it was all neccessary'; then > I'm afraid giants will be back, in my opinion. Hickengruendler: Yes, I believe you are right. Though I do wonder, how the others will defeat them. Grawp is a particular small one. How he or anyone else will be able to stop the really big giants is a riddle for me, but I'm interestined to see the answer. I don't think they will come to the good side, though. They already participated in mass muggle killings in the beginning of HBP. It's a long way to the good side. ;- ) From ornawn at 013.net Sat Sep 9 11:13:47 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:13:47 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158070 >Abergoat offers: >Dumbledore, OoP >"But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken >you >grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took >you,and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. " >'grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly' sounds very similar >to force, although there is a fine distinction - clearly there was >choice. But that choice was compelled in some way. But WHY was she >able to be 'compelled', why did Petunia HAVE to take in Harry? Orna: I understand this particular sentence to mean ? that she had a choice and she was compelled ? she didn't like it - but it was her choice. She was compelled because she found she couldn't wholly rid herself from family ties - her sister's baby. (That's why IMO it sealed the charm - it was because of her sister's blood that she took him in). She found (just like Draco found he wasn't a killer ? and didn't like it), that she couldn't make herself ignore this baby, or put him in an orphanage. She might have thought it would look bad in the neighbors eyes ? her putting him in an orphanage, but she might also found out that hating her sister, not wanting to hear anything about her, being afraid of magic under her roof, all those didn't take her as far as ignoring her sister's helpless baby, when she was perhaps told in the letter, that his very life depended on her taking him in. So she was stuck there, and hated him for "forcing" her to do it ? but it was her choice ? not to seal his fate for death. Orna From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 12:15:18 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 12:15:18 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158071 katssirius: > Petunia never comes across as hateful to me. She is terrified. I see her as a snapping dog in a corner that will bite you and run out of pure animal terror. Ceridwen: My youngest, age 14, has a class in school that talks about success in high school and other things like relations with parents. They were shown a movie about the way different age groups see things differently. A face was shown to a group of teens and a group of adults. The teens thought the face was angry, the adults thought it was scared. We have independent proof of this. We have a picture of my great- grandmother hanging on our wall. The entire time I was growing up, I thought the woman was angry and hateful. When I look at it now, I see her as frightened. The white-knuckles on the arm of the chair, faded in the picture, and stiff posture, are a good indicator that I'm right. I asked my daughter what she thinks of 'old hawkface', and she thinks the woman is angry. We can't physically see the Dursleys in the books. So what one reader brings away as anger and abuse, another reader brings away as utter fear. It depends on our own experiences, I think, personal experiences and knowledge of the experiences of others, rather than age. Fear and anger can play against one another in a character, so fear will make a person hateful, anger can lead to fear since anger is illogical and can make a person do things without good judgement of the outcome - a frightening scenario once the anger has subsided. Marion commented that there doesn't seem to be some support group for Muggles in charge of budding wizards and witches. As far as we know, given the limited POV, no WW counsellor has ever come out to the Dursleys to assist them in dealing with a magical child. As far as we know, there is no one Muggles entrusted with a magical child can call when the child flies to the roof of a building at school, or grows his hair back overnight. This isn't just a comment about the Dursleys, but by extension, about the Grangers, the Creaveys, Mrs Thomas, and other Muggle parents or guardians of WW children. From the time these children are born, they are recognized on the Hogwarts rolls, so the WW knows they're out there. But until they receive their Hogwarts letter, there is no communication, no attempt at helping frazzled parents who are watching the strained peas float across the kitchen. I too think the WW is xenophobic, to the point of undermining their own Statutes of Secrecy by not offering help for Muggles in these situations. They certainly aren't making friends of the Muggles who are subject to outbursts of accidental magic from their exceptional children! I mean, can you imagine how different things might have been if some WW liaisson had come to the orphanage before young Tom Riddle started hanging bunnies from roof beams? An adult wizard or witch could have dealt with Tom where Mrs Cole couldn't. Things would have eased off on the orphanage staff, and Tom wouldn't have thought DD was there to drag him off to an assylum. What it might have done for intervention with Tom's later goals, I don't know. Maybe nothing. But the situation would have been much different, in my opinion! katssirius: > She is an extremely overprotective mother. Again begging the question why does Dudley need protecting? Ceridwen: I always got the idea that, if Harry would have been attacked, that means the Dursleys would have been attacked, too. Why not go after Lily's Muggle relations, even though Lily was no longer around to see it? My impression was that the blood protection falls on the entire household, which explains Petunia's horror that it is going to be removed the next summer during the talk with DD. She knows about Dementors, I believe she knows exactly what happened to her sister and brother-in-law, and knows that, without the protection, the non-magical Dursleys are sitting ducks. This also explains for me why Vernon decided to kick Harry out only after Dudley was attacked by Dementors. The assured protection didn't work (actually, it did, the attack happened away from home, but Vernon isn't thinking clearly), therefore, get rid of the cause of this danger to his family. And, since all this brings an earlier thread to mind, I think DD's Howler got to Petunia so quickly because, once Mundungus was informed of what had happened during his absence, he contacted Dumbledore, and DD arrived at the scene and sent an owl from within a block of the house at Privet Drive. Ceridwen. From ornawn at 013.net Sat Sep 9 12:29:01 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 12:29:01 -0000 Subject: Cabinet FIRST! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158072 >Magpie: >"Bad faith" refers to a false notion of self, one at odds with one's >true nature but that one willingly accepts as a fact despite >evidence to the contrary. >Sydney: >Magpie's pointed out what 'bad faith' means in this context, but you >should read the whole essay-- "Draco Malfoy and the Dragon of Bad >Faith" here: http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/86380.html >Excerpt: >"But more importantly, "bad faith" (or mauvaise foi in modern >French)has a very specific meaning in the existentialist philosophy >of Jean-Paul Sartre. Bad faith is a form of self-deception. To live >in bad faith is to live as if you have no choice in the way you >behave; it is to adopt a role and live your life according to that >role regardless of your own feelings or desires.[...] Sound >familiar? Let me refresh your memory: >"I haven't got any options!" said Malfoy, and he was suddenly as >white as Dumbledore. "I've got to do it! [...] I've got no choice!" >(HBP, p552)" Orna: Thanks Magpie and Sydney for the "bad faith" ? it is illuminating. Looking at the Malfoys from this angle ? Lucius is in Azkaban, we don't know what his thoughts or choices are right now. Narcissa certainly has broken her role. She says it quite clearly "I've made my decision", "There is nothing I wouldn't do anymore!" which sounds like breaking through some long-hold fa?ade. The way she talks to Snape clearly indicates she thinks and talks in ways Des aren't supposed to think ? "How can he, when the Dark Lord himself ", and her very act of going to Snape, defying Voldemort's orders of secrecy. She doesn't walk to the orders side, she just wants Snape to do it, and so Draco stays alive. (Funny thought, still placing the danger to Draco in Dumbledore, and not in Voldemort, whom she recognizes as having given Draco a suicide-mission). But from the angle of choice ? faced with the option of loosing Draco ? she makes one. Ironically Voldemort gets here another mother to risk herself in order to keep her son alive (not like Lily, but still getting brave enough to defy his order). Must be tough on him, with Merope not staying alive for him, and Bellatrix (who by now looks quite crazy) being the one symbolizing the Voldemort-above-(hypothetical) motherlove loyalty. >Magpie: >I don't think in Rowling's world you can stay on the sidelines being >racist but choosing not to get involved, you know? That's a reason >I thought Dumbledore's line to Draco about not using the word >Mudblood seemed important, because it was somebody saying to him >that the word did matter, and it mattered to Dumbledore even when he >was about to die and this is the guy who offered him mercy. Draco >hasn't rejected the values he was brought up with yet as far as we >know, of course, but I think he would need to do that to truly make >a different choice. Orna: Yes, that's an important place, IMO too. Draco uses this Mudblood word in connection with getting an idea from a mudblood. That's where his racist views are challenged, because he has to admit (twisted smile added) that he got ideas from "inferior" people. Actually it's Dumbledore who asks him about the enchanted coins being a bit like the way DA used to communicate (Hermione's idea, in fact). And then Draco says (admits) getting the idea of poisoned mead from Hermione. So it's true, Draco hasn't rejected by now the whole package, but Dumbledore's dialogue with him paths the way to it, by being not just a witty dialogue of "let's see how I'm going to stay alive", but a dialogue of "let's see what the truth on those matters is, and what your choices are after it". And that mercy isn't about "you didn't know what you're doing, OK; let's forget about all". His admitting to Dumbledore, (actually sounding quite horrified) in front of the Des that he didn't invite Fenrir was a step towards it. He is certainly very far away from calling him "a family friend". He could stay silent ? seeing that his chances to wriggle out of it are worse now that the Des have arrived. But he did in a minor way make a public step from the Des to DDs side. So perhaps this is a tiny step not done in "bad faith". I don't count his not killing DD here as a definite public step, since it was seen and acted by "not being able to do it". Orna From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 13:39:38 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:39:38 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158073 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Though, it is clear the Dumbledore initially expects the > Dursley to observe the minimum tradition of hospitality > and courtesy, and when they do not, he take matters (of > hospitality) into his own hands. > > I find your assertion that Dumbledore is an uninvited > stranger at their door in the middle of the night to be > wrong. Steven1965aaa: I agree with Steve, as usual. Dumbledore was NOT uninvited --- Harry, who lives in that house and is (well, at least kind of) a member of the family, invited him by replying "YES" by Owl. It's not Dumbldore's fault that Harry forgot to inform the Dursleys that he was coming. As I've noted earlier, the Dursleys failed to offer DD any hospitality such as inviting him in, offering him a drink or a seat. Contrast Snape's behavior towards Bella and Narcissa (who actually ARE uninvited) at Spinner's end. I think what this boils down to is a cultural difference. What did DD do? He offered them a drink and a seat. Nothing wrong with that. If someone dropped by my house and I failed to offer them a drink, and they pulled out a bottle of wine and some cups and offered me some, I'd be embarrased about MY lack of hospitality. But the WAY he did it --- now that's the thing here --- couch moved magically, cups materialized --- that may be the cultural norm in the WW but is not the norm in the muggle world. You could argue that DD should have been aware of this, and also of the Dursley's fear of magic, but I don't think it was such a big deal. It was just glasses in the air, not knives. And remember, DD politely apologized ("I'm so sorry") and removed the glasses immediately once Vernon objected (will you get these ruddy things off of us!). Also IMR, Vernon interrupted DD several times while DD was talking ("His godfather's dead?" --- "He's inherited a house?") so I don't think he was truly intimidated or scared of DD during this scene. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 03:44:44 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 20:44:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OoP mini-mysteries? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609082044j68bf8569x6529b7cf20e11a9e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158074 CH3ed: Also... what exactly caused the Headmaster's office to seal itself when AlbusD fled and Umbridge took over? Seems the Minister of Magic get to appoint Headmaster... so wouldn't the Minister's edict be able to overrule the zeal? Or is that one of the Founders' little 'rebellion' magic? If Umbridge had been able to get inside the Office and ask the portraits where they thought AlbusD went, do you think they'd be bounded by honor to tell her (since she was the official Headmistress)? Lynda: Apparently the magic of Hogwarts doesn't work that way. Probably since DD was not at that time officially removed from the office of Headmaster by the school governors, Umbridge was merely usurping the position and therefore the room sealed itself against her. If she had managed to get inside, the portraits would probably not have been oath-bound to help her for the same reason. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From grich277080 at aol.com Sat Sep 9 12:48:33 2006 From: grich277080 at aol.com (rchrdsann) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 12:48:33 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158075 AnnR: JKR puts a lot in store by names. What about Tom Riddle. Is it just a surname she chose or is there a deeper meaning. (Thinking of the Riddler in Batman stories) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 14:07:39 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:07:39 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158076 > Steven1965aaa: > > I agree with Steve, as usual. Dumbledore was NOT uninvited --- > Harry, who lives in that house and is (well, at least kind of) a > member of the family, invited him by replying "YES" by Owl. It's not > Dumbldore's fault that Harry forgot to inform the Dursleys that he > was coming. Alla: You know, I have to agree and withdraw my objection to Steve's argument, because my memory failed me. :) For some reason I forgot that Harry indeed replied to an Owl. Yes, minimal hospitality **was** owed IMO. Despite Dursleys keeping Harry without visitors, he indeed has a right to accept Headmaster of his school in the house where he lives. My bad :) > Ceridwen: > We can't physically see the Dursleys in the books. So what one reader > brings away as anger and abuse, another reader brings away as utter > fear. It depends on our own experiences, I think, personal experiences > and knowledge of the experiences of others, rather than age. Alla: I have no argument with **different age groups see things differently** to some extent, as long as you are not arguing that that really means that Harry was not abused by Dursleys. JKR as much as said that he was. That is why irregardless whether Petunia is angry or terrified and as I said I am sure she was terrified too, but for the reasons I fail to find sympathetic as of today. IMO of course Ceridwen: > Fear and anger can play against one another in a character, so fear > will make a person hateful, anger can lead to fear since anger is > illogical and can make a person do things without good judgement of the > outcome - a frightening scenario once the anger has subsided. Alla: Indeed and that fear and/or anger lead them to do things to Harry that Sherry described and as she said **none** of them was his fault. None. I am sure that we can find plenty of reasons explaining Petunia's behaviour. It is just I cannot find any, which justify it. IMO. I want to nodd to Magpie's words here and agree that if JKR chooses to portray Petunia's jealousy as real not as cartoonish and that she may be loved Lily before Hogwarts, that could be cool and **maybe** in book 7 Petunia will acknowledge it. I just completely disagree that she was **not** jealous, when she says as such, I just disagree that fear alone is what drives Petunia. ( that is not replying to Magpie, this sentence - but in general) JMO, Alla From ornawn at 013.net Sat Sep 9 14:36:17 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:36:17 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158077 >Betsy Hp: . I'm merely expressing a bit of disappointment that he >released his anger (as understandable as that anger was) in such a >petty and childish fashion. Orna: I think that's exactly what's happening: Dumbledore ? the greatest wizard of all times is sometimes very childish (see his "Nitwig" or something like this opening speeches in Hogwarts, his passwords, his not minding getting chucked of the various councils as long as his pictures stay on chocolate-frogs, poking Slughorn in his ribs more than necessary, .). I mean, you may feel uncomfortable about it, but it is in his character to be a bit childish on instances ? nothing dangerous, or very abusive IMO, but yes ? he enjoys childish games. It wasn't just a way of expressing anger ? he does turn quite serious when he talks later with the Dursleys about Harry's, and Dudley's abuse. But he has this childishness in him, which turns up quite often. Personally, I don't mind him being like this ? I wouldn't like him to be perfect, and of many shortcomings he could have (temper-tantrums, drinking habit, school-year grievances, bitterness, over-strictness, being addicted to dangerous creatures, being in love with Mrs. Norris etc.) his childishness is one I can feel quite happy about. Orna, sometimes quite childish herself but unfortunately that's the closest she can get to being a wizard From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 9 14:40:14 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:40:14 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158078 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > Ken: > > > > This core soul anchored to the Earth by a horcrux idea > > is the way I have long held horcruxes to work. And then > > one day it struck me that it was totally wrong, Slughorn > > clearly says that part of the soul goes beyond when a > > horcrux owner is attacked. Presumably it is the part > > inside the wizard (what many of you call the core soul) > > not the part inside the horcrux that goes on since the > > horcrux itself was not attacked. > > bboyminn: > > Could you provide a quote in which Slughorn says that? > Because, while there is a certain ambiguity, I don't read > that in Slughorn's statement at all. > > Slughorn- > > "Well, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and > hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even > if one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, > for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. > But of course, existence in such a form ..." > > You could interpret Slughorn as saying "for part of the > soul remains earthbound and undamaged" as saying that > the part remains but the core is gone. I don't read it > that way though. What I read in that fragment is that the > 'Core' is anchored by the 'part'. In either case, Slughorn > doesn't specifically say any part crosses over. > Ken: You provided the quote and you are right, I read it as Slughorn saying the part of the soul resident in the horcrux owner passes Beyond. No, he does not say that explicitly although I feel that is the best reading. But let's leave that indeterminate. What Slughorn does actually say is that you cannot die because *part* of your soul remains Earthbound and undamaged. I question whether the undamaged clause is relevant since the creation of a horcrux requires that you damage the soul and that you make that damage semi- permanent -- the damage persists at least as long as the horcrux remains intact. But let's leave that aside too. Slughorn says that it is sufficient for your contiued existence that part of the soul remains Earthbound and undamaged. This means that the fate of the part that was in the body of the horcrux owner at "death" does not matter. It may pass on, it may remain Earthbound, it may pass on in some circumstances and not others. We know from LV's testimony that while you exist in this spectral form you retain your intellect and sense of self. Since Slughorn says this existence is guaranteed by the horcrux regardless of the fate of the soul bit in the horcrux owner's body, what you and others call the core soul or words to that effect, Slughorn is saying that there is a third component of a human being that is the true seat of intellect and self awareness and this is the part that is guaranteed to survive a deadly attack. For want of a better term I call this part the spirit. A few pages later DD contradicts this and tells Harry that it is indeed your "core soul" that lives on and remains earthbound as long as one or more of your horcruxes remain intact. The implication is that your core soul is the seat of intellect and awareness and that there is no spirit, or at least it is not relevant to the discussion if it exists. I recognize that there is some ambiguity in Slughorn's statement but it does not permit the resolution of the fundamental difference between him and DD. As I've said several times now this could just be sloppy writing and editing and it could have no implications for book 7 at all. On the other hand it could be critical. If Slughorn is right then LV may have no soul bit resident in his body. LV may pass on the instant Harry destroys his final horcrux. That would make for a very anticlimactic ending unless Harry's scar *is* a horcrux that no one knows about. In that case he could go into a final confrontation with LV thinking that he has to kill him. LV could hit him with an AK right in the forehead. The AK could kill the soul bit in the scar but leave Harry unharmed while LV falls to the ground stone cold dead and Harry would not have a clue. Hopefully Hermione will survive to explain it all to him. The thing is that it leaves Harry alive which most of us want, and it does not require him to murder LV (unless you count destroying horcruxes as murder as I do) which rather fewer of us are concerned about. > bboyminn: > > I think the Spirit of which you speak is part of the Core > soul which I also, less frequently, refer to as the Self- > Soul. Ken: No, not in this context. The core soul is the Dumbledorian concept of the way horcruxes work. The spirit is something I have added to the Slughornian concept merely for convenience. It is not explicitly stated but the existence of a seat of self indpendent of the soul is required by Slughorn's view and we may as well call it the spirit. The implication is that this spirit remains Earthbound as long as a bit of the soul does and will follow the last soul bit into the great beyond when the last soul bit is sent on. Oh, and here is my wacky, random horcrux theory of the day. We know that a spell is required to create a horcrux. We do not know who is able to cast that spell. Certainly the wizard/witch who intends to create the horcrux *can* cast it. Nothing in canon that I can recall says that *only* the wizard/witch with the split soul can cast it. Lily was a smart woman. Maybe Harry is a horcrux but *not* an accidental horcrux. Maybe the spell that Lily invoked to protect Harry also made him a horcrux. Maybe she saw the possiblilty of a future confrontation between Harry and LV and wanted to give him an extra shield. I have a hunch that if you AK a living horcrux you can destroy the parasitic soul bit and leave the host intact. To go even farther into the realm of the wacky, if true this might mean that even a Muggle could have a horcrux. It would just require a wizard or witch willing to cast the spell on the Muggle's behalf. Ken From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 15:53:41 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:53:41 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rchrdsann" wrote: > > AnnR: > > JKR puts a lot in store by names. What about Tom Riddle. Is it > just a surname she chose or is there a deeper meaning. (Thinking of > the Riddler in Batman stories) Mike: Speaking of anagrams, oh you weren't? Well anyway I tried out "Grindelwald" to see what's in it. You can get "Riddle" out but that leaves the letters "gnawl" and dang if I can make anything intelligent out of those. Anybody else try "Grindelwald" for an anagram? It just seems like Grindelwald is meant to be more than a name on the back of a Chocolate Frog Card that Harry learned on his first trip to Hogwarts. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 16:13:11 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:13:11 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158080 Alla: > I have no argument with **different age groups see things > differently** to some extent, as long as you are not arguing that > that really means that Harry was not abused by Dursleys. JKR as much > as said that he was. That is why irregardless whether Petunia is > angry or terrified and as I said I am sure she was terrified too, > but for the reasons I fail to find sympathetic as of today. IMO of > course Ceridwen: I purposely tried to stay away from any other issues, like the abuse issue and the DD's visit issue, but didn't do a very good job of saying so! Blame math class. 8( Though, I would suggest that if Petunia and Vernon were supported by the WW, perhaps the abuse would not have happened. I'm only saying perhaps, because we can't know. But knowing that they had some recourse when Harry displayed accidental magic might have relieved stress, which also contributes to abusive situations, if I recall correctly. And knowing that someone would be around to check and have 'Tea with Petunia' (who said that? love it, sounds like an afternoon gossip program on TV!) would curtail some more overt abuses, too, in my opinion. I didn't say anything about Harry's viewpoint, except to say that we don't really know there is no support network. Harry may not have seen such a thing if the visiting WW counsellor came over while he was at school, for instance. But, since you mentioned it ;), Harry could read anger for fear if someone is yelling at him (not talking about any physical abuse here, just yelling). Plenty of parents yell at their kids when something horrifying has happened. For instance, a child running into the street. The kid thinks the parent is very angry, shouting, carrying on, but another adult seeing what was happening would see fear for what could have happened. Not that we see Petunia too concerned for Harry's safety, but she might react in fear over a bout of accidental magic, which Harry would perceive as anger. Alla: > Indeed and that fear and/or anger lead them to do things to Harry that Sherry described and as she said **none** of them was his fault. None. I am sure that we can find plenty of reasons explaining Petunia's behaviour. It is just I cannot find any, which justify it. IMO. Ceridwen: As I said, I wasn't trying to address any other issue than the apparent lack of support for Muggles dealing with magical children. Lack of support in this case equals lack of knowledge and understanding. I still think there should be some pre-Hogwarts support for *all* Muggle parents and guardians of magical children, not just the Dursleys. Fear and anger, and in some instances, even misplaced religious fervor, could lead to tragic circumstances for any magical child, not just Harry. Alla: > I just completely disagree that she was **not** jealous, when she says as such, I just disagree that fear alone is what drives Petunia. Ceridwen: Oh, definitely Petunia is jealous. Her speech about her 'freak' sister in PS/SS sounded bitter and sad and jealous. Their parents were *proud* to have a witch in the family. That speech misled me on first reading to think that, in the Potterverse, Muggles knew about the WW since there had to be some basis for the Evans's pride. Maybe something to lord over the neighbors, since Petunia is portrayed as someone who wants to keep ahead of her neighbors, or is at least concerned with keeping up with them. But, I think she was hurt, too, that her parents were so proud of Lily. It sounded to me that she felt left out and even unloved on some level. Lily's special, Petunia is just Petunia. Ceridwen. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 9 16:17:37 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:17:37 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > I used to be better at this, but I cannot find the quote I want. JKR > has something along the line of the mirror being more useful, and > less useful than we expect. Geoff: I have been trying to send this message for over a day and have finally discovered that Yahoo was bouncing my mail. So my apologies for the lateness. The quote you are looking for is on JKR's website, under FAQs and is the second (SPOILER WARNING): "Why did Harry have to forget the mirror he had been given by Sirius in 'Order of the Phoenix'? I can't give a full answer to this, because it is relevant to books six and seven. However, the short answer is that Harry was determined never to use the mirror, as is clearly stated in chapter 24: `he knew he would never use whatever it was'. For once in Harry's life, he does not succumb to curiosity, he hides the mirror and the temptation away from himself, and then, when it might have been useful, he has forgotten it. ? ? The mirror might not have helped as much as you think, but on the other hand, will help more than you think. You'll have to read the final books to understand that!" From phil at pcsgames.net Sat Sep 9 16:23:37 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 12:23:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The name Riddle References: Message-ID: <013f01c6d42c$51fd1d70$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 158082 ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 11:53 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The name Riddle --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rchrdsann" wrote: > > AnnR: > > JKR puts a lot in store by names. What about Tom Riddle. Is it > just a surname she chose or is there a deeper meaning. (Thinking of > the Riddler in Batman stories) Mike: Speaking of anagrams, oh you weren't? Well anyway I tried out "Grindelwald" to see what's in it. You can get "Riddle" out but that leaves the letters "gnawl" and dang if I can make anything intelligent out of those. Anybody else try "Grindelwald" for an anagram? It just seems like Grindelwald is meant to be more than a name on the back of a Chocolate Frog Card that Harry learned on his first trip to Hogwarts. Now Phil: You can get wl nag riddle from Grindelwald Wl may be shorthand for will Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 16:25:37 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:25:37 -0000 Subject: Magic Late in Life - Dudley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158083 I know that all of us think that the person to do magic late in life will be an adult, or even an older adult. I have hopes for Mrs. Figg myself. But maybe we should rethink this a bit. Children are born with the gift of magic and usually show it before age 11. Neville was a bit late, but still was able to show that he had the gift and get his letter to Hogwarts in time. Someone "late in life" could be a teenager too old to begin at Hogwarts. It could be Dudley. Another reason to suspect Dudley is that Petunia is his mother and Magic does run in her family as a dormant gene or something. It would make sense that if Privet Drive was attacked, (I think it will be just after midnight on Harry's birthday) that Dudley will act to protect his parents and perhaps Harry. He owes Harry one, after all. Tonks_op From lnnguyen at du.edu Sat Sep 9 16:28:39 2006 From: lnnguyen at du.edu (larryngocnguyen83) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:28:39 -0000 Subject: Harry as Murderer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158084 Thanks Steve for the thorough and quick reply, No, I think I agree with you on many points that I had overlooked--It is a much more complicated manner. I think that at the hour I had written the comment, it was right after my second reading of the book and my anguish for Harry heightened when he finalizes his resolve to find Voldemort and "be the one who's going to kill him" (HBP 651). A boy of that age, having to destroy another (albeit mass murdering) human being... I half-knew it was the only choice in the situation to deal with Voldemort (which, you were right in saying that it logically makes sense that it is self-defense, considering he is hunting Harry and will without hesitation try to kill him). Dumbledore does speak plainly about revenge and evil: (HBP - US- 510-511) "If Voldemort had never murdered your father, would he have imparted a furious desire for revenge?" "Of course i haven't [shown desire to become one of Voldemort's followers]!. . . "He killed my mum and dad!" DD, talks about Harry's "furious desire" for revenge as not justification of killing Voldemort, but simply pointing out the fact that Harry is his "equal" and the ONLY (chosen) one who has the ability to kill him. You could equate Voldemort to some of the many genocidal tyrants of our world, and my first comment does not even enter the realm of sympathy in any way, shape or form. Voldemort must die, and I've now come to grips that it can only be done by this poor, teenage orphan we've all come to love dearly as a friend. Thanks again for your enlightening comments. Larry --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- , "larryngocnguyen83" wrote: > > > > Does anyone else find it disturbing that JKR justifies > > revenge killing? > > > > Yes, Voldemort is horrible, but DD (the seminal figure of > > moral good in the Books) and Harry in Book 7 continually > > talk about murdering him as a means of revenge, or > > eradicating evil. Wouldn't this seemingly be a glorified > > justification of the death penalty? > > > > Just a thought.... > > > > Larry > > > > bboyminn: > > While you may have a valid point, I think you are > overstating your case a bit. That's not so bad, we all > do that when we are trying to emphasize a point, but I > think you've gone beyond that. > > I don't recall Dumbledore and Harry in 'continual' > discussions of murder for revenge. I do however recall > the implication that the purpose was to eradicate evil, > but that is a completely different thing. > > I'm reminded of a passage from 'Speaker for the Dead' > which is the continuing story of Ender Wiggen from 'Enders > Game'. In it, the Nordic language recognises four level of > /foreigness/. > > Utlanning - Outlander or Otherlander- strangers we > recognise as being human and of our world but from another > city or country. > > Framling - this is the stranger we recognise as human but > of another world. > > Ramen - the stranger we recognise as human, but of another > species. (Human in this case means sentient humanoid) > > Varelse - which includes all the animals, for with them no > true conversation is possible. They might be intelligent, > they might be self-aware, but we can not know it. > > These are the basic concepts, but they have been expanded > as a framework for all social interaction amoung the > worlds and this includes war. To some extent, the human > race can not justify going to war with any of the first > three. Because it is possible to know and understand them, > and thereby reason with them. But the forth, Varelse, can > not be reasoned with, they can not understand and they can > not be understood. > > Now this only metaphorically applies to Voldemort, he is > Varelse, he is irrational and unreasonable, and there is > no way to sway him. Because Voldemort is acting in an > irrational and destructive way, and will not be swayed > from that path, it is not /murder/ to stop him. It is > justifiable homicide. Even if Voldemort's death, > especially by Harry, is brought about by a preemptive > strike, it still qualifies as self-defense. Voldemort > clearly wants to and has tried to kill Harry, that makes > Harry justified in defending himself. > > The concept applies especially to acts of killing in war. > > Also, I reject the 'revenge' aspect. Yes, Harry does want > to avenge his parents death, but if Voldemort wasn't > actively trying to kill Harry, Harry would not likely go > looking for Voldemort. So, it is not revenge in the truest > sense. > > As to eradicating evil, I think it is every citizens duty > to do just that, whether the evil is a foreign threat, or > is in our own government, or is prowling our streets, we > have a moral obligation to act in order to keep evil at > bay. I don't see this as a moral crime or offense. > > So, Harry will not act for selfish revenge. He will act in > self-defense and the defense of those around him and in the > defense of wizard world in general. He will not under any > circumstance murder anyone, but if pushed to it, it could > come to pass that he is forced to kill someone. Terrible > as it may be, that is something that society typically > forgives and in many case even honors. > > So regardless of whether Harry kills Voldemort and > regardless of how he kills Voldemort, I don't and can't > see his actions as /murder/. > > Just one man's opinion. > > Steve/bboyminn > From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 17:09:20 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:09:20 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158085 I don't want to get into the whole "abuse" issue. We have been there and done that and no one is going to change their position on that one. I just writing to agree with the age of the reader issue. I am an "older" person. (50's) and I have always seen the Dursleys as fearful. As least Vernon and Petunia. Much of their actions, IMO, stem from fear. They hide Harry under the stairs where you would put something scary that you didn't want to remember was in your home. It is where you would put something you wanted to control, but knew in your heart of hearts that you could not control. (And add the whole thing of the worst kind of Wizards gunning for the kid, and you have a very scary situation indeed.) I agree with Ceridwen, a magical child would be very scary for a Muggle family. I love the idea of WW social workers helping the family learn to cope with the child. Why even a program where a WW mother with lots of experience could come for tea would be helpful. I can see Molly and Petunia doing that. I think that Petunia might not be as afraid as Vernon is. She at least has been exposed to the magical world. Vernon on the other hand is more than just scared, he is terrified. I am surprised the poor man hasn't had a heart attack over it. It is Vernon who is the most abusive and this is in direct proportion to his sense of terror. He absolutely loses it at times and goes right off the deep end. Poor man. As to Petunia. I think that she should get a little credit. After all she did do what was right over what was easy, when it came to taking Harry in and also when she insisted that he must stay. I don't think that was all because of her fear of DD either. I think she did it out of duty to her sister, her blood. And she did it at great cost and risk to herself and to her husband and her "only son". Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 17:22:08 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:22:08 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle In-Reply-To: <013f01c6d42c$51fd1d70$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158086 > Mike: > > Speaking of anagrams, oh you weren't? Well anyway I tried > out "Grindelwald" to see what's in it. You can get "Riddle" out but that leaves the letters "gnawl" and dang if I can make anything > intelligent out of those. Tonks: Well maybe JKR's spelling ability is as bad as her math. I thought "gnawl" was a word. I looked it up, and it isn't. But to me it spells "gnaw". So maybe this is the word she wants. With this we have the fact that we have to 'gnaw on the riddle'. Which make perfect sense to me. So does the spelling since Webster and I have never agreed on the correct way to spell, and he published first. ;-) Tonks_op From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 17:27:52 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 10:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060909172752.92051.qmail@web39514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158087 --- katssirius wrote: I much prefer seeing Petunia as a real person > who had real hurt > over > this issue instead of just the wicked stepsister who > was ugly and > didn't > have magic powers and was always jealous and hated > perfect Lily. Not > because it makes Petunia's behavior towards Harry > any better, but > it's more > realistic to me. Also--and I think JKR illustrates > this well in > canon a > lot--real hurt breeds deeper bitterness and so more > cruelty. She was > jealous, I think, but to me it's not just in a > superficial way. > > > -m" parisfan writes: MY take on dear Aunt Petunia was that (like in some relationships) she probably was the ugly duckling next to her sister. I see it as that Lilly was so pretty and popular that Petunia was over looked (maybe not intentionally) but just over shadowed by her sister since she can remember. And to make it worse Lilly was a witch, which would make Lilly seem that much more special and make Petunia feel all the more worse. I am not saying that's all that happened but the way the Evans sisters are described I can see that happening. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 9 17:28:23 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:28:23 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158088 > > Pippin: > > > Even if Dumbledore didn't use magic, his enemies would be > > quick to accuse him of it if they thought there was an advantage. > > Also, if Voldemort's servants realized what Harry was gaining > > by the Dursleys protection and thought they could lever Harry out of > > it by making a scandal about how he was being treated, they certainly > > would. So Dumbledore has an incentive not to draw their attention, > > doesn't he? > > Sydney: > > Harry's location isn't a secret. The Ministry certainly knows where > he is. If the ministry knows, the DE's know. You don't have to 'call > attention' to Harry, he's the most famous kid in the world and the > DE's top target. It's not like they're going to forget he's there and > only be reminded if Dumbledore draws their attention! Pippin: But no one apart from Dumbledore and Mrs. Figg seems to realize how badly Harrry is being treated. I don't think the DE's would even recognize that sleeping in a windowless room and wearing odd clothes was mistreatment by Muggle standards unless somebody pointed it out to them, because those things are normal for wizards. It would never occur to them that they could get the Muggles themselves to order Harry out of the Dursleys care -- unless someone brought it to their attention. > > Pippin: > > Does he? Who can Dumbledore trust with Petunia's life? Hagrid and > > Arthur, but we've seen that they aren't much at Muggle diplomacy. > > Sydney: > > What about Lupin (ooops... forget I said that! )? McGonnegal? > Moody? Kingsley, who blended right in as the PM's secretary, so is > probably pretty good at Muggle relations? Hestia or some of the other > Order members? Dumbledore himself? Pippin: Moody was impersonated by a Death Eater so successfully that Dumbledore didn't catch on for months. Give somebody regular access to the Dursleys and there's no guarantee that the DE's couldn't subvert or impersonate them. Dumbledore has to be successful every time, the DE's only need to break through once. Anyway, what DD was doing was working. Not perfectly, but the DE's were kept away, Harry was bright-eyed, doing well in Muggle school, not hanging rabbits from the rafters and not being tempted to experiment with the powers he'd absorbed from Voldemort. > Pippin: > > My point is the Dursleys aren't 'civilized human beings'. They're > > holding it together by the skin of their teeth, disturbed enough to > > abuse the son they love deeply. > > Sydney: > > Really? I thought they were caricatures of ordinariness, not portraits > of people who are nearly insane and need to be handled with kid > gloves! You can see Dudleys by the score on any British street.If > they were so fragile, surely we wouldn't be encouraged to laugh at > their blustering in the face of magic? > Pippin: JKR does that to us all the time. She invites us to laugh at something as comically exaggerated, then shows us how we would feel if it were real. We're left not knowing whether it's okay to laugh at the Dursleys and that's the point, IMO. She shows us that something scary happens when we start thinking that other people have been put into the world as object lessons in how not to be human. Our compassion shuts down all by itself, no occlumency required. Yeah, Dudleys are all over the place. You (that's the generic you) might even see one in the mirror. Vernon might well be nearly insane. There aren't many characters that JKR says flatly can't change. Voldemort is one, Vernon is another. I think JKR regards that as a sign of a severely damaged individual. Vernon is certainly acting paranoid in PS/SS. Suppose he'd killed somebody with that gun, would we still think he was funny? I think part of what JKR was showing us by having DD knock the Dursleys on the head is that, yes, he would ding some sense into them if he could, but it's not that simple. The Dursleys didn't reason themselves into believing that magic is filthy and contaminated and they won't be reasoned out of it. He can't get them to change their minds about magic and accept Harry any more than he could change the WW's mind about werewolves or Lupin. And *that* could be very important indeed. > Sydney: > > The DE's could have used that lever any time, if it was available to > them. They know where Harry is; if they were actively after him, > they could hang around his house for two hours and get the picture on > their own. > Pippin: They can't hang around a Muggle neighborhood -- they don't know enough about Muggles to make themselves inconspicuous. And the Dursleys treat Harry reasonably well when they're not in the house -- they don't want to make a spectacle of themselves. All the wizards who witness first hand how the Dursleys treat Harry seem shocked -- except DD. Even Fudge cannot quite believe that Harry Potter savior of the WW is an outcast in a home where nobody loves him. > Pippin: > > > I think you're right, the real trouble is buying into the situation. > > It would be easy to accept that Dumbledore has a mystical > > power to protect Harry because his goodness makes it so. > > In fact some of us seem to think that he *must* have such > > a power and are angry at him or at JKR for not letting him use it. > > Sydney: > > It's not Petunia's blood protection that I have to suspend disbelief > to buy. I'm cool with the idea that Harry had to live with them. > It's the idea that it made sense for Dumbledore to vanish completely > for 10 years, do nothing for another six, and yet that he could come > down from On High and berate everyone as though his hands were clean > here and there was nothing he could have done about how the Dursleys > were treating Harry. Harry's treatment starts improving as soon as he > realizes he's a wizard and can threaten the Dursleys with implications > that his friends will help him (he does that between PoA and OoP, I > believe). When Harry was three or five, that would have been an > adult's responsibility. That is, Dumbledore's. Pippin: So three year old Harry learns he's a wizard -- he won't be able to disguise his powers, so he can't live with the Dursleys anymore. He's dead. Five year old Harry threatens the Dursleys. They throw him out. He's dead. Or they allow him to return and they are less cruel but more neglectful, just like in PoA. But this is much more damaging for five year old Harry than it was for fourteen year old Harry, who is reasonably well-socialized already and can physically look after himself. He begins to show signs of more serious psychological problems and has to be removed from their 'care'. He's dead. I mean, if Dumbledore thought it would help to do any of the things you suggested, don't you think he'd do them? Pippin From CliffVDY at juno.com Sat Sep 9 11:52:55 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:52:55 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brett" wrote: Brett wrote: > An unresolved plot point for me from OotP, perhaps a clue(?), has to > do with Snape and the Occlumency lessons. IF Snape is Good, and > Dumbledore has sacrificed all to be able to place him in a position > to help Harry, then why wouldn't Snape try harder to help Harry > learn this skill? In the book, as it occured, it made sense, but > when one looks back on it, in particular remembering Snapes cries > of "Blocked, again & Again, etc." from HBP; I've never understood > why Snape didn't make it a top priority to force Harry to learn this > skill that he seems to need so desperately. Why would Snape, who is > perhaps committed to helping Harry at a Life or Death level; not > find a way to break through the BS and get Harry to sit down shut > up, and learn. > > Since I am of the "Snape is good, and going to be rather important > to the plot of the book-that-is-yet-to-be-named" camp; this failure > to help Harry with this has always bothered me. My thoughts have > always been - it happened because Mrs. Rowling was focused on the > short term goals of the current book at that point, at the expense > of logical consistency in the overall plot (an understandable and > forgiveable offense, in my opinion. > > But, does anyone else have any better thoughts or actual theories on > this? [or is there an old thread to point me too? =)] Cliff here: As I have personal experience in Muggle telepathy, I can say that making your mind blank is NOT the way to block intrusion. In fact, to get telepathic messages, feelings and images, your mind (and in case of images also your vision) must be free of interference. Thus Snape told HP exactly the wrong thing as Snape wanted LV to be able to access Harry's mind. Snape said the DD wanted him to teach HP; DD would assume Snape would teach correctly. In Muggle terms, we talk of a closed mind, one that refuses the facts as his/her mind is already made up. Such a person cannot receive telepathic messages. It requires an open mind, not only for the very weak signal, but also the acceptance. The signal, however, has a tremendous range, 1100 miles is easy. It doesn't require close proximity and/or view of the eyes as that is the Muggle form of lie detection. Like a polygraph, it only detects the degree that the person is upset over telling a lie. Now, JKR may have not known what I know, so she couldn't write it. Or, of course, she was making an obvious clue to those of us who do know that Snape is a bad egg. I caught the situation on my first reading of the book. Cliff, who hopes he's not alone in using telepathy. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 17:39:08 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:39:08 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158090 > >Betsy Hp: > . I'm merely expressing a bit of disappointment that he > >released his anger (as understandable as that anger was) in such a petty and childish fashion. > > > Orna: > I think that's exactly what's happening: Dumbledore ? the greatest > wizard of all times is sometimes very childish (snip) I mean, you may feel uncomfortable about it, > but it is in his character to be a bit childish on instances ? > nothing dangerous, or very abusive IMO, but yes ? he enjoys childish games. It wasn't just a way of expressing anger ? he does turn quite serious when he talks later with the Dursleys about Harry's, and Dudley's abuse. But he has this childishness in him, which turns up quite often. Personally, I don't mind him being like this ? I wouldn't like him to be perfect, and of many shortcomings he could have (temper-tantrums, drinking habit, school-year grievances, bitterness, over-strictness, being addicted to dangerous creatures, being in love with Mrs. Norris etc.) his childishness is one I can feel quite happy about. > Tonks: I agree that this was a playful thing on DD's part. Being able to let your inner child out to play is IMO a very mentally healthy thing to do. I don't understand the people who love HP and don't like to dress up as a wizard for Halloween, etc. They are too grown up. But not DD. He can play. He is not afraid of what other people think. He is fully himself. He doesn't hold anything back. He is a man of great depth and we may not see and know everything about him, but he doesn't hide who he is from anyone. So don't apologize for enjoying life and being "childish". That is NOT a bad thing; it is a very good thing. It is not a "short- coming". IMO it is a mark of both a mature person and a mentally healthy one. Tonks_op gotta to go get a happy meal now. Love those toys! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 17:45:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:45:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158091 > Ceridwen: > I purposely tried to stay away from any other issues, like the abuse > issue and the DD's visit issue, but didn't do a very good job of > saying so! Blame math class. 8( Alla: I told you - put X to one side and numbers to another and here we go ;), although as you remember as soon as you add **y** to X, I am stumbling too. Great mathematicians, us. Ceridwen: > Though, I would suggest that if Petunia and Vernon were supported by > the WW, perhaps the abuse would not have happened. I'm only saying > perhaps, because we can't know. But knowing that they had some > recourse when Harry displayed accidental magic might have relieved > stress, which also contributes to abusive situations, if I recall > correctly. And knowing that someone would be around to check and > have 'Tea with Petunia' (who said that? love it, sounds like an > afternoon gossip program on TV!) would curtail some more overt > abuses, too, in my opinion. Alla: Mmmm, if somebody was checking on Harry, I **bet** abuse would not have happened, I mean also just speculating. But you are saying that Dursleys would not have give in their worse impulses, if WW would have supporting it? Maybe, although I have problems believing it. But the general question of absense of support to the Muggle parents and guardians of muggleborn magical kids, which you were addressing... Yes, that would have been nice, but but isn't it the problem of Statute of secrecy again? Doesn't WW try to keep the contacts to the minimum? Isn't JKR trying to keep two words separate as much as possible? I mean, they cannot be completely separate because of Muggleborn kids, but I am not sure if they would go for network of support, although certainly at least individual support would have been nice. **Not sure** how much it would make Dursleys to treat Harry better of course, but one never knows. Ceridwen: But, since you mentioned it ;), Harry > could read anger for fear if someone is yelling at him (not talking > about any physical abuse here, just yelling). Alla: You know, I often cannot even write anymore that I strongly disagree with you, since your posts are so in the middle often enough and any strong reply to them seems to me to be going overboard ( we all know how often in the heated discussion extreme argument provokes extreme reply), but regardless of whether it is anger or fear, does it matter? Does the situation would become less abusive if what drives Dursleys is fear? Petunia driven by fear would still be the same Petunia who tried to hit Harry with the pan, she still be the same Petunia who did not protest when Harry was locked in the room with bars and starved. I know that you are specifically adressing yelling, but IMO after yelling always comes something else and even when it is just yelling, especially when Harry is little, he is still hurt by it, no? Ceridwen: > Plenty of parents yell at their kids when something horrifying has > happened. For instance, a child running into the street. The kid > thinks the parent is very angry, shouting, carrying on, but another > adult seeing what was happening would see fear for what could have > happened. Not that we see Petunia too concerned for Harry's safety, > but she might react in fear over a bout of accidental magic, which > Harry would perceive as anger. Alla: Yes, when child does something dangerous, one yells if necessary to stop it, but would still show child that he is loved, no? > Ceridwen: > I still think there should be some pre-Hogwarts > support for *all* Muggle parents and guardians of magical children, > not just the Dursleys. Fear and anger, and in some instances, even > misplaced religious fervor, could lead to tragic circumstances for > any magical child, not just Harry. Alla: See above, I don't disagree at all. > Ceridwen: > Oh, definitely Petunia is jealous. Her speech about her 'freak' > sister in PS/SS sounded bitter and sad and jealous. , SNIP> But, I think she was hurt, too, that her parents were so proud of > Lily. It sounded to me that she felt left out and even unloved on > some level. Lily's special, Petunia is just Petunia. Alla: You know, I think this can actually be perfect groundwork to put some humanness in Petunia - if that will come to the surface that she felt unloved, that she indeed loved Lily, but was jealous, I may feel some sympathy towards her, but nothing in my mind will erase the horrible things she did to innocent kid, absolutely nothing. Yes, she grudgingly took him in indeed, but in my mind she did nothing else than the aunt has to do for her oprhan nephew. Somebody upthread said that the list of people for whom she would endanger her kids is very short. I am not sure how much danger Dudley is in because of Harry, although I guess Dementor visit should count as such, but I know one thing - my brother's little daughter is certainly on the list of people for whom I would do **anything** and protect her ( hopefully that would never ever be needed) with anything I can. JMO, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 17:28:27 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:28:27 -0000 Subject: DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158092 > > Phoenixgod: > I refuse to believe that leaving Harry with the Dursleys was the > best of all possible worlds for a wizard of Dumbledore's power, > skill, and age. It might have been the best for the Cinderfella > story JKR wants to say, but I don't buy it in a world of magic on > the level we've seen in the story. > > Pippin: > Then you refuse to believe canon. > Voldemort or his servants have found their way into every magical > fortress and concealed stronghold we know of: Gringotts, Azkaban, > Hogwarts, Godric's Hollow, Grimmauld Place, St Mungo's and the > Ministry itself. Even the fear of Dumbledore did not hold them off > forever. The mind link means that no disguise would have > prevented a resurgent Voldemort from learning that Harry is alive. > EXACTLY. We just don't buy it. Anyone who studies the situation for a little while can come up with a dozen ways Dumbledore could have handled the situation better and more morally, including telling Vernon "let the kid out of the closet or I'll turn you into a pumpkin." JKR has simply done a terrible job of convincing us (we who object to the whole "Dursley" angle in the story, and many aspects of the "Snape" angle) that this is the way an "epitome of goodness" who is the "greatest wizard in the world" would behave in the face of child abuse -- especially child abuse brought on by his own decision. As for DD's overall motivation, the whole utilitarian "better that one suffer than many" just doesn't wash, sorry. Nor does any concern about DD's status as the defender of muggle rights. The good of the many DOES NOT trump the good of the one, at least not always. DD's little speech about the good of "nameless faceless people" doesn't, IMO, indicate that he was abdicating his responsibility, it showed that he, by protecting Harry to an extent and trying to gaurantee his happiness, was acting morally at long last. His actions before were, if motivated by such utilitarian calculations, utterly contemptible IMO, as is his failure to put Snape firmly in his place. Lupinlore, who would have been quite happy to see a much harsher scene with the Dursleys, and who hopes there is one to come From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sat Sep 9 18:16:06 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:16:06 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158093 Geoff wrote: > The mirror might not have helped as much as you think, > but on the other hand, will help more than you think. You'll > have to read the final books to understand that!" Abergoat writes: Thanks for the quote. I think that strongly suggests the mirrors will not be used in the traditional manner (e.g. the shards being used by the group to communicate). And talking to Sirius at the end of OotP wasn't going to help Harry, at least not towards the goal of defeating Voldemort. But now, with the need to figure out the horcruxes, I imagine talking to the dead could be highly useful...provided all of the relic victims are dead. (Dog Lady anyone?) JKR says the founders will play an important role in book seven, perhaps they will have something to say about their individual relics by way of Sirius's mirror. Abergoat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 18:36:07 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:36:07 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158094 --- "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: > > > ...edited... > > Cliff here: > As I have personal experience in Muggle telepathy, I > can say that making your mind blank is NOT the way to > block intrusion. In fact, to get telepathic messages, > feelings and images, your mind (...) must be free of > interference. Thus Snape told HP exactly the wrong > thing as Snape wanted LV to be able to access Harry's > mind. > > ...edited... > > Now, JKR may have not known what I know, so she > couldn't write it. Or, of course, she was making an > obvious clue to those of us who do know that Snape is > a bad egg. I caught the situation on my first reading > of the book. > > Cliff, who hopes he's not alone in using telepathy. > bboyminn: While I do agree with what you are saying, I think the Occlumency lessons are dealing with a very fine distinction between what you are saying and what Snape is saying. True you need to have a calm quiet mind for it to be open to psychic input, but Harry's cases is very special. He is not operating on normal psychic preception. He has a special connection specifically to Voldemort. I suspect that it wasn't so much his mind that Harry needed to clear as his emotions. If you are emotionally aggitated, then you don't sleep as well. When you are in deep sleep, you are completely cut off. But when you are in Deam or REM sleep you are as close to conscious as you can be and still remain asleep. During restless troubled sleep, Harry's near conscious mind is more excessable, and more prone to suggestion. His mind is active and awake (or nearly so), but being asleep, it is cut off from his control. So, I suggest that in restless sleep Harry was more vulnerable to Voldemort, far more vulnerable than he would be if he were in calm deep sleep, and that is why he needed to calm himself. I do agree with you that to open yourself to psychic connections, you need to concentrate, and to concentrate you need to clear your mind of distractions. So a calm mind is a more open mind. But if Harry has a practiced calm mind, I think he would also have a better ability to distinguish between his own normal dreams and dreams that were being forced on him by Voldemort. If his mind is cluttered and filled with thoughts, it makes it harder to sort them out. In a sense, it seems that the Occlumency lesson did open Harry's mind further, but at the same time when he slept a calm sleep he was less prone to dreams. So, it is a toss up. I think both Snape and Dumbledore could have done a better job of explaining things to Harry. You can't order or threaten someone into calming their mind, that simply doesn't work and likely will have the opposite effect. There are valid, ancient, and well-known techniques for calming the mind; creative visualization, meditation, yoga, deep breathing, and a host of others. Even reading a book before bed to distract his mind from all the troubles of the day would probably have helped. I think Snape was the absolute worst choice to teach Harry, partly because as a spy, it put Snape in the worst possible position. It simply added to the load of things he is forced to hide from Voldemort. The greater that load, the more difficult it becomes. Further, it should have been clear that the animosity between Snape and Harry was going to be counter productive. Harry needed to be calm, and how could he be calm after spending an hour being abused by his worst enemy? By having his deepest secrets revealed to someone he so thoroughly despised? Still I can see why Dumbledore chose Snape. Snape is an Order member, he can be trusted, he didn't have to bring anyone new into the picture, and Snape is a superb Occlumens. Unfortunately, superb Occlumens that he is, he was still the worst possible teacher in this circumstance. I don't think Snape is ESE (Ever So Evil), but I do think he is ESN (Ever so Nasty), and I do think Dumbledore forced Snape to divide his loyalties in a nearly impossible way. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From jade69_47331 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 19:36:59 2006 From: jade69_47331 at yahoo.com (jade69_47331) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 19:36:59 -0000 Subject: leaky poll -- wands, Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158095 > > leb says: > > How will the relationship between a wizard and > > his wand become more important in book 7? > > > > If you remember he [Neville] had a used wand the > > first several years and so did not get a shot at trying > > the Fawke's wand like Harry did. > Carodave: > There has to be some significance to the fact that > Neville was one of the last to purchase a wand prior to > Ollivander's disappearance. Jade: Has anyone considered that the reason Neville had been doing so poorly in school is because the wand he was using was his dad's and not one picked for him? His one class he excels in is Herbology which doesn't require a wand. Now that he has his own wand I think we can expect better of him. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 20:08:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:08:00 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces with a Twist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158096 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > > > Ken: > > > > > > This core soul anchored to the Earth by a horcrux > > > idea is the way I have long held horcruxes to work. > > > And then one day it struck me that it was totally > > > wrong, Slughorn clearly says that part of the soul > > > goes beyond when a horcrux owner is attacked. ... > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Could you provide a quote in which Slughorn says that? > > Because, while there is a certain ambiguity, I don't > > read that in Slughorn's statement at all. > > > > Slughorn- > > > > "Well, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, > > "and hide part of it in an object outside the body. > > Then, even if one's body is attacked or destroyed, one > > cannot die, ... ..." > > > > ... > > > > Ken: > > ... What Slughorn does actually say is that you cannot > die because *part* of your soul remains Earthbound and > undamaged. ... > > Slughorn says that ... for your continued existence > that part of the soul remains Earthbound and undamaged. > This means that the fate of the part that was in the > body ...does not matter. ... We know from LV's testimony > that ...in this spectral form you retain your intellect > and sense of self. Since Slughorn says this existence is > guaranteed by the horcrux regardless of the fate of the > soul bit in the horcrux owner's body, ..., Slughorn is > saying that there is a third component of a human being > that is the true seat of intellect and self awareness > and this is the part that is guaranteed to survive a > deadly attack. For want of a better term I call this > part the spirit. > bboyminn: Well, you are extending Slughorns statement with a lot of suppositions that the book does not support. I will agree that there is a third component - the Spirit or sense of Self. On general knowledge of the soul, I don't think the departed soul remains attached, emotionally or intellectually, to the physical body. The soul transends the particular vehicle it is inhabiting. Yet, when ghosts die they are very much tied to their earthly identities. I would say, in fact, that it is the very thing they are unwilling to give up. So, I agree, that we have the body, the sense of earthly identity (spirit), and the soul. But, I believe that the 'sense of identity' or spiritual- Self is tied to the core soul. They are tied, but they are not one and the same. Where ever the core soul goes, there too goes the identity. You interpretation of what is said is a fair interpretation, but there is one difference between your version and mine. Your version creates a glaring conflict between Dumbledore and Slughorn, my version clears up that conflict. Based on this one aspect, which one is likely to be correct, the one that creates an error or the one that resolves an error? Further, I think Slughorn gives a limited context driven explanation, while Dumbledore gives a broader more complete explanation in a broader more complete context. Though, admitedly, Dumbledore does not reveal all. > Ken: > > ...edited... > If Slughorn is right then LV may have no soul bit > resident in his body. LV may pass on the instant Harry > destroys his final horcrux. That would make for a very > anticlimactic ending unless Harry's scar *is* a horcrux > that no one knows about. In that case he could go into > a final confrontation with LV thinking that he has to > kill him. LV could hit him with an AK right in the > forehead. The AK could kill the soul bit in the scar but > leave Harry unharmed while LV falls to the ground stone > cold dead and Harry would not have a clue. Hopefully > Hermione will survive to explain it all to him. > bboyminn: As much as I don't believe this idea, I think it is still brilliant. It is exactly the type of /twist/ ending that JKR is likely to use. We, the readers, are stunned and shocked because we think Harry is dead. Yet, Voldemort is dead, how and why can that be? Then miraculously, Harry is not dead, and even more bizarre, his scar is gone. It sucks when I tell it here, but in the hands of a good storyteller, it could be brilliant That said, here is one reason why I don't support any Harry-the Horcrux theories. It is Dumbledore that brings us the knowledge of the scar connection and the transfer of some of Voldemort's powers to Harry, and he seems to have given it serious thought. It is Dumbledore who brings us expanded knowledge and importance of the Horcruxes, and he seems to have given this a great deal of thought and study. Am I to believe that Dumbledore with his deep and superior knowledge couldn't put two and two together and arrive at the same conclusion that many fans have? I don't see Dumbledore as this great infalable saint, but in this case, I have to conclude if after all his thought and study, Dumbledore doesn't see it, then it must not be there. I just can't believe that Dumbledore didn't at least /try/ and put 'two and two together', that he hasn't at least considered and discounted the possibility. > > bboyminn: > > > > I think the Spirit of which you speak is part of the > > Core soul which I also, less frequently, refer to as > > the Self-Soul. > > Ken: > > No, not in this context. The core soul is the > Dumbledorian concept of the way horcruxes work. The > spirit is something I have added to the Slughornian > concept merely for convenience. ...edited.. > bboyminn: Here we can only rely on our general knowledge of souls and our personal spiritual beliefs. The soul is timeless and eternal. It is not tied to the earthly Self in the greater scheme of things. When the soul passes on, the earthly self is lost, but the greater spiritual self (the soul) remains. Now the spiritual-self (soul) does carry with it the spiritual lessons it learned while tied to the earthly-self, but the earthly-self and identifiation with the earthly-body are lost, or so I believe. Now while the soul is earthbound, it is very much tied to the earthly-self, and in this case, both are usually tied to the earthly-body. As long as it has earthly existance, the core-soul and earthly-self (what you call the spirit) are bound together. Which is why the identity referred to as 'Voldemort' inhabits his new body along with his earthly sense of self and his core-soul. I do see your interpretation of what Slughorn said, but I also think you are taking a generalization, and making it an absolutely specifically true fact. So, all I can say is I don't agree with you, I certainly can't say you are wrong or that you brilliant 'twist' ending won't come true. > Ken: > > Oh, and here is my wacky, random horcrux theory of the > day. We know that a spell is required to create a > horcrux. bboyminn: And that is exactly the problem, we simply don't have enough information on the creation of the Horcrux to know how they are or can be made. I think pre-Horcruxes and accidental Horcruxes are not likely. I suspect the Horcrux creation spell simply transfers an existing torn soul piece into an external object. I suspect it requires a specific incantation that says in effect 'soul I bind you to this object'. So no advanced preperation, and no transfer by accident. Of course, I can't prove that, and that is the key point. > Ken: > > ... Lily was a smart woman. Maybe Harry is a horcrux but > *not* an accidental horcrux. Maybe the spell that Lily > invoked to protect Harry also made him a horcrux. ... > > To go even farther into the realm of the wacky, if true > this might mean that even a Muggle could have a > horcrux. It would just require a wizard or witch willing > to cast the spell on the Muggle's behalf. > > Ken > bboyminn: I won't discount the possibility that Lily invoked some type of magic at some point to protect Harry, but how could she possibly have invoked a Horcrux? She would need to transfer a piece of Harry's soul to do it, and how could she do that? Not likely that a one year old has a lot of broken soul-bits laying around. Perhaps you speculate that Lily set up a system by which any attackers soul would be transferred into Harry, but that brings up timing issues. The transfer couldn't be completed until after the soul tearing death occurred, by then the protection would come too late; Harry would be dead. Also, this type of attacker-Horcrux protection, on the assumption it could actually occur, would only give protection against one specific attacker. Voldemort would be unable, or perhaps just unwise, to kill Harry, but that protection wouldn't stop Wormtail or Lucius from killing Harry. That's a pretty limited protection. So, I admit I can't say you are wrong because I have the overwhelming feeling that there is some type of 'twist' in there somewhere. Only that I don't think that it is this particular 'twist'. Even saying that, I can't discount the idea completely. But I do think if it were 'Harry-the Horcrus', that Dumbledore would have foreseen it or some aspect of it. Still I can't deny that it is a very intriguing 'twist'. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From CliffVDY at juno.com Sat Sep 9 19:44:08 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 19:44:08 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158097 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Further, it should have been clear that the animosity > between Snape and Harry was going to be counter > productive. Harry needed to be calm, and how could he > be calm after spending an hour being abused by his worst > enemy? By having his deepest secrets revealed to someone > he so thoroughly despised? > > Still I can see why Dumbledore chose Snape. Snape is an > Order member, he can be trusted, he didn't have to bring > anyone new into the picture, and Snape is a superb > Occlumens. Unfortunately, superb Occlumens that he is, he > was still the worst possible teacher in this circumstance. > Cliff: You missed the point in that making the mind blank (or calm) is quite different than making the mind closed. Yes, for Harry to make his mind blank or empty made Voldemort get nothing of value. As you point out, if Harry had read a joyful book before bedtime it could have put pleasant thoughts in his mind to share. A person who has a closed mind does not get involved with any of this, be the mind agitated or calm. Snape said, "Time and space matter in magic, Potter. Eye contact is often essential to Legilimency." (OoP24 PB531) The first sentence is true, the next is false IMO. Also, what is normal psychic perception? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 20:59:53 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:59:53 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158098 Alla: > But the general question of absense of support to the Muggle parents and guardians of muggleborn magical kids, which you were addressing... Yes, that would have been nice, but but isn't it the problem of Statute of secrecy again? Doesn't WW try to keep the contacts to the minimum? Ceridwen: It can't help the Statute of Secrecy when a magical child is loose in the Muggle world turning hair green or hanging rabbits. People will notice. Witches and wizards are not supposed to do magic around/in front of Muggles, yet here these children are, unchecked and untrained, leaping to schoolhouse roofs. This seems like a huge hole in the Statutes of Secrecy which needs to be dealt with, I think. A WW counsellor wouldn't go to all the Muggles associated with the child, but only to the parents or guardians. They could give support to handle magical occurrences, and help with what to say about instances around other Muggles. Alla: > Petunia driven by fear would still be the same Petunia who tried to hit Harry with the pan, she still be the same Petunia who did not protest when Harry was locked in the room with bars and starved. Ceridwen: But, would she? If this is all that is driving her, then yes, perhaps she would be. But what if it is fear, plus secrecy, plus stress, plus? This is something we can't know (JKR could, but again, something that probably will not be addressed). Alla: > I know that you are specifically adressing yelling, but IMO after yelling always comes something else and even when it is just yelling, especially when Harry is little, he is still hurt by it, no? Ceridwen: Something else doesn't always follow yelling. People yell in extreme situations even when they don't usually yell. If this is the extreme reaction, then the extreme has already been done. It doesn't hurt - no, it doesn't *harm* Harry - to be yelled at on occasion. The child I mentioned, who ran out into the street, is probably frightened by the parent's yelling, its heart racing, blood pounding through its veins, shaking, maybe even pale. But that child will remember its own fear and associate it with the act of rushing into a street. Fear is a survival response. It helps keep us safe. Alla: > Yes, when child does something dangerous, one yells if necessary to stop it, but would still show child that he is loved, no? Ceridwen: In most of my experiences, the parent yells during and after. The parent is terrified, shaken up, with the same physical reactions I mentioned for the child above. It is a terrifying thing to see your child running out into a street. It affects you like almost falling off a cliff. And the parent yells afterwards, asking the child what on earth it was thinking, hasn't the parent told the child time and time again not to run into the street, and so on. "I was so scared! You could have been killed! That grease spot there could have been you!" The parent is acting out on his or her own terror - not just fear but honest terror. It's primal, and logic and reason have nothing to do with it. And sure, the parent will eventually hug the child, once the shaking stops, or even before. And cry. And all those things he or she said: "I was scared! I almost lost you!" are also expressions of love, though a child hearing them shouted might not register them as such right away. Alla: > You know, I think this can actually be perfect groundwork to put some humanness in Petunia - if that will come to the surface that she felt unloved, that she indeed loved Lily, but was jealous, I may feel some sympathy towards her, but nothing in my mind will erase the horrible things she did to innocent kid, absolutely nothing. Ceridwen: I think most siblings want to like and be liked by their brothers and sisters. Things happen to drive a wedge between them, and that's not only sad, but it has long-range repercussions for these children's lives. In this case, as someone else mentioned, Lily is described as a beautiful girl while Petunia is described as looking like a horse. Lily has a special talent that makes her parents proud, and from what Petunia said in the shack on the rocks, they made no secret of how proud they were to have a witch in the family. Nothing about Petunia, she's nothing special. Interesting thought: could Lily have defended Petunia to her parents ('She's special too!') and gotten Petunia's undying contempt? If someone always rushes to the rescue, it can begin to rub the wrong way, especially when the person being defended feels inadequate (am I sorry enough to need defending?) or when the words of defense have a hollow ring (Lily's a witch; *how* is Petunia special compared to that?). This defense can come across as condescending to the person being defended. Alla: *(snip)* > I am not sure how much danger Dudley is in because of Harry, although I guess Dementor visit should count as such... Ceridwen: Harry's parents, who were able to use magic, were killed because LV wanted to kill Harry. Umbridge's Dementor allies were very little compared to a powerful wizard bent on killing, invading the house. Dudley and Harry are near the same age, too, and we saw that Hagrid at first mistook Dudley for Harry. The house at GH was destroyed - what would happen to a Muggle child if his house came crashing down around his ears? A powerful wizard is after Harry. Harry lives with the Dursleys, a Muggle family who can't even get rid of hospitable glasses of mead or an enlarged tongue or a pig's tail. There is a blood protection, but it is due to run out within two months of the close of HBP. Many of us are expecting some sort of attack the minute such an attack can be mounted, and there is Harry at the Dursleys' house. Petunia was shaken when she realized this. I think she does know enough about the WW and the dangers Lily and James faced, to be rightfully afraid. But again, we don't know exactly what Petunia knows. Ceridwen. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 9 21:12:40 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:12:40 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158099 > Betsy Hp: > Hmm, see I have it as exactly opposite. The wizards are the insular > xenophobes, with little that is beautiful and soul enriching > surrounding them. They know nothing of art or music or literature. Hickengruendler: To me, you have exactly described the Dursleys. That's how they are. The son, who didn't touch the book. The bigotted father, who asked Dudley after his breakdown, if he hadn't gotten something *foreign* for tea. The man, who supports death punishment and judges people by their looks and their cars. The man, who shouts at Harry because he is talking about *a dream* with a flying motorcycle. The woman, who spends her freetime spying on other people. Sure, there are probably examples like this in the Wizarding World as well. JKR even said in an interview, that she doesn't think the Wizarding World is much better than the Muggle World, and only preferable for Harry, because he meets nicer people. It all comes down to the specific individuals. But really, at least in this regard the Dursleys *are* the worst kind of Muggles. They are the ones with no art, no culture and insularic xenophoby. That said, I still don't think it's a coincidence, that JKR casts them from book 2 onwards almost solely in the roles of the victims. It emphasizes their vulnerability (in spite of their nastiness) against all things magical, which is especially highlighted by the Dementor attack. The Dursleys reached the highlight of their meanness by book 2, when they practically hold Harry prisoner in his room. Since then, they are merely nuisances, partly because Harry learns how to deal with them and partly because JKR for obvious reasons puts the light on the dangers within the wizarding world. By now, they are no danger anymore, and I suspect that's one reason, why some readers are not happy with their scenes. It's like they get hit again and again for things that happened in the past, when while they happened nobody within the Wizarding World seemed to care enough to actually do something. Given how rude Hagrid was towards them, from the very beginning, he had to know something. I wonder why it is Dudley, who gets the worst deal so far. JKR said, that she feels sorry for him and she almost solely puts the blame on Vernon and Petunia. Yet it is him, who gets "punished" the worst by the other characters. Hickengruendler From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 21:13:15 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:13:15 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? Open and Closed Mind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158100 See response Below. --- "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: > > > ... Harry needed to be calm, and how could he be calm > > after spending an hour being abused by his worst > > enemy? By having his deepest secrets revealed to > > someone he so thoroughly despised? > > > > ... > > > > Cliff: > You missed the point in that making the mind blank (or > calm) is quite different than making the mind closed. > Yes, for Harry to make his mind blank or empty made > Voldemort get nothing of value. > > As you point out, if Harry had read a joyful book before > bedtime it could have put pleasant thoughts in his mind > to share. A person who has a closed mind does not get > involved with any of this, be the mind agitated or calm. > > Snape said, "Time and space matter in magic, Potter. Eye > contact is often essential to Legilimency."(OoP24 PB531) > The first sentence is true, the next is false IMO. > > Also, what is normal psychic perception? > bboyminn/steve: I did get your point, though I missed the /emphasis/ on the closed mind part. Futher I agree with what you are saying now, with one teeny tiny minor acception. One /makes/ one's mind calm, but one /has/ a closed mind. That is, any one can learn how to calm their mind, but how does one learn to close their mind in the muggle sense of 'closed minded'? There in lies Harry's problem, how does he close his mind in the magical sense? I actually think two separate things are going on. One is Harry learning the art of Occlumency, and how to block unwanted thoughts. The other is preventing Voldemort from reaching Harry and influencing him. I know...those sound like the same thing, but there is a subtle difference. In one case, Harry is learning to selectively restrict his own thoughts. By selectively restricting access to them, he can control what Voldemort's sees. But that is a long term skill that will come in time. In the meantime Harry is vulnerable at the moment, and that is where the calming of the mind before bedtime comes in. It prevents Voldemort from accessing Harry during his time of restless vulnerable sleep because Harry will be in a calm deep sleep. And by reducing restless dreams, it makes it less likely for Harry to unintentionally reach out and access Voldemort. A calm mind means sound sleep, and sound sleep means no access. Though I confess that I agree that calming the mind means that Voldemort will find nothing when he looks, and that a pleasant book, would limit Voldemort's access to pleasant thoughts. But we need to remember that the thing that Dumbledore was actually worried about was that Voldemort would try and influence Harry. Not just access his thoughts, but try and compell Harry to act, which as it turns out, is exactly what happened. Harry need to be protected in both the long term and the short term. He needs to be protected while he is learning Occlumency. And the calming and clearing of his mind is that intermediate protection. Keep in mind that I agree with everything you have said, I'm just pointing out that Harry case is a little unusual and doesn't directly parallel muggle psychic phenomenon, and that Dumbledore has more than one objective. Cliff- "Also, what is normal psychic perception?" Well, I'm sure I meant 'psychic preception' as we normally understand if from a muggle perspective. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 9 22:06:56 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:06:56 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces with a Twist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158101 > bboyminn: > > Well, you are extending Slughorns statement with a lot of > suppositions that the book does not support. Ken: I would say that I am not extending Slughorn's statement at all. Slughorn says you cannot die for part of your soul remains earthbound and undamaged. Part, not all. And Slughorn gives no other conditions, just that part remain earthbound and undamaged. I am not extending that I am merely pointing out that in the Slughorn view the part of the soul in the horcrux is enough to keep you alive. As he stated it the fate of what you call the core soul is immaterial and he does not specify it. If Slughorn is correct, the "you" that remains alive *has* to be something other than the core soul since the fate of the core soul is not discussed. That is not me extending Slughorn's statement, those are the logical consequences of it. And, yes, it is *quite* possible that this escaped the author when she wrote those words. > bboyminn: > > > That said, here is one reason why I don't support any > Harry-the Horcrux theories. It is Dumbledore that brings > us the knowledge of the scar connection and the transfer > of some of Voldemort's powers to Harry, and he seems to > have given it serious thought. It is Dumbledore who brings > us expanded knowledge and importance of the Horcruxes, and > he seems to have given this a great deal of thought and > study. > > Am I to believe that Dumbledore with his deep and superior > knowledge couldn't put two and two together and arrive at > the same conclusion that many fans have? Ken: What this fan suspects is that DD put two and two together and concluded that Harry was not ready to hear the truth yet so he did not tell him but may have planted inconsistencies that will alert Harry or at least the brains of the trio to this fact later on. If Harry is a horcrux I think DD was well aware of that during his conversation about them with Harry. It is just like DD to withold vital information until it is almost too late. > > Ken: > > > > ... Lily was a smart woman. Maybe Harry is a horcrux but > > *not* an accidental horcrux. Maybe the spell that Lily > > invoked to protect Harry also made him a horcrux. ... > > > > bboyminn: > > I won't discount the possibility that Lily invoked some > type of magic at some point to protect Harry, but how > could she possibly have invoked a Horcrux? She would need > to transfer a piece of Harry's soul to do it, and how > could she do that? Not likely that a one year old has a > lot of broken soul-bits laying around. > Ken: No, you missed the point. My wacky theory du jour is that Lily created a horcrux for LV using a bit of his soul, in Harry's scar. She was dead when that actually happened so it would had to have been part of the "magical contract" she invoked when she made her deal with LV. This is not a general purpose protection, it only protects once. The irony is that LV is the attacker who is most likely to attempt to kill Harry and he would thereby kill a portion of his own soul, possibly the last remaining bit and would then be killing himself. Again. Delicious, no? I admit that it is wacky in the extreme, yet the little we know at this point about horcruxes does not preclude it. Ken From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 9 23:09:27 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:09:27 EDT Subject: OoP clues? Message-ID: <4c4.83aea18.3234a3a7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158102 Cliff here: As I have personal experience in Muggle telepathy, I can say that making your mind blank is NOT the way to block intrusion. In fact, to get telepathic messages, feelings and images, your mind (and in case of images also your vision) must be free of interference. Thus Snape told HP exactly the wrong thing as Snape wanted LV to be able to access Harry's mind. Snape said the DD wanted him to teach HP; DD would assume Snape would teach correctly. In Muggle terms, we talk of a closed mind, one that refuses the facts as his/her mind is already made up. Such a person cannot receive telepathic messages. It requires an open mind, not only for the very weak signal, but also the acceptance. The signal, however, has a tremendous range, 1100 miles is easy. It doesn't require close proximity and/or view of the eyes as that is the Muggle form of lie detection. Like a polygraph, it only detects the degree that the person is upset over telling a lie. Now, JKR may have not known what I know, so she couldn't write it. Or, of course, she was making an obvious clue to those of us who do know that Snape is a bad egg. I caught the situation on my first reading of the book. Cliff, who hopes he's not alone in using telepathy. Julie: Erm, while your discourse on telepathy is interesting, what does it have to do with Legilimency or Occlumency? Nothing that I can see. We are talking about a fictional book relating fictional powers, and it has already been noted in the text that Legilimency is not "reading minds." We also have no reason to assume JKR knows anything about telepathy in the manner you're presenting it ("it requires an open mind" etc) as you readily admit. In fact the necessity of eye contact for Legilimency would seem additional evidence that JKR is not basing this wizard skill on telepathy. In short, your analogy is invalid, which also means the Occlumency lessons provide no support at all for the "Snape is a bad egg" theory :-) Julie, who admits to being highly skeptical about Muggle psychic abilities of all kinds [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 9 22:53:18 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Brett) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:53:18 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158103 Mike: > Speaking of anagrams, oh you weren't? Well anyway I tried > out "Grindelwald" to see what's in it. Argus Pyrites responds: I've always thought "Grindelwald" quite evocative enough without resorting to anagrams. "Forest of the Trolls" (or perhaps more fittingly "Forest of the monster from Beowulf who's mother was actually more fierce and whose exact nature as a monster has been debated for centuries, but I digress) As far as his deeper purpose in the stories, that comment on the back of the Frog Card always implied to me that Mrs. Rowling was hinting at the 'real' cause of WWII. The idea of a person who is the Cause with Hitler as merely an Effect, well that person scares me profoundly! As to the Riddle of the name Riddle... I'm left wondering which came first, the name Voldemort, or the name Riddle. I believe Mrs.Rowling came up with the (nickname hardly seems a strong enough word) -- Title 'Lord Voldemort" first, then created his backstory and creation of his name after. Thus, Voldemort's name is the riddle, which we puzzled over in CoS. But, this only works when we learn of it in reverse as we did in the books. If we'd met a boy named Riddle first, then learned that he changed his name to Voldemort, there actually isn't a riddle/conundrum couched in there, just an anagram... (a case where chicken before egg (Descartes before Horace?) actually makes more sense) From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 9 23:27:36 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:27:36 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's portrait (was Re: OoP clues?) Message-ID: <544.67b5392.3234a7e8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158104 mz_annethrope Also the portraits in the headmaster's office. Everard has another portrait in the MoM and Dilys has one at St. Mungo's. Then there's Phineas Nigellus who has a portrait at Grimmauld Place. I'm putting my bet on these portrait connections being significant in the next book. The heads in the portraits have to obey the current head of Hogwarts. What if the next head is a DE, or more likely, under the imperius curse? Julie: I suspect the next head of Hogwarts will be McGonagall. Who is also part of the Order. As was the person in one of the portraits now in the Headmaster's office. (Dumbledore, of course.) Which begs the question, is this the *only* portrait of Dumbledore in existence? I can't see any reason why it should be, as many other headmasters have their portraits elsewhere. So where would Dumbledore's other portraits be? And how might Dumbledore assist Harry and the Order by hopping between his portraits? One theory I have (though perhaps someone else has already come up with it) is that this is one way for Snape to communicate information to the Order. After all, if it is Dumbledore popping in and out of his portrait in the Headmaster's office, giving McGonagall and whoever else might be present information vital to the war against Voldemort, is anyone going to question the source of that information? Even if they did, and Dumbledore refused to answer or did so cryptically, is the Order going to doubt any information that comes from Dumbledore's mouth? I don't think so! Of course, that doesn't address the possibility of McGonagall being Imperioed or even ESE, but I suspect portrait!Dumbledore would still have enough of his legendary wizard acumen present to ascertain if he was being played in that manner. I still don't have a really good guess for where Dumbledore's other portrait(s) might be, but my assumption is somewhere Snape would have access (Spinner's End even?) and perhaps somewhere Harry would also have access (Hogwarts Headmaster's office might suffice for this). Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 23:42:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:42:28 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158105 > Alla: > Yes, that would have been nice, but but isn't it the problem of > Statute of secrecy again? Doesn't WW try to keep the contacts to the > minimum? > > Ceridwen: > It can't help the Statute of Secrecy when a magical child is loose in > the Muggle world turning hair green or hanging rabbits. People will > notice. Witches and wizards are not supposed to do magic around/in > front of Muggles, yet here these children are, unchecked and > untrained, leaping to schoolhouse roofs. This seems like a huge hole > in the Statutes of Secrecy which needs to be dealt with, I think. Alla: Heeee, you don't have to convince me - go argue your case in front of Wizengamot. ;) > Alla: > > Petunia driven by fear would still be the same Petunia who tried to > hit Harry with the pan, she still be the same Petunia who did not > protest when Harry was locked in the room with bars and starved. > > Ceridwen: > But, would she? If this is all that is driving her, then yes, > perhaps she would be. But what if it is fear, plus secrecy, plus > stress, plus? This is something we can't know (JKR could, but again, > something that probably will not be addressed). Alla: I was not arguing that if all motivations that Petunia is driven of, including fear if it is there, whether we are aware of them or not, will be removed, that Petunia would not be acting differently. She may be or she may not, I don't know it. I was trying to say that by evaluating her past actions, her motivations do not really matter to me - her **actions** are still horrible IMO. I mean, no, her motivations do matter to get a complete picture of her as human being and maybe, maybe for me to feel **some** pity for her ( and telling you, JKR has to try **really** hard to elicit ity for Petunia from me), they do not matter to me in making her actions towards Harry better. > Ceridwen: > It doesn't hurt - no, it doesn't *harm* Harry - to be yelled at on > occasion. The child I mentioned, who ran out into the street, is > probably frightened by the parent's yelling, its heart racing, blood > pounding through its veins, shaking, maybe even pale. But that child > will remember its own fear and associate it with the act of rushing > into a street. Fear is a survival response. It helps keep us safe. Alla: Yes, but I don't remember **one** incident from the book where Harry **needed** to be yelled at. My memory sure isn't perfect as I discovered just today again and I could forget it, but so far I only remember Dursleys budgering Harry for something he did not deserve to be yelled at. > > Alla: > > Yes, when child does something dangerous, one yells if necessary to > stop it, but would still show child that he is loved, no? > > Ceridwen: > In most of my experiences, the parent yells during and after. The > parent is terrified, shaken up, with the same physical reactions I > mentioned for the child above. It is a terrifying thing to see your > child running out into a street. Alla: Yes, of course, but as I said, I fail to remember one incident when Harry deserved to be yelled at by Dursleys. Sorry, I find Petunia's actions to be sort of unforgivable without getting her hidden motivations, if such motibations exist at all. If they do exist, as I said I may feel some pity for her, but not right now. Because even the argument that she indeed loved Lily ( which as I said I find very plausible) is not IMO very supported by the text. We may learn about it, but so far I did not. Yes, she took Harry in, but I do wonder if the things turned out to be better for Harry if she refused to do so and Dumbledore would have been forced to look for another option for Harry. Yes, yes I know that we would have had no story then, but I am with LL on this one - it is really really hard to suspend disbelieve that Dumbledore could not have found another option. Yes, I know all about blood protection, but the fact is that we still did not see any attack on Privet Drive, where such protection will work, so I cannot keep but wondering, whether this was indeed the drastic measure of last resort. At the same time, protection seems to be work outside Privet Drive too ( Ps/SS, GoF), so I cannot keep but wondering was it indeed necessary to stuck Harry there. You know? > Ceridwen: > Interesting thought: could Lily have defended Petunia to her parents > ('She's special too!') and gotten Petunia's undying contempt? If > someone always rushes to the rescue, it can begin to rub the wrong > way, especially when the person being defended feels inadequate (am I > sorry enough to need defending?) or when the words of defense have a > hollow ring (Lily's a witch; *how* is Petunia special compared to > that?). This defense can come across as condescending to the person > being defended. Alla: Poor Lily then - she is damned when she does and damned when she does not.( by Petunia). Mmmm, reminds me of Pensieve scene then. > > Alla: > *(snip)* > > I am not sure how much danger Dudley is in because of Harry, > although I guess Dementor visit should count as such... > > Ceridwen: > Harry's parents, who were able to use magic, were killed because LV > wanted to kill Harry. > There is a blood protection, but it is due to run out within two > months of the close of HBP. Many of us are expecting some sort of > attack the minute such an attack can be mounted, and there is Harry > at the Dursleys' house. Petunia was shaken when she realized this. > I think she does know enough about the WW and the dangers Lily and > James faced, to be rightfully afraid. But again, we don't know > exactly what Petunia knows. Alla: I speculate that pact between Dumbledore and Petunia included additional protection for her family too. I think that Petunia got **something** out of Harry staying with them and whether this will run out too when Harry is out of there, I am not sure, if this speculation is correct. And yeah, attack could have happened. I speculate Harry defending his **family**. I wonder if we will hear **thank you** from Petunia. Am doubting it. JMO, Alla, who despises all Dursleys, in case you did not realise that yet :) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 23:41:49 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:41:49 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? Open and Closed Mind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158106 > bboyminn/steve: > > I actually think two separate things are going on. One > is Harry learning the art of Occlumency, and how to block > unwanted thoughts. The other is preventing Voldemort from > reaching Harry and influencing him. I know...those sound > like the same thing, but there is a subtle difference. > (snip) But we need to remember that the thing > that Dumbledore was actually worried about was that > Voldemort would try and influence Harry. Not just access > his thoughts, but try and compell Harry to act, which > as it turns out, is exactly what happened. Tonks: I think I might partially have an idea as to how Occlumency works. The closes think to it that I have experienced was when I had a supervisor that was a bit like Snape. She had just the right words to cause a negative emotional reaction in me. She knew just how to "get" to each of us. There were times (behind her back) that she had me in tears or so angry I could kill. One day, somehow, I put up an emotional barrier within myself so that she could not affect me. And it worked. And much to my surprise, she noticed. She said that she felt this barrier. That was very surprising to me. We became bitter enemies, just like Snape and Harry. And I became the "only one she ever feared" the day that I became the union stewart. I think this illustration is one way to block LV. In OP Harry was on an emotional roller coaster as LV manipulated his feeling, just as my supervisor did. There appears to be more to Occlumency than just this, but I think that this might be the first step in learning it. When someone else can manipulate our feeling, they can manipulate our actions. We see it all the time in the Muggle world, from the playground on up. It happened to Harry in OP, and it was his downfall. Tonks_op From dsueiro at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 01:40:41 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:40:41 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's portrait (was Re: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: <544.67b5392.3234a7e8@aol.com> References: <544.67b5392.3234a7e8@aol.com> Message-ID: <8de2fdd80609091840k6ec1e76dkeae34e60d4aabfc5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158107 Julie: > > I still don't have a really good guess for where Dumbledore's other > portrait(s) might be, but my assumption is somewhere Snape would > have access (Spinner's End even?) and perhaps somewhere Harry > would also have access (Hogwarts Headmaster's office might suffice > for this). Diego: He was the Chief Warlock on the Wizengamot . There should be a portrait of him on the MoM in my opinion. Diego From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 10 02:03:26 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Argus Pyrites) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:03:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's portrait (was Re: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: <8de2fdd80609091840k6ec1e76dkeae34e60d4aabfc5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158108 > Julie wrote: > > > > I still don't have a really good guess for where Dumbledore's other > > portrait(s) might be, but my assumption is somewhere Snape would > > have access (Spinner's End even?) and perhaps somewhere Harry > > would also have access (Hogwarts Headmaster's office might suffice > > for this). > > Diego replied: > > He was the Chief Warlock on the Wizengamot . There should be a > portrait of him on the MoM in my opinion. Argus Pyrites adds: Excellent observation Diego! I've had a thought on this as well, would Chocolate frog Cards work? My presumption is no, that only a wizard painted magical portrait will allow access to any additional portraits. Also, we have no canon evidence for the 'communication' between photos of a wizard and a portrait. But still, as both seem to magically capture a small bit of the essence of their subjects... perhaps? From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 02:42:12 2006 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:42:12 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158109 AnnR wrote: <> I don't think it's an anagram. I think the anagram was having "Tom Marvolo Riddle" turn into "I am Lord Voldemort" at the end of CoS. I do think there's a deeper meaning, though. Rowling has said that she wanted Voldemort to be a complex "baddie," and I think Voldemort is a "riddle" that needs to be figured out. Dumbledore figured out the horcrux part of his complexity, and perhaps the last horcrux to be destroyed (the one that will make Voldemort mortal again) will involve solving a riddle (much in the same way that the second to last obstacle to the Philosopher's Stone in Book One - the potions obstacle - required solving a riddle). ~Phyllis From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 03:59:54 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 03:59:54 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene? In-Reply-To: <008301c6d3b7$d418aa60$4c86400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158110 Snow (me) previously: Dumbledore was stuck with his decision and Harry's mistreatment. How can you possibly deny Dumbledore a few subtle, reminders on this visit, as to their continued rude behavior? Magpie: I don't deny it to him (or suggest he ought to be shot for being rude *looks at other part of thread*). I just said I don't enjoy watching him do it, and it makes me think less of him. I do agree with you that one's feelings about a scene are often less than important, but in this case they are what I was asked about. I don't think you can argue somebody out of their emotional reaction to a scene. I understand other people have different reactions and they just have to understand mine are different from theirs. Snow: See that doesn't make any sense to me. You don't deny Dumbledore to do what he did but you don't like watching it happen. Snow (me) previously: These people or muggles don't even have the understanding that they have done anything wrong in their eyes. Dumbledore was attempting to show them that their abusive behavior has not ceased to exist and they still do not recognize to what extent it remains to be so when he refers to Dudders. Magpie: That's another way the scene comes across differently to me. I read that and just think, Didn't do much of a good job of showing them anything then. He shows up, throws his weight around, does some scolding, says he wants Harry to stay there a while longer and makes a reference to the way they treat Dudley that confuses them all and then leaves. They're no more different when he leaves than they were when they showed up--which perhaps taps into another reason I don't enjoy these kinds of scenes with the Dursleys, because their staying the same always seems to be important to the scene. They're intentionally written as unchanging this way. Snow: Do you think that the Dursley's will get what Dumbledore says at all in the near future, like when Harry's protection is lifted and reality sets in? I think that Dumbledore was being quite subtle in this scene for a reason; the Dursley's wouldn't accept a direct approach of what they had done and still do. One day, very soon, the Dursley's will be reminded when they may have to rely on Harry's mercy to save their butts. Magpie: But I'm certainly not disagreeing that this is what Dumbledore is probably doing in the scene in his eyes. I already see it the same way you do, so explaining it to me isn't going to make me like the scene any better. I think Dumbledore's a far better teacher and a far better everything else in the Tower. That scene, imo, was Dumbledore at his best. This scene was very off for me in reading it and I was glad to leave the Dursleys behind. Snow: Although the circumstances are the same the person's Dumbledore is speaking to in each scene are different. The Dursley's are muggles who refuse to see or accept their faults as parents whereas the Deatheaters are cruel and not only realize it they embrace it. The scene with the Deatheaters is a full confrontation with both parties replying. The Dursley's on the other hand stood there dumbfounded as to what the hell this old man is talking about. Snow (me) previously: As I have said, you are certainly entitled to apply your own emotions to any scene in any of the books. My point was that in doing so you may misinterpret the meaning of the given scene that was intended by the author because of your own emotions. Magpie: Er...that sounds like it's somehow twisted what I said. There seems to be no question of my misinterpreting anything in the scene, since we both agree on what is going on in it. I don't think I've misinterpreted the author's intention either. In the case of this particular scene I don't think my emotional reaction was what the author was going for--we obviously have different tastes on this kind of humor and I accepted that books ago! My having a different emotional reaction to what she intended doesn't make me or her wrong necessarily. An author can't dictate the emotional reaction of a reader. Obviously I'm not her ideal reader for this scene, and she didn't write it in a way that was going to get around my emotional resistance. The reason I am talking about my emotions in this scene is because that's specifically what I was asked about. I see exactly the same facts in the scene as everyone else, I suspect the author's emotional reaction to the scene is different from my own, and yet this is my reaction to it. Snow: I don't think the author is dictating what we should feel but I do think that if we don't attempt to follow her meaning the way she feels about the scene we may be missing the bigger point. I think everything that Dumbledore did and said went flying over the Dursley's heads, so the confrontation between them was lacking. It was more of a one-sided account because the Dursley's were clueless as to what they had done or did so the scene was lacking the come back replies that would have escalated the conversation to a conclusion. This is where I think that this scene could not have been concluded in a dramatic sense because the Dursley's aren't ready for that final conclusion yet, there's more to come and I think they will finally get something out of what Dumbledore was attempting to say. Snow (me) previously: I feel that, everyone, whether they realize it or not bases their opinions from their own point of view based on their emotions and mental awareness of their past experiences. People sometimes can't help but to become connected with a particular scene because it may trigger a part of their own experience. Magpie: Absolutely. That's what I'm referring to in describing why I don't like what DD is doing--if pressed I could probably come up with negative memories it reminded me of. Plus there's the Muggle thing talked about elsewhere, just a lot of things. Similarly there are other scenes that don't bother me or I find funny that other people are enraged by. JKR's books kind of lend themselves to that, imo. For all the talk I sometimes hear in fandom about how we're supposed to react to scenes and who we're supposed to like, she actually seems really good at creating ambiguous scenes tailor made for controversy when you get more than one person reading them. Snow (me) previously: This is exactly where I attempt to become objective to the point of excluding my own emotions so I don't cloud my vision of the actual events that are going on. Magpie: I think we're both doing a pretty good job about being objective about the facts of the scene. At least I haven't been aware of any differences in what we think is happening. It's not like you think Dumbledore comes to the house to bring the Dursleys a present and I think he's come to poison them. One of the things the books do really well, imo, is have different people respond to things differently. James Potter: Great guy or total berk? Sirius thinks the first, Snape thinks the second, and neither of them is just wrong. Snow: Except that I think that the scene is telling and I can appreciate it even though I personally would have chosen to ream, steam and dry- clean the Dursley's. So, yeah we may be objective of the facts of the scene in the same way but the end result is different since you don't care for the scene and I do because I think there is more there than we can readily recognize. Snow (me) previously: I believe I have already answered this but then again there's that whole Internet in-clarity I spoke of at the beginning of this post. I will answer again, since you asked twice what I didn't like.I will reluctantly elaborate but it has no bearing on the story. Magpie: Just to be clear, I know it has no bearing on the story. I didn't answer the thread right away because it was a thread about our different emotional reactions, which is subjective, to a scene and not something that was more objective, like what happens in the scene. Snow: All things are connected though, which was my point, that if you read something with what you would have done or wanted to happen because of your own emotions, then your expectations can change the story and its meaning from what the author meant or has yet to mean. This is why I said that I attempt to disregard my own emotions as what I would have done or would like for Dumbledore to have done so I can understand what the author is saying and where she may be going by the way she has Dumbledore interact with the Dursley's. I actually liked the scene quite fine for its subtlety; it should make the Dursley's think, at the very least, what the hell the old guy just said given time. Snow (me) previously: I am not Holier-than-though and would have to protect a child to the nth degree, so given the logistics that Dumbledore could not totally prevent Harry's abuse (as I see it) once his initial decision had been invoked, I would have been more than severe (in this scene) when I finally had my final conversation with the very persons who I entrusted to care for Harry. In short, Dumbledore didn't do enough convincing in this last scene to make me proud But (discounting my person emotions) I can also appreciate that Dumbledore is a Holier-than-though-type-of-person and could not stoop to the level I would have gone less he become as abusive as the Dursley's themselves. (you can't teach a child not to hit by hitting them) Magpie: Just to be clear, when you say a "holier than thou" person you mean that sincerely? Like, you're saying that Dumbledore actually is more saint- like or forgiving rather than the way the phrase is usually used? Because calling someone holier than thou usually means you're calling them hypocritically pious or sanctimonious and it doesn't seem like you're accusing Dumbledore of that. Snow: I meant it in the way that you took it, Dumbledore will not allow himself to go to the lengths that the Dursley's do by being as cruel as they were and still are. Magpie: Your own emotional response to the scene doesn't change the facts of it, I agree, and nor does mine, but it does seem to explain why we'd be moved to speak up, doesn't it? I mean, I don't like what Dumbledore's doing because I think it's beneath him and you would have prefered to see a little more of it. So while we both agree about what's going on in the scene our different reactions can easily feel like they can't co-exist with each other. Snow: I mustn't be making a clear point because I did like the scene from the viewpoint that Dumbledore's hands are metaphorically tied from what he could have done to the Dursley's or what he may have wanted to do. Dealing with the Dursley's any harsher than he had done would have only made him more of a monster in their eyes, it would not allow the Dursley's to recognize what they had done to Harry or their own son. I have taken my emotions out of the reading so what I would like or expect does not undermine the true essence of this scene. When I did that I was able to appreciate the scene, therefore better understand the scene and like the scene as a result. Snow (me) previously: If (big if) this scene irritated me at all that would be why but then it's not my story and I do accept and appreciate what I previously have said that Dumbledore would be stooping to the Dursley's stupidity and ignorance if he had done any more than what he did. Magpie: Sure--I accept the scene too. And I appreciate that Dumbledore's supposed to be showing anger here over the mistreatment of a child. It's just never going to be a favorite of mine to read. Snow: It could be that there was no total resolve with this scene, because the Dursley's didn't get their comeuppance, that may have caused people to dislike it but, as I said somewhere in this response, I don't think the whole matter has come to a full head yet, when it finally does, I think this whole scene will become more clear for a lot of people. From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Sep 10 04:16:41 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:16:41 -0400 Subject: Harry as Murderer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158111 My legal dictionary defines murder as the 'unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.' 'Unlawful'--Tom Riddle is a wizardling outlaw; at one time, even among Muggles, once a person had been declared outlaw, any citizen might kill him on sight; this was called 'malicide' and has been abolished in most Muggle jurisdictions. Wizardling customs and laws are old-fashioned by Muggle standards, so 'malicide' may still exist among them. 'Human Being'--Voldemort is hardly human any more. 'Malice aforethought'--If you shoot a mad dog, is it done with 'malice', or to punish him for having contracted rabies? No, it is to prevent him from biting someone. (Or more people than he has already.) I see Harry's killing Voldemort as protecting all those other people whom V. would have killed had he been allowed to live; and protection of a threatened third party is certainly a valid defense to homicide in every legal system that I know of. Not to mention self-defense--V. has tried to kill Harry several times already; if brought to bar for killing V., Harry could say with perfect truthfulness, "M'lud, I was afraid for my life,' and any halfway competent barrister could show the Court that this fear was not unreasonable. Hence, if Harry were to kill Voldemort it would not be murder. At worst it would be manslaughter, but it would probably be considered some form of justifiable homicide--self-defense, third-party defense, or 'malicide' (if it still exists in Wizardling law). BAW From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Sep 10 04:30:58 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:30:58 -0400 Subject: Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158112 Ceridwen: "Though, I would suggest that if Petunia and Vernon were supported by the WW, perhaps the abuse would not have happened. I'm only saying perhaps, because we can't know. But knowing that they had some recourse when Harry displayed accidental magic might have relieved stress, which also contributes to abusive situations, if I recall correctly. And knowing that someone would be around to check and have 'Tea with Petunia' (who said that? love it, sounds like an afternoon gossip program on TV!) would curtail some more overt abuses, too, in my opinion." BAW: How do we know that there isn't such a system? Hermione's parents don't seem to be phased. Perhaps the Dursleys are a special case; perhaps one of the conditions on which Petunia accepted him was that there be NO contact with the Wizardling world until it was time for Harry to go to Hogwarts. The fact is that there is a great deal about the Wizarding world that we don't know; JKR has not seen fit to tell us because it has not been relevant to the plot. Tonks: "Someone "late in life" could be a teenager too old to begin at Hogwarts. It could be Dudley. Another reason to suspect Dudley is that Petunia is his mother and Magic does run in her family as a dormant gene or something. " BAW: JKR has said that it will NOT be either Dudley or Petunia. Personally, I think it will be Uncle Vernon, if only because it would be a huge kick in the pants for him. Imagine him carefully interrogating Dudley's girlfriends to try to find out if they have any Wizardling blood without actually asking in so many words! The girls would probably think that he was a total nut case and run fast and far. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 04:45:06 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:45:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609092145x78abc179q8c81115ced8fc77c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158113 a_svirn: Well, yes, using your extraordinary brainpower against someone, let's say, *ordinary* means taking advantage of a certain power imbalance. And you know what? It's not a pretty sight. It's a kind of snooty behaviour that earned Snape, for instance, his *slimy git* reputation. But thing is, hard words break no bones. A curse might, though, all that and more. There's the difference. Lynda: But that's the point. What DD did to the Dursleys was not hurtful, it was done gently and it was done to let them know that somebody at least realizes that Harry was mistreated by the Dursleys and not just Harry but that Dudley has come to harm under the care of the Dursleys senior himself. BTW, the Dursleys treated DD very poorly in that scene. Vernon Dursley simply has no manners whatsoever. (Yes I know it was late and he was unexpected but still...) Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 10 05:45:02 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Argus Pyrites) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:45:02 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158114 Phil Vlasak wrote: > You can get wl nag riddle" > from "Grindelwald" > "Wl" may be shorthand for "will" Argus Pyrites adds: This is *horribly* off topic, but this reminded me of Trespassers W. from Winnie-the-Pooh. Sorry, delete this if you must Oh List Elves... but I just couldn't resist, as I'm *still* giggling. (And isn't Milne /always/ considered relevant?) A.A. Milne wrote: >> The Piglet lived in a very grand house in the middle of a beech- tree, and the beech-tree was in the middle of the forest, and the Piglet lived in the middle of the house. Next to his house was a piece of broken board which had: "TRESPASSERS W" on it. When Christopher Robin asked the Piglet what it meant, he said it was his grandfather's name, and had been in the family for a long time. Christopher Robin said you couldn't be called Trespassers W, and Piglet said yes, you could, because his grandfather was, and it was short for Trespassers Will, which was short for Trespassers William. And his grandfather had had two names in case he lost one? Trespassers after an uncle, and William after Trespassers. "I've got two names," said Christopher Robin carelessly. "Well, there you are, that proves it," said Piglet. >> Tonks wrote: > Well maybe JKR's spelling ability is as bad as her math. I > thought "gnawl" was a word. I looked it up, and it isn't. But > to me it spells "gnaw". So maybe this is the word she wants. > > With this we have the fact that we have to 'gnaw on the riddle'. > Which make perfect sense to me. Argus Pyrites adds: I'm not too sure that putting in clues via anagram is ever a good idea.. but seeing as I like this sort of thing Gnawl Riddle you say? How about Gnaw Red Drill? -- Grindelwald owned Grunnings? Lewd Darling? -- Say, Isn't Minerva at school with Tom in 45? Wand Led Girl -- Say, Maybe Minerva was imperiused by Grindelwald! Wand Grilled -- Priori incantatum teaches DD about Grindlewald's Horcrux victim... Grin Well, Dad -- Tom killed his father in 43 Warding Dell -- Grindelwald was born in Godric's Hollow??? Grand Willed -- DD defeated Grindelwald through psychic attacks? Will End Grad -- Harry defeats Voldemort, then Grindelwald's ghost haunts him until he commits suicide. He 'marries' Myrtle. Darn Wild Leg -- Grindelwald would've won, but he tripped. Rad Dwelling -- By the way, Grindelwald's summer home is for let. From mros at xs4all.nl Sun Sep 10 07:07:22 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:07:22 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life References: Message-ID: <000b01c6d4a7$c395f710$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 158115 BAW: How do we know that there isn't such a system? Hermione's parents don't seem to be phased. Perhaps the Dursleys are a special case; perhaps one of the conditions on which Petunia accepted him was that there be NO contact with the Wizardling world until it was time for Harry to go to Hogwarts. Marion: We've never seen Hermino's parents. Not even when Hermione (and Colin Creevey) is petrified by a basilisk and in hospital for *months* do we ever see or hear from Hermione's parents. For all we know (and it isn't such a leap of faith either) Hermione's parents (and Colin's) were never *told* that their daughter and only child was petrified. Maybe this isn't something reserved for Muggle parents either. Magybe Hogwarts has a policy of 'whatever happens in Hogwarts *stays* in Hogwarts'. We never hear of Montegue's parents visiting *him* when he's debilitated in hospital either. But Montegue is a very, very minor character. Hermione is One Of The Three. We know all about Harry's parents, even though they're dead. We know all about Ron's parents, indeed there isn't a book in which they do not star and where Ron does not constantly talk about his family. We know *nothing* about Hermione's parent, except that they are both dentists. Hermione *never* talks about them. She even forgoes many a holiday with them in favour of staying in Hogwarts over Christmas with Ron and Harry and staying at the Weasleys over summerhols. We know from JKR that they are supportive of their daughter's witch-hood (witch-dom? witch-ness?) but Hermione, for all her 'save the house-elves' campaigns isn't so mouthy when it comes to tell her classmates about her muggle parents. Is she embarressed by their Muggle-ness? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 07:15:54 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:15:54 -0000 Subject: Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158116 BAW: > How do we know that there isn't such a system? Hermione's parents > don't seem to be phased. Perhaps the Dursleys are a special case; > perhaps one of the conditions on which Petunia accepted him was that > there be NO contact with the Wizardling world until it was time for > Harry to go to Hogwarts. > > The fact is that there is a great deal about the Wizarding world > that we don't know; JKR has not seen fit to tell us because it has > not been relevant to the plot. Ceridwen: We don't know that there is no support. But we can see the problems Mrs Cole had with Tom Riddle, and his own suspicions that Dumbledore had come to take him to an assylum because of his differences. Mrs Cole had no idea what was happening, how he had hung that rabbit from a beam, or what he might have done to the younger children in the sea- cave. Why would Petunia be told to have no contact with the WW? Others have pointed out that Harry's location is no secret. His mother had only one living relative, and there are no surviving relations on his father's side. There is apparently a list of magical children at Hogwarts. His name and his existence are no secret, in fact, the first inkling that something had happened to Petunia's sister in PS/SS was Vernon hearing Harry's name mentioned by some oddly-dressed people. If there was to be some secrecy, shouldn't Petunia have been instructed to change Harry's name, too? It may be possible that Dumbledore worked to change that after TR's example. He wasn't only headmaster, he also held two more political positions. But from what I've seen in the books, it certainly doesn't look like Muggle caregivers get any help whatsoever. Ceridwen. From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 10 08:18:04 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Argus Pyrites) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:18:04 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158117 Abergoat wrote: > Ooo, I do hope you'll share! That sounds like it would be at the > popularity level of my certainty that Dumbledore's brother holds his > head high and Albus isn't sure he can read because he is presently a > goat... Argus Pyrites replies: Now how can a goat tend bar at the Three Broomsticks?? Ahhh, yes, I see it yet *another* unregistered animagus! Carol wrote, at the beginning of this thread: > Anyone want to volunteer a list of Book 5 subplots that need to be > resolved in Book 7 and speculations on where JKR might take them? Argus Pyrites responds: Now, I know this is not the `That Awful Boy' thread, but it is a clue/unresolved plot point from OotP. So, I wanted to share with you a theory I saw briefly mentioned over at mugglenet. It intrigued me, and has been mulling around for about a week now, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see who pulls out a shotgun. "That Awful Boy" is **Snape** ? Yes, nothing new there, I know! /But/, with an entirely different reason to be there (Other than Lovestruck!Snape visits his One True) > hywla at Mugglenet wrote: > I'm going to throw in MY 'pet' out-there theory about the 'awful boy'. I think it's important > that Petunia mentions that the boy was discussing not just the dementors, but the dementors > as Azkaban guards. > I think the discussion took place AFTER they were all finished with Hogwarts. > In fact I think it came about because of a 'living death' and Fidelius for Regulus (secret being > he's not really dead). I think Snape went to Lily to ask her to perform the Fidelius for Regulus > (with him as SK). Ollivander's comment on her wand being good for Charms has to come in > somewhere and Flitwick said it was an immensely complicated charm. > I think she then suggested that if Regulus wanted to leave Voldy they should go see Albus - to > which I think Snape replied that Albus would just send them to Azkaban, pointedly reminding > her of the fact that dementors were now guarding the place (it doesn't seem as if they had > ALWAYS been guarding Azkaban). Original post is here: http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=4054997 hywla added in a private message to Argus Pyrites: > I should add on that I think it's possible that Petunia and Lily were still 'seeing' each other > until Lily and James began hiding (which 'I' believe happened very soon after Harry's birth ? > according to JKR interviews - about the time he was christened). Vernon knew Lily had a > child and he KNEW Harry's name (even tho' he wanted to believe he didn't). So, Lily could > EVEN be married with Petunia visiting at her home when Snape shows up to discuss a Fidelius > for Regulus. Now Argus Pyrites: NOTE: According to the Lexicon, Regulus died before Harry was born. This, as all things in the Potterverse are, is open to debate. But the above scenario certainly could have happened before Harry was born without harming the theory. Additionally, I think there is a way for "That Awful Boy" to have been Regulus himself, with no Snape involved, which would make *him* the awful boy. But, of course, this has the same timeline problems, in that Petunia would have had to have been visiting the married potters around 1979 or 1980 (or just before Harry was born, if you prefer) which is about when Regulus defected. Now Regulus as "That awful boy" was brought up on HP4GU at one point, but not discussed much. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142853 So, theory 2297864/A sub b14a = YoungMole!Snape is "that awful boy", on Regulus' behalf. And Theory 2297864/B sub b14b = Regulus was "that awful boy", on the run from Voldemort. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 10 10:16:14 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:16:14 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609092145x78abc179q8c81115ced8fc77c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > a_svirn: > Well, yes, using your extraordinary brainpower against someone, let's > say, *ordinary* means taking advantage of a certain power imbalance. > And you know what? It's not a pretty sight. It's a kind of snooty > behaviour that earned Snape, for instance, his *slimy git* reputation. > But thing is, hard words break no bones. A curse might, though, all > that and more. There's the difference. > > Lynda: > > But that's the point. What DD did to the Dursleys was not hurtful, it was > done gently and it was done to let them know that somebody at least realizes > that Harry was mistreated by the Dursleys and not just Harry but that Dudley > has come to harm under the care of the Dursleys senior himself. BTW, the > Dursleys treated DD very poorly in that scene. Vernon Dursley simply has > no manners whatsoever. (Yes I know it was late and he was unexpected but > still...) > a_svirn: No, it's not the point. At least, not as far as I am concerned. The point is, that although Dumbledore did not hurt the Dursleys or "beat them into a bloody pulp" he did indeed used his magic in order to intimidate them. Now, if you say that they deserved what they got, it's OK with me. Personally I don't like the scene, but again I understand that some people like to see the Dursleys getting their butts kicked. What I don't understand is how you can possibly say that an act of intimidation can be "gently done" (unless you are being sardonic). Either he rebuked them, or he was gracious. You can't bend it both ways. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Sep 10 13:44:51 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:44:51 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Length of Book Seven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4504A373.2067.58E1AD6@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 158119 On 10 Sep 2006 at 13:36, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > That reminds me, does anyone know anything about the rumor that > hardcover books actually cost LESS to manufacture than paperback books? Hardcover books do cost more than paperbacks, but only slightly more if the same quality paper is used. Generally though most hardcovers use a more expensive paper than paperbacks and that does increase the cost, but not incredibly so. And the difference in manufacturing cost is nowhere near as much as the difference in price. That difference comes about because of deliberate marketing decisions. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 10 13:50:44 2006 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:50:44 -0000 Subject: Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158120 > Tonks: > "Someone "late in life" could be a teenager too old to begin at > Hogwarts. It could be Dudley. > > Another reason to suspect Dudley is that Petunia is his mother and > Magic does run in her family as a dormant gene or something. " > > BAW: > JKR has said that it will NOT be either Dudley or Petunia. > Personally, I think it will be Uncle Vernon, if only because it > would be a huge kick in the pants for him. Imagine him carefully > interrogating Dudley's girlfriends to try to find out if they have > any Wizardling blood without actually asking in so many words! The > girls would probably think that he was a total nut case and run > fast and far. JLV: Has anyone else thought that the 'magic late in life' person may have already appeared. I thought Merope may be a candidate. Her father calls her a squib so presumably she originally didn't do magic and Dumbledore's comments seem to support this. It isn't until after her father and Morfin were taken away that she starts. Just a thought. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 10 14:50:26 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:50:26 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at the Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158121 > > > Betsy Hp: > > Hmm, see I have it as exactly opposite. The wizards are the > insular > > xenophobes, with little that is beautiful and soul enriching > > surrounding them. They know nothing of art or music or > literature. > > phoenixgod2000: > First of all, thats not true. They certainly at least have art and > music at the very least. This isn't a treatis on wizarding culture > so we don't know much about them because Harry doesn't care all that > much but they have the weird sisters and the wizarding wireless, > celestia Warbeck and the apparently superior music of the french > (according to Fleur at least :) Hogwarts seems fairly littered with > paintings so they must have some magical artists coming around. > Ken: I reached the same conclusion as Betsy a couple of weeks ago. You can *claim* that the WW has a culture but they sure don't teach it at Hogwarts. Celestina Warbecks and the Weird Sisters strike me as the probable equivalent of American Idol -- decent enough pop culture but not works for the ages. The photos and paintings we see are more like devices than art. They are interesting because of what they do, no one seems to react to them based on their artistic merit. No one mentions that they have any. Even if they didn't have a culture of their own you would think they would study English culture and history. Hogwarts has no art classes, no music classes, no literature classes. Hogwarts is like the engineering student's dream school, no humanities, just the "good stuff". That strikes even this electrical engineer as an odd world for a writer to create. A lot of hard science fiction novels I read have more cultural references in them than Harry Potter does. I supose that Muggle Studies *might* cover some of this but it seems to be a class of one, doesn't it? And that one is one who needs it least. With all the trouble wizards and witches have blending into Muggle society, something that is critical to their beloved secrecy act, you would think that Muggle Studies would be a required course. > phoenixgod2000: > As for literature, no, they don't seem to have much (that we know > of) but I don't blame them. With magic, their lives are more > interesting than book I can think of. Charlie wrangles Dragons for > gods sake. Bill is freakin' Indian Jones marrying a fairy > princess. Dumbledore is Gandalf the Grey come to life. In world > with hundreds of prophecies, ghosts that teach classes, Olypmic > events performed against dragons, magic is all the mystery and > fantasy anyone could ever want. > > And for them it's real. > > I wouldn't read much either. > Ken: The success of Gilderoy Lockheart's books would argue otherwise. As in the Muggle world the many live mundane lives. The few live exciting lives and write books for the rest of us. From Newton to Hawking, from Chaucer to Tolkein, from Handel to the Stones, these people live in an absoultely fascinating culture and they seem to ignore all of it except to look down on it. Magic does not seem to enrich their lives at all. Everything they do is deriviative of Muggle culture and technology. They contribute some minor enhancements but mostly magic makes them lazy and that laziness reaches its zenith in the intellectual realm. There is little if anything to admire about this world. The magic we see has the primary effect of making everything more dangerous. This is a world where everyone walks around with a cocked and loaded pistol in their pocket. The complete opposite of the society they live in. Really the only thing charming about the Potterverse is that against all odds we do meet some very nice people there. And then *we* seem to spend all our time trying to make these nice people out to be horrid, bigoted monsters! Ken From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 06:27:56 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:27:56 -0700 Subject: Magic Late in Life - Dudley In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609092327l98cac75x5a2f53fe3d25462c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158122 Tonks: > Someone "late in life" could be a teenager too old to begin at > Hogwarts. It could be Dudley. > > Another reason to suspect Dudley is that Petunia is his mother and > Magic does run in her family as a dormant gene or something. > Lynda: Rowling has pretty much quashed this idea. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 10 15:17:12 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:17:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifying with Muggles/Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life References: <000b01c6d4a7$c395f710$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <003001c6d4ec$31ff1990$529e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158123 > Marion: We never hear of Montegue's parents visiting *him* when he's debilitated in hospital either. But Montegue is a very, very minor character. Magpie: Actually, we do hear of them visiting him, making the lack of Muggle parents during the basilisk year all the more glaring. Dean and Hermione have both openly talked about keeping their parents in the dark about what's going on. Hermione decides what her parents need to know, what they will "understand" and even decides to cancel her trip home when her parents have planned a ski trip by, apparently, sending them a letter telling them she's staying at school at the last minute when she's really going to Grimauld Place. > phoenixgod2000: > As for literature, no, they don't seem to have much (that we know > of) but I don't blame them. With magic, their lives are more > interesting than book I can think of. Charlie wrangles Dragons for > gods sake. Bill is freakin' Indian Jones marrying a fairy > princess. Dumbledore is Gandalf the Grey come to life. In world > with hundreds of prophecies, ghosts that teach classes, Olypmic > events performed against dragons, magic is all the mystery and > fantasy anyone could ever want. > > And for them it's real. > > I wouldn't read much either. Ken: The success of Gilderoy Lockheart's books would argue otherwise. As in the Muggle world the many live mundane lives. The few live exciting lives and write books for the rest of us. Magpie: Well, as somebody who actually likes to read this exchange is incredibly depressing. Books are not all about exciting people relating their exciting lives to us poor boring folk. Literature covers ordinary lives as well, and finds extraordinary things there. People write extraorindary things without ever leaving their own small town or throwing in a single dragon. There's plenty of Muggles who work with exotic animals or play extreme sports--they aren't generally also revered authors. Ken: Really the only thing charming about the Potterverse is that against all odds we do meet some very nice people there. And then *we* seem to spend all our time trying to make these nice people out to be horrid, bigoted monsters! Magpie: I like looking at the flaws in the "nice people" in the books and get pretty impatient when describing something imo accurately in a scene gets people up in arms about making somebody nice into a monster. Or where people act like there's something amiss when different people have different reactions to characters in scenes. One of JKR's talents is the way she writes scenes in ways that are truly ambiguous, where her "good guys" do behave in ways that are flat-out wrong. Or at least complex enough that there's room for different reactions. Nobody in real life is liked by everyone all the time. And sometimes people insisting their reading is the only one that's right are wrong. -m From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Sep 10 15:36:13 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:36:13 -0000 Subject: Snape/Regulus/Lily Fidelius Theory Re: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158124 Abergoat writes: I love hwyla's work, she developed my favorite symbolism theory: The potions book was put behind a cage with ribs (ribcage) in a chest (torso) with a head placed on top. So that potions book was placed 'at the heart of it all'! Fabulous work! Argus Pyrites wrote: > Now how can a goat tend bar at the Three Broomsticks?? Ahhh, yes, I > see it yet *another* unregistered animagus! Abergoat replies: Not quite, I think Aberforth is the goat making the bar smell like goats. The current barman may be missing Order member Caradoc Dearborn, which is why Mundungus doesn't have to wear the disguise when talking to him in the street. Dung only has to wear a disguise in the bar to avoid being kicked out by a mad goat (who is still technically a 'barman' because he probably owns the place). Like it or not, JKR did not confirm Aberforth was the barman - she only congratulated readers for tracing him to the bar. > > hywla at Mugglenet wrote: > > > I'm going to throw in MY 'pet' out-there theory about the 'awful > boy'. I think it's important > > that Petunia mentions that the boy was discussing not just the > dementors, but the dementors > as Azkaban guards. > > > I think the discussion took place AFTER they were all finished > with Hogwarts. > > > In fact I think it came about because of a 'living death' and > Fidelius for Regulus (secret being > he's not really dead). I think > Snape went to Lily to ask her to perform the Fidelius for Regulus > > (with him as SK). Ollivander's comment on her wand being good for > Charms has to come in > > somewhere and Flitwick said it was an immensely complicated charm. > > > I think she then suggested that if Regulus wanted to leave Voldy > they should go see Albus - to > which I think Snape replied that > Albus would just send them to Azkaban, pointedly reminding > her of > the fact that dementors were now guarding the place (it doesn't seem > as if they had > > ALWAYS been guarding Azkaban). Abergoat writes: That is a really fun idea. I too don't think Snape's regret or his conversation overhead (assuming he is the awful boy) had anything to do with whether he loved Lily, was her friend, or hated her guts. There is something between them but I refuse to believe motivates Snape, or more accurately, didn't motivate him until he was responsible for Lily's death. And we know he turned spy before that. I agree that Lily might have been one of only two people capable of casting Fidelius (possibly Dumbledore's own invention). And the idea that Snape was involved with Regulus's attempt to escape is fun and seems very plausible. My only objection is that at that time Regulus wanted out of the Death Eaters Snape wasn't much of a boy. He would have been in his twenties. I think the better bet is that a truly young Snape (before his worst memory) discussed with Lily his idea to enter the Death Eaters to bring down Voldemort from within. Therefore risking death from Voldemort if discovered and risking being placed in Azkaban if exposed as a Death Eater. So I believe Snape was always against Voldemort, although it is possible he didn't join Dumbledore until later. I think it is possible he did it on his own. Out of vengance for something Voldemort has done but doesn't know that Snape knows...hence Snape learned Occlumency before he entered Voldemort's service...possibly with the help of a Legilimens named Lily. Abergoat From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 10 15:59:07 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:59:07 -0000 Subject: Magic Late in Life - Dudley In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609092327l98cac75x5a2f53fe3d25462c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Tonks: > > > Someone "late in life" could be a teenager too old to begin at > > Hogwarts. It could be Dudley. > > > > Another reason to suspect Dudley is that Petunia is his mother and > > Magic does run in her family as a dormant gene or something. > > > > Lynda: > Rowling has pretty much quashed this idea. Tonks: When? I know that she said it about Petunia, but are you sure about Dudley? Do you have the quote? Tonks_op From CliffVDY at juno.com Sun Sep 10 14:25:31 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:25:31 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: <4c4.83aea18.3234a3a7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > Julie: > Erm, while your discourse on telepathy is interesting, what does it have > to do with Legilimency or Occlumency? Nothing that I can see. We are > talking about a fictional book relating fictional powers, and it has already > been noted in the text that Legilimency is not "reading minds." We also > have no reason to assume JKR knows anything about telepathy in the > manner you're presenting it ("it requires an open mind" etc) as you readily > admit. In fact the necessity of eye contact for Legilimency would seem > additional evidence that JKR is not basing this wizard skill on telepathy. In > short, your analogy is invalid, which also means the Occlumency lessons > provide no support at all for the "Snape is a bad egg" theory :-) Cliff: There is one huge hole in your reasoning. LV is accessing Harry's mind from a distance, thus it *is* telepathy, not Legilimency as you just said. > Julie, who admits to being highly skeptical about Muggle psychic abilities > of all kinds Cliff: I doubt if JKR intended to do any more than expand on telepathic communication, but that requires observance of the facts of telepathy which occurs only between certain individuals. I classed those who either can't or won't (does "skeptical" fit in here?) accept telepathic messages as having closed minds (accidental or deliberate Occlumency). In fiction, you can write anything you so desire; however, to be readable, it must follow its own rules. There has been much discussion about the details of JKR's rules, a whole Lexicon on it, and that Book Seven must follow logically the previous six books. So that logic either requires following the facts or opening a new branch of fiction. Based on facts as I know them, Snape taught Harry wrong. You are entitled to your opinion. Now, putting ideas into someone else's head is another story. Do you want a product shown on TV? Call 1-800-555-1212. It's just $4.95 plus $1,000,000 shipping and handling. From lisasimpsonfan at aol.com Sun Sep 10 16:37:36 2006 From: lisasimpsonfan at aol.com (lisasimpsonfan at aol.com) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:37:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158127 Ken: Even if they didn't have a culture of their own you would think they would study English culture and history. Hogwarts has no art classes, no music classes, no literature classes. Hogwarts is like the engineering student's dream school, no humanities, just the "good stuff". Linda: I think that the lack of art and humanities classes in Hogwarts traces back to when the school was founded and not because of a lack of culture in the WW. It was a very dangerous time to be a wizard or witch. The general population believed in magic and it was punishable by death. Granted wizards are better able to defend themselves against attack but they are still human and can make mistakes. The Founders started Hogwarts to create a safe haven where they could teach young wizards and prepare them for the challenges they faced in the outside world. There are only so many hours in the day and it makes more sense to teach them how to make a healing potion or ward a house then to play a harp. Linda who wonders if Ron's The Adventures of Martin Miggs, The Mad Muggle comics count as culture? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 10 16:59:05 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 10 Sep 2006 16:59:05 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/10/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1157907545.14.49096.m39@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158128 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 10, 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 hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Sep 10 17:13:09 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:13:09 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158129 Linda: > > Linda who wonders if Ron's The Adventures of Martin Miggs, The Mad Muggle > comics count as culture? > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Hickengruendler: There is also "Odo, the hero", whose adventures Slughorn and Hagrid sang about on Aragog's funeral. Though of course Ken's point stands, that this is not directly taught at Hogwarts. Though neither are Mathematics, Physics etc. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 10 18:21:44 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:21:44 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158130 > AnnR wrote: > > < just a surname she chose or is there a deeper meaning.> > > > ~Phyllis > I don't think it's an anagram. I think the anagram was having "Tom > Marvolo Riddle" turn into "I am Lord Voldemort" at the end of CoS. > > I do think there's a deeper meaning, though. Rowling has said that > she wanted Voldemort to be a complex "baddie," > aussie: If it's any help, Tom (or Thomas) was the disciple of Jesus who didn't want to believe until he saw with his own eyes and touched with his own hand. Dumbledore was always going on about Harry's love, and how Voldimort could understand it nor wanted to believe it aussie From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 18:35:32 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:35:32 -0400 Subject: Fear of Magic (was why do people dislike this scene) Message-ID: <80f25c3a0609101135i6a4a21b3ycd363b435b4972ea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158131 Tonks wrote: > > I am an "older" person. (50's) and I have always seen the Dursleys > as fearful. As least Vernon and Petunia. Much of their actions, IMO, > stem from fear. They hide Harry under the stairs where you would > put something scary that you didn't want to remember was in your > home. It is where you would put something you wanted to control, but > knew in your heart of hearts that you could not control. (And add > the whole thing of the worst kind of Wizards gunning for the kid, > and you have a very scary situation indeed.) > Debbie: I read Petunia and Vernon as terrified of the WW from the very first chapter of PS/SS, Vernon in particular. JKR uses Vernon to introduce us to the WW from the perspective of a Muggle observing a paranormal phenomenon. And although JKR presents Vernon as a bigoted bully whose reactions tell us that we should not adopt his views, it seems clear by the time they get to the Hut on the Rock that their veneer of 'normalcy' hides a pervasive fear of the WW. While they seem mainly afraid that the neighbors will find out, I read that to mean they are terrified the neighbors will discover the existence of a phenomenon they cannot understand or explain. Tonks: think that Petunia might not be as afraid as Vernon is. She at least has been exposed to the magical world. Vernon on the other hand is more than just scared, he is terrified. I am surprised the poor man hasn't had a heart attack over it. It is Vernon who is the most abusive and this is in direct proportion to his sense of terror. He absolutely loses it at times and goes right off the deep end. Poor man. Debbie: Vernon evidently has had little exposure to the WW. In ch. 1 he does not recognize the reference to "You-Know-Who" or understand why he has been called a Muggle. His is a fear of the unknown -- and that's before he learns that Voldemort has killed the Potters. But the text suggests that Vernon was an abusive bully well before he met Petunia or learned about the WW; his enthusiasm for Smeltings and its whacking stick tells us that. Petunia's situation is different, of course. She knows plenty about the WW, perhaps even that a megalomaniac wizard is trying to take over everywhere. Evidence of wizards in the vicinity can never have been a good sign. Her terror level may be lower but it's balanced by a deeper sense of pain. In addition to her very legitimate fear of the WW, she has Vernon to deal with. However, un-magical Petunia is, she is the one with the magical relatives. Those magical relatives are a burden that *she* has brought to the marriage and while they could manage rather well back when the could pretend the Potters did not exist, they cannot do that with Harry in the house regrowing his hair and shrinking ugly clothes (for which he was not punished). I get the idea that Vernon is the force behind Harry's punishments. Pippin wrote: My point is the Dursleys aren't 'civilized human beings'. They're holding it together by the skin of their teeth, disturbed enough to abuse the son they love deeply. They are not people who could be straightened out with few counseling sessions. They are seriously messed up. And if the DE's realize that, they can easily use that as a lever to have Harry taken away. Debbie: Do you think Petunia would have been so close to the edge if magic had never been a part of her life? Some kids never get over the realization that they are 'ordinary' while a sibling has a talent that is prized and nurtured by their parents. It makes them angry and resentful, and changes how they interact with others. Petunia's abuse of Dudley cannot be condoned, but it seems to derive (from a desire to glorify their very normal child as if he were a child-king. Add this to Vernon's bullying ways, and you get a deeply disturbed child. I've often wondered if Vernon's attractiveness to Petunia lay in the fact that he prized her 'normalcy', something she found so reassuring that she tried to follow his lead. Petunia is presented as someone who uses the neighbors as a yardstick to determine whether she is traveling the right path, as though her self-image is too poor to make choices for herself. I think she has done the same with Vernon, even though subconsciously she realizes it's not right. Tonks: As to Petunia. I think that she should get a little credit. After all she did do what was right over what was easy, when it came to taking Harry in and also when she insisted that he must stay. I don't think that was all because of her fear of DD either. I think she did it out of duty to her sister, her blood. And she did it at great cost and risk to herself and to her husband and her "only son". Debbie: Petunia is in a very difficult position. In addition to her very legitimate fear of the WW, she has Vernon to deal with. She has an irrational bully for a husband who has a very rational fear of the WW, and an equally irrational conviction of the brilliance of his son. She has magical relatives who terrify her, but she is the only hope of survival for a child with magical powers that, in her mind, could be used to abuse her and her family (just imagine if Harry was like Tom Riddle). Those magical relatives are a burden that *she* has brought to the marriage; thus it is primarily her responsibility to protect her family from magical catastrophe. While they could manage rather well back when the catastrophe was the embarrassment caused by freaky relatives, which they could generally avoid by pretending the Potters did not exist, wizards pursuing a witch hunt against an infant in their care is another matter. Petunia's treatment of Harry begins to make more sense, viewed in this light. She tries to do her duty to Vernon and Dudley as well as Harry (to the extent she can consistent with her resentment of Lily), but their needs are just too different, and her own fears come into play, too. (In PS/SS, Petunia is unwilling to leave Harry home alone for fear that her house will be blown up -- with Harry in it.) We can see that Petunia should stand up to her husband and treat Harry as a true family member. But I can appreciate why she can't. And to make a brief comment on the topic that started it all (old-timers on this list already know my views)Dumbledore's actions in HBP with the wineglasses played to the Dursleys' fears. Even if they know in their heart of hearts that Dumbledore isn't trying to poison them, they must feel humiliated. Someone on that thread mentioned that Dumbledore is sometimes childish. But this is not childish playfulness, as in "Nitwit!Blubber!Oddment!Tweak"; he means it to have a message. And further deponent saith not. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 10 18:39:46 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:39:46 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: > Based on facts as I know them, Snape taught Harry > wrong. houyhnhnm: Yet Dumbledore says to Harry at the end of OotP: "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence--" This suggests to me that Dumbledore was fully aware of the methods Snape was using to teach Occlumency to Harry and that they were the same methods Dumbldedore would have employed himself had he been the one doing the teaching. I'm not sure that Snape was deliberately holding back while attempting to teach Harry. It may really have been just his personal baggage that got in the way despite a sincere attempt to succeed. But if he was, it is easy to see why. If it would have been dangerous for Dumbledore to open Harry's mind even further to Voldemort in his presence, how much more dangerous was it for Snape, whose only protection from Voldemort is Voldemort's lack of knowledge about just how good an Occlumens Snape really is. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 10 18:53:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:53:52 -0000 Subject: The name Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Argus Pyrites" wrote: > > Phil Vlasak wrote: > > You can get wl nag riddle" > > from "Grindelwald" > > "Wl" may be shorthand for "will" > > Argus Pyrites adds: > This is *horribly* off topic, but this reminded me of Trespassers > W. from Winnie-the-Pooh. Sorry, delete this if you must Oh List > Elves... but I just couldn't resist, as I'm *still* giggling. (And > isn't Milne /always/ considered relevant?) > > A.A. Milne wrote: > >> > The Piglet lived in a very grand house in the middle of a beech- > tree, and the beech-tree was in the middle of the forest, and the > Piglet lived in the middle of the house. Next to his house was a > piece of broken board which had: "TRESPASSERS W" on it. When > Christopher Robin asked the Piglet what it meant, he said it was > his grandfather's name, and had been in the family for a long time. > Christopher Robin said you couldn't be called Trespassers W, and > Piglet said yes, you could, because his grandfather was, and it was > short for Trespassers Will, which was short for Trespassers William. > And his grandfather had had two names in case he lost one? > Trespassers after an uncle, and William after Trespassers. > > "I've got two names," said Christopher Robin carelessly. > > "Well, there you are, that proves it," said Piglet. > >> > > Tonks wrote: > > Well maybe JKR's spelling ability is as bad as her math. I > > thought "gnawl" was a word. I looked it up, and it isn't. But > > to me it spells "gnaw". So maybe this is the word she wants. > > > > With this we have the fact that we have to 'gnaw on the riddle'. > > Which make perfect sense to me. > > > Argus Pyrites adds: > > I'm not too sure that putting in clues via anagram is ever a good > idea.. but seeing as I like this sort of thing > > Gnawl Riddle you say? > > How about Gnaw Red Drill? -- Grindelwald owned Grunnings? > Lewd Darling? -- Say, Isn't Minerva at school with Tom in 45? > Wand Led Girl -- Say, Maybe Minerva was imperiused by Grindelwald! > Wand Grilled -- Priori incantatum teaches DD about Grindlewald's > Horcrux victim... > Grin Well, Dad -- Tom killed his father in 43 > Warding Dell -- Grindelwald was born in Godric's Hollow??? > Grand Willed -- DD defeated Grindelwald through psychic attacks? > Will End Grad -- Harry defeats Voldemort, then Grindelwald's ghost > haunts him until he commits suicide. He 'marries' Myrtle. > Darn Wild Leg -- Grindelwald would've won, but he tripped. > Rad Dwelling -- By the way, Grindelwald's summer home is for let. geoff: I am rather enjoying this thread because it is taking me back to the halcyon days on the group before HBP appeared and the group became obsessive, scratchy and hyperanalytical over discussions about Snape, Horcruxes, Dumbledore's death (or non-death) and got far too serious to be taken seriously. A couple of thoughts on the question of Tom Riddle's name. I did remark months and months ago that there is an alternative meaning to Riddle which no one seemed to have picked up, that of a sieve. Now, coupling that to JKR's play on words turning "pensive" (= thoughtful) into "Pensieve" (= a method of editing and storing thoughts), could there be some sneaky and underhand connection between the Sieve of Slytherin and our little storage device? Off topic, thanks Argus for Trespassers W. I salute another Winnie-the-Pooh fan. From ornawn at 013.net Sun Sep 10 20:08:11 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:08:11 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158134 >Ken: Hogwarts has no art classes, >no music classes, no literature classes. Hogwarts is like the >engineering student's dream school, no humanities, just the "good >stuff". >Linda: >Linda who wonders if Ron's The Adventures of Martin Miggs, The Mad >Muggle comics count as culture? >Hickengruendler: >There is also "Odo, the hero", whose adventures Slughorn and Hagrid >sang about on Aragog's funeral. Though of course Ken's point stands, >that this is not directly taught at Hogwarts. Though neither are >Mathematics, Physics etc. Orna: They do study history of magic. Binns, I admit, but they do. I think the main obstacle to study art is that most imaginary creatures are reality (Dragons, centaurs etc.), or can turn out to be reality, or can be created as reality. Paradoxically in WW fantasy is very difficult to imagine - -what would prevent anything from being "real"? It might be done, but the whole imaginary plane would be is nearly impossible, as I see it. You need a tension between reality and non-reality to create art, and that's exactly what's lacking in the WW, if you take it serious. The minute you feel creative, you go and enchant something, create a secret room, or just find that your creative mood has somehow brought about your pink hair, somebody's toenails growing, or whatever. So we are left with the "classics" you mentioned + Ginny's song in CoS, her writing a diary. We have pictures hanging everywhere ? none of them appreciated for their beauty. (A bit difficult, while their tenants are moving everywhere, but still).Harry gets a flute from Hagrid ? we don't see much music come from it. They have Pop-songs on the "radio", rock-bands, and ghost-music. Fred and George sing a funeral tune, so they seem to have learned some songs . Biography of Vampire. We have the phoenix song, the mermaid farewell to DD. Dumbledore liked music ? but the concept of singing together was ? each to his own tune. It seems that every time we see some art displayed in the WW, it looks ridiculous, and certainly without the power associated with it. (Not they I don't appreciate "Odo the hero" ) Perhaps DD did reveal something (for us), when he said music was supreme magic, or something like this. I mean, it would be difficult to imagine any wizard composing anything which would sound more magical than Mozart, so perhaps JKR left those magical creations as they are ? magic which muggles and wizards can share. Orna From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 10 20:23:49 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:23:49 -0000 Subject: Neville/Neville/DogLady/WeasleyIsOurKing/WizardingFiction/Anagram Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158135 Eggplant wrote in : << When Luna first met Neville and asked who he was Neville responded "I'm nobody". That's just sad. >> I still always read that statement from Neville as courageously and self-assertively rude. He recognizes Luna as a weirdo (he may already know about her strange ways and the other Ravenclaws picking on her) and does not want to associate with her, so he witholds his name from her. Marion Ros wrote in : << If, *if*, there ever would be a 'final confrontation' between Snape and Neville, Neville-poo would be mincemeat. (snip) smooth, suave duellist) >> A 'confrontation' doesn't have to be a duel. E.g. when Dumbledore found Harry immersed in the Mirror of Erised and warned him not to get addicted to it, that was a confrontation (DD confronting Harry). Nikkalmati wrote in : << I like the idea that the Dog Lady is an Animagus transformation gone bad. If we can't see her face, how can we know who she looks like? Maybe she is one of the missing - thought dead people. >> As Abergoat pointed out, St. Mungo's 'knows' that Dog Lady's name is Agnes and that her son visits her, unless there is some deliberate hoax (the 'son' isn't really her son, or he really is her son but visits using an appearance and name different from his real appearance and name). Surely they would check with her son about her name, age, and allergies. So her name would be recognized as that of one of the missing persons unless there was a deliberate hoax to keep her in hospital with a false name, or her missing-person name was a false name. Robin wrote in : << I wonder if the "Weasley is our king", no matter how great, is really necessary to the plot? >> There is a theory that it's part of the alchemical symbolism. That Ron and Hermione play the roles of Sulphur and Quicksilver (allegedly called 'the quarrelling couple'), who marry, die, dissolve together, and come back to life crowned as Solar King and Lunar Queen. Betsy Hp wrote in : << As per JKR there is no fiction in the Wizarding World. >> I don't think she out-and-out stated that there's no fiction in the wizarding world. She certainly impliedd it, but OTOH the October 2005 Wizard of the Month was a Barbara Cartland clone: "Fifi LaFolle, author of the "Enchanted Encounters" series". Which sounds like fiction to me. Also they have theatre, as at least one play is mentioned in canon: QTTA quotes from 'Helas, J'ai Tranfigure Mes Pieds'. Mike Crudele wrote in : << You can get "Riddle" out but that leaves the letters "gnawl" and dang if I can make anything intelligent out of those. Anybody else try "Grindelwald" for an anagram? >> Maybe it needs to include his first name. If we wanted the anagram to be 'gnawed and riddled soul'. we would need the extra letters: E D A N D D S O U. Can we force a name from them? From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 10 20:21:59 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:21:59 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, lisasimpsonfan at ... wrote: > > Ken: > > Even if they didn't have a culture of their own you would think they > would study English culture and history. Hogwarts has no art classes, > no music classes, no literature classes. Hogwarts is like the engineering > student's dream school, no humanities, just the "good stuff". > > Linda: > > I think that the lack of art and humanities classes in Hogwarts traces back > to when the school was founded and not because of a lack of culture in the > WW. It was a very dangerous time to be a wizard or witch. The general > population believed in magic and it was punishable by death. Granted wizards are > better able to defend themselves against attack but they are still human and > can make mistakes. The Founders started Hogwarts to create a safe haven where > they could teach young wizards and prepare them for the challenges they faced > in the outside world. There are only so many hours in the day and it makes > more sense to teach them how to make a healing potion or ward a house then to > play a harp. > > Linda who wonders if Ron's The Adventures of Martin Miggs, The Mad Muggle > comics count as culture? > Ken: In a thousand years nobody thought to correct the founders' shortsightedness? That doesn't say anything good about the WW. The arguement you give is exactly the same one engineering students use when complaining about their humanities requirement. The consequences in the WW are exactly what they would be the real world if we did not make science and technology students study the humanities. In our world physicists are often very cultured people and even though we rarely are credited with it, engineers are too. Remove the moderating influence of culture and the world of technology would run amok, much as it does in the Potterverse. That would, perhaps, be part of Rowling's message. Certianly comics would count as culture and that is generally recognized today even though many are still not wild about the idea. But where is the deeper appreciation of all of human culture? A love of Boston does not preclude a love of Brubeck which does not preclude a love of Bach. Where is the love of Bach or Brubeck or Boston? Surely these things and many others reach wizards and witches as well as us. Back in my day engineering students carried an average of 5 credit hours more per semester than liberal arts students. We would have had a much easier time of it if we could have done without the humanities and it forced us to take up the technological classes we didn't have time for as undergratuates in graduate school. We would have been much the poorer if real schools adopted the Hogwarts solution. We would live in a darker world too. Nothing prevents Hogwarts from teaching the Humanities AND having a graduate program in advanced magic. Ken From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 10 22:09:41 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:09:41 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > Ken: > > In a thousand years nobody thought to correct the founders' shortsightedness? > That doesn't say anything good about the WW. The arguement you give is > exactly the same one engineering students use when complaining about their > humanities requirement. The consequences in the WW are exactly what they > would be the real world if we did not make science and technology students > study the humanities. In our world physicists are often very cultured people > and even though we rarely are credited with it, engineers are too. Remove > the moderating influence of culture and the world of technology would run > amok, much as it does in the Potterverse. That would, perhaps, be part of > Rowling's message. > > Certianly comics would count as culture and that is generally recognized > today even though many are still not wild about the idea. But where is the > deeper appreciation of all of human culture? A love of Boston does not > preclude a love of Brubeck which does not preclude a love of Bach. Where > is the love of Bach or Brubeck or Boston? Surely these things and many > others reach wizards and witches as well as us. Back in my day engineering > students carried an average of 5 credit hours more per semester than > liberal arts students. We would have had a much easier time of it if we > could have done without the humanities and it forced us to take up the > technological classes we didn't have time for as undergratuates in graduate > school. We would have been much the poorer if real schools adopted the > Hogwarts solution. We would live in a darker world too. Nothing prevents > Hogwarts from teaching the Humanities AND having a graduate program > in advanced magic. But eventually this becomes a debate over the meaning of "culture". I'm an engineering student so I understand your argument but I'm not a big believer in the "teaching" of culture. What makes Bach more "cultural" then Celestina Warbeck in HP? A lot of people feel that the Humanities and Liberal Arts at Universities teach an elitist type of culture to begin with. A lot of people would argue that's it's not a school systems place to be teaching "cultural" values that that's the role of the family and/or community. Indeed it could be argued that by not teaching culture Hogwarts is doing the Muggle-born students a favor...instead of learning a completely new culture (complete with history, music, politics, arts, etc) they focus the Muggle-borns on learning magic...the defining element of wizarding society. Too often teaching culture comes across as a simple way to indoctrinate a large group of people with the same tastes, views, etc. Instead Hogwarts takes a hand off approach...allowing the students to learn wizarding culture on their own (and often with very bad results). Maybe it's me but to a certain extent the "culture" situation in Wizarding world mirrors Canada (minus Quebec) in that you have a smaller very diverse culture always in the shadow (and seemingly under threat from) of a large culture (in Canada's case the United States). Indeed Quidditch's status in the wizarding world seems very similar to ice hockey's status in Canada (sorry to the Canadians that don't like hockey). Within certain circles of Canadian culture a defining oath seems to be that they're not American which could be seen as a parallel to the wizards defining themselves from the muggles based on one trait (magic). Quick_Silver From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 10 22:13:47 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:13:47 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles/Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life In-Reply-To: <003001c6d4ec$31ff1990$529e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158138 > > Ken: > > The success of Gilderoy Lockheart's books would argue otherwise. > As in the Muggle world the many live mundane lives. The few live > exciting lives and write books for the rest of us. > > > Magpie: > Well, as somebody who actually likes to read this exchange is incredibly > depressing. Books are not all about exciting people relating their exciting > lives to us poor boring folk. Literature covers ordinary lives as well, and > finds extraordinary things there. People write extraorindary things without > ever leaving their own small town or throwing in a single dragon. There's > plenty of Muggles who work with exotic animals or play extreme sports--they > aren't generally also revered authors. > Ken: Yes, that is a good point but I don't understand your depression. I would argue that any book, whether it is considered literature or not, has to be exciting on some level to be effective. It does not have to be about exciting physical events but if a book fails to excite your mind on any point would you bother to read it? One of my favorite books is a discussion of telescope optics. Most of you would find it boring in the exteme and too dense to follow. There is a beauty to technology that outsiders can never appreciate. The hurdle you must leap to understand what is going on is too high for most folks. It is a little secret that scientists, mathematicians and engineers share among themselves. So yes, there are all kinds of books and all kinds of books can be extrordinary depending on the skill of the author. There is no reason that the WW should not be as excited about Muggle literature as Muggles are. I certianly did not mean to depress you by limiting my counter argument to the narrow front on which the battle was joined. Human creativity is an immensely wide and beautiful thing. Few humans indeed can appreciate all of it. I have as much trouble appreciating some art and literature as you may have appreciating the beauty of formal intregration by parts. The point is that the WW seems to appreciate and value almost none of it. > Ken: > Really the only thing charming about the Potterverse is that against all > odds we do meet some very nice people there. And then *we* seem to spend all > our time trying to make these nice people out to be horrid, bigoted > monsters! > > Magpie: > I like looking at the flaws in the "nice people" in the books and get pretty > impatient when describing something imo accurately in a scene gets people up > in arms about making somebody nice into a monster. Or where people act like > there's something amiss when different people have different reactions to > characters in scenes. One of JKR's talents is the way she writes scenes in > ways that are truly ambiguous, where her "good guys" do behave in ways that > are flat-out wrong. Or at least complex enough that there's room for > different reactions. Nobody in real life is liked by everyone all the time. > And sometimes people insisting their reading is the only one that's right > are wrong. > > Ken: You are certainly entitled to your reactions and your reading of the books. If those of us who disagree are not welcome to express our disagreement here, what is the point of the group? I don't deny the complexity of the characters, As to *when* they are flat out wrong, there we have deeply different views. Ken From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 10 22:55:21 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:55:21 -0000 Subject: Fear of Magic (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0609101135i6a4a21b3ycd363b435b4972ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158139 > And to make a brief comment on the topic that started it all (old- timers on > this list already know my views)Dumbledore's actions in HBP with the > wineglasses played to the Dursleys' fears. Even if they know in their heart > of hearts that Dumbledore isn't trying to poison them, they must feel > humiliated. Someone on that thread mentioned that Dumbledore is sometimes > childish. But this is not childish playfulness, as in > "Nitwit!Blubber!Oddment!Tweak"; he means it to have a message. > > And further deponent saith not. > > Debbie > Julie: I very much agree with most everything you've said. I've always assumed there is a degree of protection afforded Petunia and her family along with Harry, and that part of the reason Dumbledore was able to persuade Petunia to take Harry in "grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly" was because he advised her of that danger--Big, bad, really bad wizard killed Lily and James and tried to kill Harry, and big, bad, really bad wizard's Death Eaters are still on the loose looking to find their missing leader (who BTW will return some day) using whatever means necessary on whoever *might* have information (as they soon will on Neville's parents). "Now, did you say you don't want to take in your nephew, the boy right in the middle of it all? Because if not, well, don't come crying to me when those Death Eaters come to the door and torture you and your family--yes, including your baby boy--until you're begging for death even though you have no information to give them. What's that? Oh, you *will* take Harry in after all? Excellent. I knew you'd make the right choice!" I do sympathize with Petunia (perhaps less so with Vernon) because I suspect she knew exactly what was going on, and was basically forced into an untenable situation that she in no way brought upon herself. I can sympathize because if I was in her position, I'd be pretty resentful too if the lives of myself and my family were in jeopardy from a highly dangerous group of people armed in a manner I could never be, who otherwise wanted no part of me. (I do have nephews, whom I love very much, and certainly I would love and protect them no matter what, but I might still harbor some very unpleasant feelings about the WW, especially if they treated me as cavalierly as wizards treat Muggles in the HP books). This sympathy does NOT excuse Petunia's treatment of Harry, and, yes, sympathy for Petunia's very reasonable fear of the WW, and disgust at her resulting treatment of a child who was also in no way to blame for the situation can coexist. At least it can in me ;-) Regarding Dumbledore humiliating the Dursleys, this has been a problem since PS/SS. Again, NOTHING excuses the Dursleys' treatment of Harry. But their first contact with the WW is via Hagrid, who in a snit at Vernon's rudeness, hexes *Dudley* and gives him a permanent pig's tail. No one in the WW bothers to rectify that outright physical abuse of a Muggle--a child!--and the tail must be surgically removed. (I know the first book was set up as more of a "fairy tale" situation, but as the other books grow more realistic, so the events of the first book must eventually be taken at face value when discussing the series as a whole, IMO.) Can this situation do anything BUT solidify the Dursley's hatred, fear and distrust of the WW? And it's just the first of a number of instances where wizards continue to use magic against the Dursleys who are helpless against it, and can only resent and fear wizards and magic more with each passing year. How different might the Dursleys have been if the WW treated them as equals rather than consistently using magic to take them down a peg or two? Maybe they wouldn't be much different at all, but they certainly wouldn't be worse! And the WW would come off in a much better light (again, to me). Instead the WW frequently comes off in the same bullying light as the Dursleys. Julie, sympathetic to the Dursley's fear and helplessness while condemning their horrible treatment of an equally helpless child. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 10 23:33:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:33:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying with Muggles/Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life References: Message-ID: <00c301c6d531$8a27b650$529e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158140 > Ken: > > Yes, that is a good point but I don't understand your depression. I would > argue > that any book, whether it is considered literature or not, has to be > exciting on > some level to be effective. It does not have to be about exciting physical > events > but if a book fails to excite your mind on any point would you bother to > read > it? One of my favorite books is a discussion of telescope optics. Most of > you > would find it boring in the exteme and too dense to follow. There is a > beauty > to technology that outsiders can never appreciate. The hurdle you must > leap > to understand what is going on is too high for most folks. It is a little > secret > that scientists, mathematicians and engineers share among themselves. Magpie: I meant it was depressing to suggest that this wasn't true (which I see now you weren't doing), so that if you had an exciting life that was fulfilling you didn't need books. I would think that a dragon tamer might also love to read, and that the subjects of books didn't have to be reduced to a narrow definition of exciting. I don't think the magic of the WW replaces art or philosophy--they could come up with types of philosphy different from our own. So really I'm agreeing with you. The part that most stood out to me was actually in what you were replying to, saying that, for instance, if one can see a real dragon, why ever read a book? > Ken: > > You are certainly entitled to your reactions and your reading of the > books. > If those of us who disagree are not welcome to express our disagreement > here, what is the point of the group? I don't deny the complexity of the > characters, As to *when* they are flat out wrong, there we have deeply > different views. Magpie: Sure--I would never deny anyone the right to disagree. That seems to be the place where we have the most passionate discussions on the list, and the discussions that interest me most to read even if I don't care about a particular issue. The way you described it here I thought you were saying we spend our time changing the characters from nice people to monsters, which sounded like a bad thing. If someone is changing the character to fit what they think the character is then they're not talking about the character, imo, but two people looking at the same scene and seeing different things going on while getting the facts right is what makes the books more like life. -m From alcuin74 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 10 21:19:49 2006 From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:19:49 -0000 Subject: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158141 I'm not sure if this issue has been discussed already (I just don't have the time to run through the almost 30,000 posts since HBP was released) so here goes ... As we know by now, the power Harry possesses that the Dark Lord "knows not" is the power to love. This was hinted at strongly in the final discussion between Dumbledore and Harry at the end of OotP and confirmed in the discussion they had after Harry had retrieved Slughorn's memory in HBP. I find the latter discussion interesting, and disturbing, for two reasons. First, and less seriously, Dumbledore says that Harry has "never been seduced by the Dark Arts" (HBP 511, US ed.). Is this true? Unfortunately, Rowling has never given us a very clear definition of what falls under the Dark Arts and what doesn't, but I should think that the Unforgivable Curses count as Dark Arts. Harry, of course, tried to use an Unforgivable Curse, Cruciatus, on Bellatrix Lestrange in the Ministry of Magic at the end of Ootp. Again, in his confrontation with Snape at the end of HBP, he tried to use both Cruciatus and Sectumsempra on Snape (knowing full well what the latter curse does). So is Harry really "pure of heart, just as pure as [he was] at the age of eleven" (ibid), as Dumbledore said? I'm not so sure. Second, and more seriously, Dumbledore thinks that Harry's desire to finish Voldemort arises from Harry's ability to love, the love he has for his parents, whom Voldemort killed. Perhaps it does, but it seems to me that Dumbledore (i.e. Rowling) is conflating love with vengeance. After re-reading this passage, I can't help but think that what Dumbledore is praising here, what he thinks is Harry's great strength, is really nothing more than Harry's desire to avenge the death of his parents. I just can't see this as a particularly "magical," heroic or admirable quality. alcuin74. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 21:50:13 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:50:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's portrait (was Re: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: References: <8de2fdd80609091840k6ec1e76dkeae34e60d4aabfc5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0609101450n3d93a6b3lc3a6a5adead7dec6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158142 Julie: I suspect the next head of Hogwarts will be McGonagall. Who is also part of the Order. As was the person in one of the portraits now in the Headmaster's office. (Dumbledore, of course.) Which begs the question, is this the *only* portrait of Dumbledore in existence? I can't see any reason why it should be, as many other headmasters have their portraits elsewhere. So where would Dumbledore's other portraits be? And how might Dumbledore assist Harry and the Order by hopping between his portraits? Lynda: Let's not forget the chocolate frog cards. I'm fairly certain that Dumbledore's picture on those might turn out to be significant. Or he wouldn't have made the statement that he would not be upset (whatever the exact wording was I don't recall) unless his picture was removed from the cards. I'm certain that a wizard of Dumbledore's stature has a few more portraits in key places however. Important people (and even some not so important--merely famous) seem to manage to be photographed, painted and etc. fairly often. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 22:52:56 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:52:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic Late in Life - Dudley In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0609092327l98cac75x5a2f53fe3d25462c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0609101552v61493bdbrd5092776445697b1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158143 Tonks: When? I know that she said it about Petunia, but are you sure about Dudley? Do you have the quote? Lynda: I'm thinking of an early interview I saw with her on A&E. I've also read snippets from various interviews I've read of hers as well as the few I've picked up from the Leaky Cauldron or Mugglenet. Everything I've read/heard from her on the subject of Dudley is pretty much "what you see is what you get" and pretty much the idea of no magic proceeding from him. I do admit, that I don't spend a lot of time on interviews though, but those stood out. Lynda From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Sep 10 21:19:44 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:19:44 -0400 Subject: Support for parents of Muggleborns; Magic late in life Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158144 When I said that one of the conditions might have been no contact, I didn't mean that it was a condition set by DD, but one set by Petunia. "Ok, I'll take my sister's brat, but I don't want your lot sticking your noses into how I raise him." And we do meet Hermione's parents. In COS they come to Diagon Alley to get her school supplies, and while they are described as a little nervous--who wouldn't be--they don't seem nearly as discombobulated as one would expect a couple of Muggle dentists. BAW From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 01:00:47 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP20, Lord Voldemorts Request Message-ID: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158145 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 20, Lord Voldemort?s Request Many thanks to SSSusan (Shorty Elf) for her judicious edits and excellent suggestions. Synopsis: As the chapter opens, Harry and Ron leave the infirmary, both recovered from their injuries. Harry is particularly happy to hear that Ginny has argued with Dean Thomas. As Harry quizzes Hermione about the row, they pass a small girl in the seventh floor corridor. Startled and terrified, she drops her brass scales; Hermione comes to her rescue, repairing the scales and returning them to her. (1) Although Harry tries to be casual about his questions, Hermione grows suspicious when Harry asks if Ginny and Dean have split up. He protests that his interest is in keeping harmony amongst his Quidditch team. (2) Luna catches up with the trio on their way to breakfast and delivers an invitation from Dumbledore. She dumps an array of peculiar items she is carrying onto Ron in order to hand over the invitation. Ron compliments her on her Quidditch commentary, which she receives with skepticism. He then notices an onion-like object Luna has foisted onto him, and she explains that it is a Gurdyroot, used to ward off Gulping Plimpies. She kindly allows Ron to keep it, and he chuckles appreciatively as she drifts off. (3) As they head toward breakfast, Ron is stopped mid-sentence by the sight of Lavender looking ?thunderous.? Harry and Hermione allow Ron to confront Lavender by himself. Ron arrives in the Great Hall half an hour later, looking annoyed; he sits with Lavender, but Harry does not see them talk. Hermione tries to appear oblivious, but Harry notices a smirk or two during breakfast, and she appears particularly cheerful throughout the day, even helping Harry with his Herbology essay. That evening, Harry heads off for Dumbledore?s office. He arrives at the end of Dumbledore?s meeting with Professor Trelawney, who presumes she is being thrown out unceremoniously because of Harry. He learns that Trelawney was complaining about Firenze, asking that he be banished. Her goal frustrated, she departs Dumbledore?s office, stumbling down the stairs. (4) Dumbledore begins by asking Harry if he has retrieved the accurate memory from Slughorn. Harry admits that he asked Slughorn once, but was rebuffed. Harry realizes that he has done very little, and Dumbledore does not make excuses for him, instead reminding him of the task?s importance. Harry feels ashamed and uncomfortable and apologizes for his lack of effort, promising to do better. (5) After they review what Harry knows of Voldemort?s story, Dumbledore explains that they are about to embark on more guesswork and speculation. He says they will be viewing the final two memories, and he wants Harry?s opinion of Dumbledore?s conclusions. Harry is humbled by the fact that Dumbledore values his opinion, and he feels even more ashamed of his feeble efforts to retrieve Slughorn?s memory. (6) Dumbledore updates Harry on Voldemort?s life after Hogwarts. Despite his accomplishments and recommendations from faculty, Tom Riddle chose to work at Borgin and Burkes. Dumbledore explains to a stunned Harry that the shop held certain attractions for Tom that will be made plain when they see the first memory. (7) He also tells Harry that Tom asked to remain at Hogwarts as a DADA teacher. Dumbledore speculates that Hogwarts was appealing to Tom for several reasons: it had been Tom?s only real home (at which Harry feels an uncomfortable affinity); it housed much ancient magic, which might be useful to Tom in his ambitions; and his influence over a large number of emerging witches and wizards would be considerable, as a teacher at Hogwarts. Dippet refused to give Tom a position because of his youth. Dumbledore had advised Dippet to refuse Tom the job, but he refrained from expressing his real reasons for doing so. (8) Dumbledore and Harry then enter Hokey the House Elf?s memory. Harry sees her mistress, Hepzibah Smith, an immensely fat old lady, primping while awaiting Tom Riddle?s arrival. He notes that Hokey also appears quite elderly. The doorbell rings, and Hokey scurries off to answer it. Harry looks around the room and notices that it is crammed with objects. Hokey ushers in Tom, who appears to be familiar with the room. After flirting with him, Hepzibah orders Hokey to bring her ?finest? treasure and another historic artifact she owns: the Hufflepuff cup and the Slytherin locket. Tom shows greedy interest in the cup, and when Hepzibah takes it back, Harry notices that a shadow crosses his face. She then shows him the locket. As she explains that she bought it from Burke, who had purchased it off a ?ragged-looking woman,? Harry sees Voldemort?s eyes reveal a ?red gleam? and he seems unwilling to let go of the locket. Hepzibah is startled by his expression after she puts the locket back in its case. (9) After they leave the memory, Dumbledore tells Harry that Hepzibah Smith died two days after the meeting and that Hokey was convicted of accidentally poisoning her mistress, having confessed to putting something in her cocoa. Both Harry and Dumbledore notice the similarities between this scenario and the Riddles? murder. Harry is disgusted by the Ministry?s cavalier attitude toward Hokey?s confession, guessing that her status as a House Elf was instrumental in their decision. (10) By the time Hepzibah?s family had discovered that her two most valuable treasures were missing, Voldemort had vanished and his former employers at Borgin and Burkes had no idea where he was. This marked the beginning of a lengthy period of exile. Dumbledore then speculates that Hepzibah was Voldemort?s next murder after his Riddle family, but this time he was killing for gain. Dumbledore notes how this mirrors his behavior at the orphanage. Harry wonders at the mad act of throwing away everything just to acquire two objects. Dumbledore suggests that Voldemort had several reasons, among them a strong connectedness to Hogwarts. As Dumbledore prepares to pour the final memory into the Pensieve, he tells Harry that the memory they are about to view occurred ten years later, after Tom had disappeared. They enter the Headmaster?s office where Harry sees a younger Dumbledore behind the desk and Fawkes slumbering on his perch. (11) As Voldemort enters the room, Harry notices that the young, handsome Tom Riddle is gone, although he is not yet the snake-like Voldemort that emerged in the graveyard. Dumbledore welcomes him and offers Tom a drink. Voldemort points out that he is no longer using that name, but Dumbledore is not willing to call him Voldemort. Voldemort asks Dumbledore why he has chosen to stay at Hogwarts, and he replies cordially that he finds the work there more important than Ministry work. He points out that Tom once felt the same way, and Voldemort acknowledges that he still is interested in teaching. Voldemort explains that he is coming back to claim the post Professor Dippet denied him. He touts his experience since leaving Hogwarts, and Dumbledore tells him they have heard of his exploits. Dumbledore says he hopes much of it is not true, but Voldemort ascribes the negative remarks to jealousy and envy of his greatness. Dumbledore questions his definition of ?greatness,? and Voldemort responds that he has pushed more boundaries than anyone ever had before. Dumbledore reminds him that he is still woefully ignorant of other kinds of magic; Voldemort sneers at this, saying he has seen no evidence that Dumbledore? belief in Love is right. Dumbledore suggests he?s looking in the wrong places, and Voldemort uses that entr?e to press his case for joining the Hogwarts faculty. (12) Dumbledore asks what will become of Voldemort?s Death Eaters if he takes the job. This surprises Voldemort, and he is even more startled and displeased when Dumbledore lists several DEs by name and clearly knows they have accompanied him and are at that moment at the Hog?s Head. Dumbledore confronts Voldemort about his motives for returning to Hogwarts, making it clear he has no intention of offering Voldemort a job, as he knows very well that a desire to teach is not the real reason Voldemort has returned to Hogwarts. Voldemort, enraged, stands to leave, and Harry sees a flicker he is sure is Voldemort reaching for his wand and his pocket. However, a moment later Voldemort has left the room, and Harry and Dumbledore leave the memory. Harry asks Dumbledore why he thinks Voldemort returned. Dumbledore tells him he has some ideas, but he will not disclose them until Harry has retrieved Slughorn?s memory. Harry asks if Voldemort was after the DADA job, and Dumbledore assures him he was. He reveals that they have been unable to retain a DADA teacher for more than one year since then. (13) Questions: 1) Later, we discover the ?small girl? was Crabbe or Goyle, and he was serving as lookout for Draco. Who suspected this was more than it seemed at the time? (I didn?t at all suspect polyjuice, but I did think this wasn?t just a throwaway scene.) 2) There?s a fair amount of shipping in the beginning of this chapter. Do we learn anything about the relationships between Harry/Ginny, Hermione/Ron, Lavender/Ron that we don?t already know? 3) Once again, Luna comes up with what could be viewed as comic relief (CR). However, we?re also given the information that there is an antidote in the Gurdyroot ? is this simply CR or will we discover Luna?s not as ?loony? as we presume? On a related note: What did you think of Ron?s reaction to Luna in this scene? Did it surprise you? Is your own reaction to Luna similar or different from Ron?s? 4) What does the scene with Trelawney do at this point? It keeps her on the reader?s radar, but is there a larger purpose for seeing her at this point? Do we need reinforcement that she is antagonistic to Firenze? Is its purpose to remind us that she is in danger from the prophecy, of which she is oblivious? 5) In this scene, we see one of the few times that Dumbledore really calls Harry to task for his failings. Does this scene fit the Dumbledore of Book 6? Does it fit the Dumbledore of Books 1 ? 5? How did you feel about DD in this scene? 6) Do you find Dumbledore being manipulative here, playing on Harry?s healthy sense of guilt? Or is he genuinely seeking Harry?s opinion for some reason? 7) Dumbledore talks about how disappointed certain staff members are that Tom went to work at Borgin and Burkes. Is it because they see him as a ?cashier,? rather than an influential rising star, or is it because he?s working for Borgin and Burkes, purveyors of Dark Arts paraphernalia? 8) Idle speculation: if Dippet had still been Headmaster, would he have given LV the DADA job when he returned to interview for it? 9) Rowling describes a ?red gleam? in Voldemort?s eyes when he sees and touches the locket. What clues does this give us? For instance, is he already well into his horcruxes? Is he manifesting his connection as the heir to Salazar Slytherin? Ideas? 10) We get a glimpse of yet another House Elf, with Hokey. How does her story flesh out both the character of the House Elf and their plight? 11) This is the infamous ?ten years later? scene that has caused much gnashing of teeth. Is there any way to reconcile this timeline with earlier reports, or do we just have to chalk this one up to Rowling?s notorious maths? Is the Fawkes?s presence at the interview with Riddle important? Does it merely set the scene, or should we look for deeper meaning? 12) This scene encapsulated for me the whole dynamic of Voldemort?s behavior in the past that led to his downfall during his first reign. Are we to presume these are the seeds of his destruction? How do you think Ollivander?s use of the word ?great? to describe Voldemort in PS fits in with this exchange between DD & Voldemort on the issue of ?greatness??? 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in the Pensieve memory is Voldemort casting the DADA teacher curse? What else might he have been doing? Respectfully submitted, akh, who thinks either KJ or Shorty Elf (or both) is a genius for adding the question numbers into the synopsis of the Chapter 19 discussion. NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 01:10:59 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:10:59 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158146 > > Linda: > > > > I think that the lack of art and humanities classes in Hogwarts traces back to when the school was founded and not because of a lack of culture in the WW. (Snip) The Founders started Hogwarts to create a safe haven where they could teach young wizards and prepare them for the challenges they faced in the outside world. There are only so many hours in the day and it makes more sense to teach them how to make a healing potion or ward a house then to > > play a harp. > Ken: > > In a thousand years nobody thought to correct the founders' shortsightedness? > That doesn't say anything good about the WW. The arguement you give is exactly the same one engineering students use when complaining about their humanities requirement. The consequences in the WW are exactly what they would be the real world if we did not make science and technology students study the humanities. Tonks: First I think you are comparing apples to oranges. You are talking about college courses, not Jr. High and High School, which is the equivelent of Hogwarts. And I don't think that the founders were "shortsighted". I think that Hogwarts is based on a different model of education than the U.S. in the 21st century. When my father when to school prior to 1914, they taught the 3 R's. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. And he knew a lot more in 8 years of school than most high school graduates, (and some with a BA) do today. I am not saying that someone with a gift of music or art should not be trained. I think that much of the ways of Hogwarts is as it was very long ago. Back then an artist or whatever would become an apprentice and learn that way. And "culture" was for the higher classes. They would learn that from their family or private tutors. I see Hogwarts as more of a trade school when children learn what they need to learn and not anything extra. All children are taught there, from all classes of WW society. I would guess that students like Draco would know something of the arts and others like Ron would not. They would get an equal education in magic, because that is what Hogwarts is, a school of 'magic'. Tonks_op Who doesn't remember learning a lot of "culture" in her small town school either, which might explain why I hate classical music. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Sep 11 01:16:39 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 03:16:39 +0200 Subject: Harry as Murderer? References: Message-ID: <019a01c6d53f$effa44d0$14b2a8c0@milesh5pt62nnd> No: HPFGUIDX 158147 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > My legal dictionary defines murder as the 'unlawful killing of a > human being > with malice aforethought.' Miles: I doubt that legal definitions are the most important issue in this discussion. Besides, whatever "muggle" law your definition is taken from, we do not know whether it or something similar is WW law as well. Another point: "murder" is used in different ways. It's not only a term in law, it's in everyday language as well, and there it's definition is much wider. The most important issue concerning the "Harry as murderer" discussion IMO is not the legal one, but the ethical/moral one. Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > 'Human Being'--Voldemort is hardly human any more. Miles: Dumbledore disagrees IMO. He insists addressing Voldemort as "Tom", with his old name from a past Voldemort tries to make everyone forget about. He reminds him that he is both human and mortal. The Horcrux making and resurrection obviously changed Voldemort - but he is still Tom Riddle, with some piece of Tom Riddle's soul, so he is still a human being. So killing Voldemort would make Harry a "killer" - or murderer in a everyday meaning of the word. Now, we could discuss at length whether or not such a killing would be justified, in what ways it would be appropriate etc. The question I'm interested in is whether JKR would like to make Harry a killer. This I doubt very much. When in PoA Harry decided not to kill Wormtail, both Sirius and Remus disagreed - but Dumbledore praised him for letting him live. The most evil thing about creating Horcruxes is that it's necessary to murder to create it. When the Ministry ordered that Sirius should be soul-sucked (which is even worse than killed), Dumbledore objected it as vehemently as he did when Crouch jr was killed in that way. The execution of Buckbeak (yes, he is not a human being) is presented as cruel and wrong (not only because he was "innocent"). What I want to express with these examples: I really don't think that JKR does in any way approve killing, not in war and not in peace, that she does not approve any form of death penalty or 'malicide'. There is no way to "prove" this with canon, but I think the above mentioned examples support this estimation. And I'm quite sure, that she will not make her hero Harry doing something so important she herself thinks is wrong in terms of ethics. Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 01:24:40 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:24:40 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158148 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, AnitaKH wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 20, Lord Voldemort's Request > > Questions: > > 1) Later, we discover the "small girl" was Crabbe or Goyle, and he was serving as lookout for Draco. Who suspected this was more than it seemed at the time? (I didn't at all suspect polyjuice, but I did think this wasn't just a throwaway scene.) Alla: Same here, I found this scene to be wierd for some reason but did not suspected polijuice either. > 4) What does the scene with Trelawney do at this point? It keeps her on the reader's radar, but is there a larger purpose for seeing her at this point? Do we need reinforcement that she is antagonistic to Firenze? Is its purpose to remind us that she is in danger from the prophecy, of which she is oblivious? Alla: I think it is in some way hints again that Trelawney has a true gift, that her ways of Seeing can also be correct ( don't know how often, hehe, but certainly sometimes), that we should listen to her predictions sometimes :) > 5) In this scene, we see one of the few times that Dumbledore really calls Harry to task for his failings. Does this scene fit the Dumbledore of Book 6? Does it fit the Dumbledore of Books 1 ? 5? How did you feel about DD in this scene? Alla: I soooo loved Dumbledore here and found him to be perfectly in character in all the books :) I think he was being a great teacher too. He knew exactly how to shame Harry and it worked so wonderful. It reminded me of Remus lecturing Harry after Hogsmeade, which also worked well. Bravo, Dumbledore :) > 6) Do you find Dumbledore being manipulative here, playing on Harry's healthy sense of guilt? Or is he genuinely seeking Harry's opinion for some reason? Alla: Depends on what you mean by **manipulative**. I refuse to entertain "manipulative" Dumbledore as in **Using people for his purposes only**, but if you mean manipulative as in teacher and resistance leader who loves Harry and wants him to survive and wants WW to survive too and wants to teach Harry how to do so, then sure, he probably was. I mean, IMO he was genuinely preparing Harry to take the lead and wanted his opinion because he values his opinions and Harry needs to be able to express them. > 7) Dumbledore talks about how disappointed certain staff members are that Tom went to work at Borgin and Burkes. Is it because they see him as a "cashier," rather than an influential rising star, or is it because he's working for Borgin and Burkes, purveyors of Dark Arts paraphernalia? Alla: Dark Arts, I think. > 12) This scene encapsulated for me the whole dynamic of Voldemort's behavior in the past that led to his downfall during his first reign. Are we to presume these are the seeds of his destruction? How do you think Ollivander's use of the word `great' to describe Voldemort in PS fits in with this exchange between DD & Voldemort on the issue of `greatness'?" Alla: yeah, I think those are Voldemort's seeds of destruction - his inability to understand genuine love ( ancient magic, etc). As to how Olivander words fits in - no idea, but I always found them - to be wierd I should say. I don't find evil to be great, I am puzzled that Olivander chose this word, always was, even if he added **terrible**. > 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in the Pensieve memory is Voldemort casting the DADA teacher curse? What else might he have been doing? Alla: I think so, yes, I think he was casting that curse :) > Respectfully submitted, > > akh, who thinks either KJ or Shorty Elf (or both) is a genius for adding the question numbers into the synopsis of the Chapter 19 discussion. > > Alla: Thank you SO much Akh for excellent questions. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 02:38:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:38:37 -0000 Subject: OoP clues?/Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158149 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Vander Yacht" > wrote: > > > Based on facts as I know them, Snape taught Harry > > wrong. > > houyhnhnm: > > Yet Dumbledore says to Harry at the end of OotP: > "I have already said that it was a mistake for me > not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the > time, that nothing could have been more dangerous > than to open your mind even further to Voldemort > while in my presence--" > > This suggests to me that Dumbledore was fully aware > of the methods Snape was using to teach Occlumency to > Harry and that they were the same methods Dumbldedore > would have employed himself had he been the one doing > the teaching. > Alla: I am really not sure how your suggestions follows from this quote - namely I don't see the implication that Dumbledore would have been using the same methods of teaching as Snape did. Maybe his objective would have been the same ( or not) as in what Harry eventually had to learn to do with his mind, but I am thinking that Dumbledore would have got there by very different means than Snape did. And of course besides Dumbledore's admission that it indeed was a mistake, what I find interesting is that he tells Harry I **was** sure at the time, **not** I am sure. I am interpreting it that at the end of OOP Dumbledore is no longer sure of it. JMO, Alla, who thinks that Dumbledore messed up so very royally with choice of the Occlumency teacher, but who is quite satisfied with Dumbledore acknowledging his mistake in OOP and HBP From harryp at stararcher.com Mon Sep 11 03:37:28 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 03:37:28 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158150 > houyhnhnm: > If it would have been dangerous > for Dumbledore to open Harry's mind even further to > Voldemort in his presence, how much more dangerous > was it for Snape, whose only protection from Voldemort > is Voldemort's lack of knowledge about just how good > an Occlumens Snape really is. Eddie: This whole thread about Legili/Occula-mancy (L/O) makes me wonder: if it is important for Harry to have those skills anymore, why didn't Dumbledore find Harry another L/O teacher after Snape? Why not during any of their time together during HBP? I'm wondering if that line of reasoning that "Harry still needs it" is going to make any difference any more. Similar thoughts regarding why DD didn't teach Harry really advanced hexes and protection charms, as Hermione suggests. This is leading me to join the "Harry takes Voldemort into himself" crowd: Harry will drop all of his defences to lure Voldemort to his (Voldemort's) doom. Eddie From lilyp at superig.com.br Mon Sep 11 03:49:14 2006 From: lilyp at superig.com.br (lilypo2007) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 03:49:14 -0000 Subject: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158151 alcuin74: > Second, and more seriously, Dumbledore thinks that Harry's desire to > finish Voldemort arises from Harry's ability to love, the love he > has for his parents, whom Voldemort killed. Perhaps it does, but it > seems to me that Dumbledore (i.e. Rowling) is conflating love with > vengeance. After re-reading this passage, I can't help but think > that what Dumbledore is praising here, what he thinks is Harry's > great strength, is really nothing more than Harry's desire to avenge > the death of his parents. I just can't see this as a > particularly "magical," heroic or admirable quality. > > Lilyp: It is a possible interpretation and it has bothered me the fist time I read HBP. But if you see the rest of the chapter, there is at least another possible interpretation. I think particularly of this bit: "You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!" said Dumbledore loudly. "The only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart's desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort, and not immortality or riches. Harry, have you any idea how few wizards could have seen what you saw in that mirror? Voldemort should have known then what he was dealing with, but he did not!" >From the things you mentioned and this last bit, I think Dumbledore (and Jo) intended to say that, because Harry loved so much, he wouldn't be attracted to power, he wouldn't accept to follow Voldemort, the man that had killed so many people, even if his own fight seemed hopeless and Voldemort offered him power. That is exactly what I think will happen in the next book. Other evidence of this possible way of interpreting in the last chapter of book one: "Don't be a fool," snarled the face. "Better save your own life and join me... or you'll meet the same end as your parents..." Voldemort has already tried to attract him. Lilyp From kjones at telus.net Mon Sep 11 04:53:40 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:53:40 -0700 Subject: =?windows-1252?B?UmU6IFtIUGZvckdyb3dudXBzXSBDSEFQRElTQzogSEJQMjAsIExvcmQgVm9sZGVtb3J0knMgUmVxdWVzdA?= In-Reply-To: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4504EBD4.3060206@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 158152 AnitaKH wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 20, Lord Voldemorts Request snip of a great summary > akh, who thinks either KJ or Shorty Elf (or both) is a genius for adding the question numbers into the synopsis of the Chapter 19 discussion. KJ writes: 3. I find Luna entertaining most of the time. Like Trelawney, she is apt to come up with uncomfortable truths sometimes. Her words have to be carefully watched. What I found more interesting is that she was carrying the invitation for Harry to attend DD's office. We have seen this before. In previous books, teachers would be used to send Harry to Dumbledore's office. In this book, various students are used. Is Dumbledore hiding these meetings from the other teachers as well? Is he suspicious of someone at the school? I don't think Malfoy has enough time on his hands to care where Harry might be. 4. I think that Trelawney's presence is important to the plot. She has just threatened to leave the school, and she has no idea that she would be in danger if she did. If this follows the plot of most movies, she may well have left the school, or been kidnapped later in the book. It could well be foreshadowing of something she is planning rather than an empty threat. 5. I think that Dumbledore was being a bit punitive, rather than manipulative. He is short of time, and seems to be losing patience with the social niceties. All through the other books Harry had his nose stuck everywhere it did not belong, and now Dumbledore can't seem to count on him being involved where he needs him. He is definitely pressuring Harry, and he is definitely more kindly to him after he promises to get back to the task. 6. In my opinion Dumbledore doesn't really care about Harry's opinions. He wants him to look more closely at the memories, look at the indications presented by those memories, and figure some things out for himself. He needs Harry to truly understand what kind of person Voldemort is and what he is capable of doing. 8. I think that even Dippet would have had some concerns about hiring Voldemorte by the time of Dumbledore's memory but he might not have had the courage or ability to refuse. 9. JKR has given us Voldemort's appearance and the redness of his eyes as a ruler to enable us to judge where in the process he is. At school, he shows no signs of horcrux making. Two years and two murders later, he does show signs, but he is still handsome. Ten years later, he is showing redness in the whites of his eyes, and blurred features. I'm not sure how this timeline affects the plot. 13. I'm not sure if I believe that Voldemort cast the curse on the DADA job in that moment or not. He did something, and I think that we are expected to believe that this was the beginning of it. What I find intriguing, is why Dumbledore left the curse on the position. Did he leave it that way in case one or more of Voldemort's supporters were hired for the job. At least Dumbledore would have some idea of what Voldie was after if he left his spy in place. I have no doubt that Dumbledore protected Snape from the position, and that Snape was well aware of why he was not hired for that position. After fourteen or fifteen years as a teacher, he would have caught on. When he knew he was dying, he placed Snape into the position, knowing he would have to leave at the end of the year anyway, either because of the vow, or because it was time he took his place with Voldemort. KJ, who credits Shorty Elf as the genius From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Mon Sep 11 05:15:13 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:15:13 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158153 > Alla: > In > > many parts of the world the refusal to offer hospitality > > or the refusal to accept hospitality is a grave insult. > > Even if the offer is half-hearted and the acceptance is > > equally half-hearted, you do it as a matter of social > > courtesy. > > Alla: > > I am sorry, but what? I may be ignorant of many social customs and > then ready to eat my words, but in what part of the word you are > obliged to offer hospitality to **uninvited** if not stranger, > although it does seem that Dursleys and Dumbledore never met in > person, but definitely the person you are not feeling friendly about > at all. > > I find this to be extremely strange defense of this scene. Let's be > clear though, don't want to be misinterpreted. I have **no** problems > with this scene, I enjoyed it tremendously, because as I stated it > sort of saved Dumbledore for me and the more humiliation Dursleys > suffer, I am all for it. > > But I completely disagree that Dursleys owed Dumbledore **any** > hospitality whatsoever. > Laurawkids: I just did a quick search and this popped up. I don't really know much about this site, but I liked how they stated the hospitality obligations: "You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Deuteronomy 10:19) "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2) Aristotle regarded hospitality as the chief of all virtues. An attitude of spontaneous generosity and friendliness toward others is one of the hallmarks of spiritual enlightenment. It has its origin in a profound sense of gratitude that spills over into in impulse to share one's good fortune with others. The hospitable person recognizes a kinship with all creation. The poor, the weak, the marginalized, the vulnerable and strangers are the first recipients of hospitality because their need generates feelings of compassion and empathy in a generous heart. http://www.taochrist.org/fsm/3hospitality.htm Laurawkids, who is afraid to follow these rules if the bathroom isn't clean - not a problem in Petunia's house! From bobhawkins at rcn.com Mon Sep 11 00:39:31 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:39:31 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > > Maybe it's me but to a certain extent the "culture" situation in > Wizarding world mirrors Canada (minus Quebec) in that you have a > smaller very diverse culture always in the shadow (and seemingly > under threat from) of a large culture (in Canada's case the United > States). Indeed Quidditch's status in the wizarding world seems very > similar to ice hockey's status in Canada (sorry to the Canadians > that don't like hockey). Within certain circles of Canadian culture > a defining oath seems to be that they're not American which could be > seen as a parallel to the wizards defining themselves from the > muggles based on one trait (magic). Zero Irregardless: It's much worse than Canada and the USA. Canada has a population of over 32 million. JKR says the wizarding population of Britain is about three thousand. (We all know that JKR and numbers don't go together. But from the fact that one school handles the secondary education requirements for the UK plus Ireland, the population can't be as much as 10 times that. The town where I went to high school had a population of 12,000 and had two high schools, one government school and one Catholic school. And the government school I attended had several times the students per year as Hogwarts. Yes, wizards live longer, but only about twice as long.) So the British wizarding world is like a quite small town embedded in a country of tens of millions. How many novels of lasting worth would you expect to have been written by people from one small town? How many painters of note would come from there? How many "serious" composers and musicians? If my town is any guide, "zero" would be a good rule of thumb. My expectation is that there is no such thing as wizarding high culture. There just aren't enough wizards. It would be like Stoneham, Massachusetts having a separate high culture from the rest of the country. Here is a cutting from Wikipedia: Notable people from Stoneham * Mario Cantone: comedian and actor * Nancy Kerrigan: two-time Olympic figure skating medalist. * Mike Ness: singer for punk band Social Distortion. * Bill Peirce: Libertarian candidate for Governor of Ohio in 2006. * Joe Vitiello: former Major League Baseball player from 1995-2003; 1st round draft pick (7th overall) of the Kansas City Royals in 1991; played for the Royals, San Diego Padres, and Montreal Expos. (Cantone = Gilderoy Lockhart. Kerrigan = Gwenog Jones. Ness = lead singer of the Weird Sisters. Peirce = Luna Lovegood's father. Vitiello = Joey Jenkins of the Chudley Cannons.) So, Hogwarts doesn't teach wizarding high culture because there isn't any. It doesn't teach wizarding popular culture because it isn't necessary. It doesn't teach Muggle high culture because Muggle culture is forever threatening to overwhelm wizard culture anyway, why help it. (Indeed, perhaps this is the real reason the wizarding world separated itself from the muggle world.) Hogwarts is like a vocational school, providing skills useful to the local industry. In this case, the local industry is magic. Everyone at Hogwarts has aptitude for it, and probably will use it for the rest of their lives. And it's about as much as such a small community can manage. Zero Irregardless From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Sep 11 03:57:14 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:57:14 -0400 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th...; also Jealousy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158155 Ken: "Even if they didn't have a culture of their own you would think they would study English culture and history. Hogwarts has no art classes, no music classes, no literature classes. Hogwarts is like the engineering student's dream school, no humanities, just the "good stuff"." BAW: That we know of. Rowling, unlike some fantasy writers *cough*David Eddings*cough* doesn't try to tell us everything about her world, but only what is relevant to the plot. And what about "Ancient Runes", "History of Magic", "Arithmancy," and "Muggle Studies"? It says that Dean draws well; if there are no art classes, where would he have learned? (Raw talent will only take one so far.) As another successful fantasy author, Katherine Kurtz, remarked, "Absence of presence is not the same thing as presence of absence." (This was in response to an inquiry as to why there were no Jews in her subcreation when she had both Christians and Muslims--and you can't really have Christianity or Islam with out Judaism. She went on to say that if any of her characters were Jewish, it wasn't important to the plot, so she didn't bring it up, but that if a story ever came out where it WAS important, it would be mentioned.) Debbie: "Do you think Petunia would have been so close to the edge if magic had never been a part of her life? Some kids never get over the realization that they are 'ordinary' while a sibling has a talent that is prized and nurtured by their parents. It makes them angry and resentful, and changes how they interact with others." BAW: Anybody here ever read "Jacob Have I Loved"? The narratrix in that story was for a long time insanely jealous of her sister who was a musical prodigy (was awarded a scholarship to a major conservatory) and who was much prettier in a conventional sense than she was. She ultimately got over it, but what if she hadn't? She might have grown up to be rather like Petunia. From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 11 05:02:36 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Argus Pyrites) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:02:36 -0000 Subject: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158156 alcuin74 wrote: > it seems to me that Dumbledore (i.e. Rowling) is > conflating love with vengeance. Argus Pyrites adds: I don't think vengeance truly motivates Harry. Yes, it fuels his fires. But, if Voldemort had retired to Dover, somehow obviously done with trying to take over the world, yet back in a body and alive... would Harry track him down and try to kill him? I think not. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 08:54:10 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:54:10 -0000 Subject: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158157 "Argus Pyrites" wrote: > if Voldemort had retired to Dover, somehow obviously done with > trying to take over the world, yet back in a body and alive... would > Harry track him down and try to kill him? I think not. I think so, at least I hope Harry is smarter than that.If somebody discovered a old and placed Nazi war criminal who 60 years ago had joyfully butchered thousands of innocent human beings in a particularly horrible way, and if that person decided to just let the monster go free, well ; I think I'd conclude that the person who did that was a idiot. Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 11 10:00:51 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:00:51 -0000 Subject: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158158 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Argus Pyrites wrote: > > if Voldemort had retired to Dover, somehow obviously done with > > trying to take over the world, yet back in a body and alive... would > > Harry track him down and try to kill him? I think not. Eggplant: > I think so, at least I hope Harry is smarter than that.If somebody > discovered a old and placed Nazi war criminal who 60 years ago had > joyfully butchered thousands of innocent human beings in a > particularly horrible way, and if that person decided to just let the > monster go free, well ; I think I'd conclude that the person who did > that was a idiot. Geoff: That'a an interesting analogy. I think the answer to what Harry would do might lie in his own words: '"NO!" Harry yelled. He ran forwards, placing himself in front of Pettigrew, facing the wands. "You can't kill him," he said breathlessly. "You can't." Black and Lupin both looked staggered. "Harry, this piece of vermin is the reason you have no parents," Black snarled. "This cringing bit of filth would have seen you die, too, without turning a hair. You heard him. His own stinking skin meant more to him that your whole family." "I know," Harry panted. "We'll take him up to the castle. We'll hand him over to the Dementors. He can go to Azkaban... just don't kill him." "Harry!" gasped Pettigrew and he flung his arms around Harry's knees. "You - thank you - it's more than I deserve - thank you -" "Get off me," Harry spat, throwing Pettigrew's hands off im in disgust. "I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing it because I don't reckon my dad would've wanted his best friends to become killers - just for you."' (POA "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" p.275 UK edition) This is very pragmatic thinking - and perhaps rather typical of Harry. I think that in a situation such as the one considered by Argus and Eggplant that Harry would take the same line of choosing to hand Voldemort over to the authorities. From random832 at gmail.com Mon Sep 11 12:57:50 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:57:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609110557te252474p14de22e11894d9e2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158159 Geoff: > "I know," Harry panted. "We'll take him up to the castle. > We'll hand him over to the Dementors. He can go to Azkaban... Random832: And then they handed him over to the Dementors, and he went to Azkaban, of course. Or not. What i'm saying is, Harry learned something here, and might not repeat the whole idealistic "hand him over to the authorities" thing if given the chance. Particularly given that the authorities in question have since done quite a bit more to prove themselves thoroughly corrupt. -- Random832 From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 11 13:11:38 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:11:38 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158160 AnitaKH wrote summary and questions: snipping summary. 1) Later, we discover the "small girl" was Crabbe or Goyle, and he was serving as lookout for Draco. Who suspected this was more than it seemed at the time? (I didn't at all suspect polyjuice, but I did think this wasn't just a throwaway scene.) Potioncat: It never crossed my mind. It did let us know that you could use polyjuice to turn into anyone. That may be important in book 7. 4) What does the scene with Trelawney do at this point? It keeps her on the reader's radar, but is there a larger purpose for seeing her at this point? Do we need reinforcement that she is antagonistic to Firenze? Is its purpose to remind us that she is in danger from the prophecy, of which she is oblivious? Potioncat: It shows the extent DD will go to protect someone--she doesn't know she needs protection, doesn't realize what he's doing for her. He now has two teachers for a subject he would have preferred to remove from the curriculum. This sets the stage for Harry's later meeting with her, when he learns who the eavesdropper was. If I'm right, she's unhappy about something every time he meets her. One of my favorite lines is in this section. DD says, "Divination is turning out to be much more trouble than I could have foreseen, never having studied the subject myself." It reminds me of Percy's statement, which was something like, "It's never too soon to start thinking about your future. You should take Divination." 5) In this scene, we see one of the few times that Dumbledore really calls Harry to task for his failings. Does this scene fit the Dumbledore of Book 6? Does it fit the Dumbledore of Books 1 ? 5? How did you feel about DD in this scene? Potioncat: It shows how important this is to DD. He's certainly let Harry get away with things before. In some ways, he's encouraged a lack of responsibility. It does fit DD, though., if you look at the overall DD and not just DD with Harry. Although he does seem to be more on edge overall in this book. 6) Do you find Dumbledore being manipulative here, playing on Harry's healthy sense of guilt? Or is he genuinely seeking Harry's opinion for some reason? Potioncat: Perhaps there is a bit of building up after the dressing down. The wording would make Harry pay closer attention and think about what he was seeing. 7) Dumbledore talks about how disappointed certain staff members are that Tom went to work at Borgin and Burkes. Is it because they see him as a "cashier," rather than an influential rising star, or is it because he's working for Borgin and Burkes, purveyors of Dark Arts paraphernalia? Potioncat: We learn that Tom Riddle was well liked by the staff. He's already murdered, he's set loose the Basilisk but he's covered up that side of his personality and made himself appear to be a model student. Of course, Slughorn, the one who suggests the MoM for Tom, already knows that Tom has an interest in the worst sort of Dark Arts. What does that tell us about Slughorn? I wonder which other of the faculty offered letters and whether they knew of Tom's interest in Dark Arts? So I'm not sure if it was the unsavory nature of Borgin and Burkes or if it was the lowly status of a store clerk that surprised the staff. 8) Idle speculation: if Dippet had still been Headmaster, would he have given LV the DADA job when he returned to interview for it? Potioncat: I find it intriguing that we know so little about him. We see other Portraits of Headmasters interacting with DD far more than Dippet does. Is this the nature of the help DD needs at the time, or does it tell us something about Dippet? Back in Tom's days as a student, Slughorn says DD doesn't allow the study of Horcruxes, not Dippet doesn't allow it. So either Dippet was weak, or na?ve or was leaning toward the Dark Arts himself. My guess would be that, unless Dippet knew about Tom's real research into Dark Magic, he would have hired him. 11) This is the infamous "ten years later" scene that has caused much gnashing of teeth. Is there any way to reconcile this timeline with earlier reports, or do we just have to chalk this one up to Rowling's notorious maths? Is the Fawkes's presence at the interview with Riddle important? Does it merely set the scene, or should we look for deeper meaning? Potioncat: Lupin seems so clear that DD was hired after he was bitten. Yet, it's very clear in this chapter that DD has just become Headmaster, and we know McGongall becomes a teacher in 55/56. Yet I don't think it's a mistake. The best guess I can come up with is the use of a TT. I don't know when it might have been used, or how but that's the best I can do. It does seem that someone has proposed a date into the 60's for this interview rather than 55/56. I think based on Tom having been at B&B long enough to have a relationship with Mrs. Smith and to have the position he does with the shop. That would possibly reconcile the apparent difference. I never gave Fawkes a second thought. Interesting that it was his tail feather in Tom's wand. 12) This scene encapsulated for me the whole dynamic of Voldemort's behavior in the past that led to his downfall during his first reign. Are we to presume these are the seeds of his destruction? How do you think Ollivander's use of the word `great' to describe Voldemort in PS fits in with this exchange between DD & Voldemort on the issue of `greatness'?" Potioncat: Ollivander's use of "great" makes us question his loyalties and ethics, doesn't it? It reminds me of those who would agree Hitler was horrible, then point out the good things he accomplished. (not my words, you understand) Or when generals from times long ago are now recalled for their greatness even though they were ruthless in war and invasion. We haven't been told of anything he's done that would be "great." He's killed. He's experimented in immortality. But what has he done? I wonder what Ollivander means? 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in the Pensieve memory is Voldemort casting the DADA teacher curse? What else might he have been doing? Potioncat: We should think that if Harry saw it, so did DD. At least DD would have seen it in the Pensieve if he didn't at the actual interview. It could be a way to show us what was going on, but I have to admit, it could be intended to make us think that was all there was to it. Great job at the summary and questions. And I really like having the paragraphs numbered to match the questions. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 11 13:36:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:36:36 -0000 Subject: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609110557te252474p14de22e11894d9e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158161 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > Geoff: > > "I know," Harry panted. "We'll take him up to the castle. > > We'll hand him over to the Dementors. He can go to Azkaban... > > Random832: > And then they handed him over to the Dementors, and he went to > Azkaban, of course. Or not. What i'm saying is, Harry learned > something here, and might not repeat the whole idealistic "hand him > over to the authorities" thing if given the chance. Particularly given > that the authorities in question have since done quite a bit more to > prove themselves thoroughly corrupt. Geoff: But they didn't hand him over because he escaped when Remus transformed... ...so I don't see how your comment fits in. My point is that Harry didn't want Sirius and Remus to become murderers by killing Wormtail; he felt that the Dementors were the right place for him to end up. Perhaps in a scenario with Voldemort, the same might be true. The authorities did at least begin to wake up and get the Death Eaters out of the way at the end of OOTP. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 16:20:19 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:20:19 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158162 > Laurawkids: > > I just did a quick search and this popped up. I don't really know > much about this site, but I liked how they stated the hospitality > obligations: Tonks: Thank you for fresh input into this scene. The website you mentioned also says: "Hospitality is an act of redemption as well as a celebration. It not only forgives faults in others, it doesn't notice them. The hospitable person is only too aware of her own needs and shortcomings and of her own need for forgiveness. She is not only generous with what she has; she is generous in her assessment of others; in forgiving and accepting people. She exhibits an attitude of humility that looks for ways to serve the needs of others rather than being served. The hospitable person is not envious or covetous for all of us have been the stranger, the one on the outside, poor or weak in some way. In the ancient world, hospitality to the stranger was a holy obligation." This puts a different slant on the whole DD at the Dursleys scene. In Benedictine monasteries every guest is seen as Christ. It is said that one welcomes the visitor as one would welcome Christ. One goes the extra mile for a visitor. Hospitality is a very big thing in any monastic community. They take in anyone that comes to the door. Just as in medieval times when they would take in the stranger give them a place to sleep and food. If we look at the scene from this perspective what we get is DD offering forgiveness to the Dursleys and the Dursleys refusing. Instead of the Dursleys acknowledging their sins (which they are blind too) and asking forgiveness, DD is opening their mind to seeing their follies and still offering them forgiveness through the "hospitality" that they did not offer to him. I think if we look at the scene from this POV we see something quite different than we have before and the scene takes on a whole new meaning. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 16:24:23 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:24:23 -0000 Subject: Harry: Not Quite So Admirable. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158163 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Argus Pyrites" wrote: > > > if Voldemort had retired to Dover, somehow obviously > > done with trying to take over the world, yet back in > > a body and alive... would Harry track him down and > > try to kill him? I think not. > Eggplant: > > I think so, at least I hope Harry is smarter than that. > If somebody discovered a old and placed Nazi war > criminal who 60 years ago had joyfully butchered > thousands of innocent human beings in a particularly > horrible way, and if that person decided to just let > the monster go free, well ; I think I'd conclude that > the person who did that was a idiot. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: Let me ask, somewhat sarcastically, how many Nazi war criminals have you personally tracked down? Really... that many. My point is, as I've already said, that if Voldemort were not trying to kill Harry, even more so if Voldemort got his body back and retired to a quiet life in Cornwall. There would be no need for Harry to track him down. That doesn't mean the Wizard World lets Voldie off scot free. He still needs to pay for his previous crimes, but it wouldn't be up to Harry to do the job. The Wizard World does have something approximating Law Enforcement, and it would be their job to do /their job/. Harry is involved because Voldemort has made him an active priority traget, and as long as that is true, Harry and those around him are at risk. It is himself and his friends that Harry is defending. I also think your view of the context of Love in the conversation with Dumbledore is warped. Harry has on a couple occassions used dark spells, although we can't say for certain that the Unforgivables are Dark Magic, only that they are dark magic. That is, they are dark as in 'not nice', but we don't specifically know that they are classified as truly Dark Magic. It is true regardless of their 'dark' classification, that they are absolutely classified as Unforgivable. I'll grant you that. But when Dumbledore says that Harry has never been tempted by the Dark Arts, he means that Harry has never been tempted by the /dark side/. He has never been tempted to become the next Dark Lord. Why? Because Harry understands that their is a power greater than /darkness/ and that power is Love; the love of his parents, the love of his friends, the love of his country, and the love of himself. Voldemort doesn't understand /love/ in this way. He doesn't love anything but his pathetic life. His /friends/ are merely instruments to be played to his own ends. He killed his only family for some self-preceived afront. What family he didn't kill, he framed for the killing he did commit and had them sent to prision where they quickly died. It is Harry's selfless love, his willingness to sacriifce for others, that protects him, and it is Voldemorts selfish self-centered love that makes him vulnerable. Yes, there is an aspect of revenge to Harry actions, but it is in the context of self-defense and defense of his friends, and the Wizard World. Harry is not actively seeking Voldemort out to avenge himself. In fact, he would gladly leave Voldie alone if Voldie would leave him and his friends alone. He would be content to leave it up to the authorities, just as every other kid in the wizard world is content to do. It is because Voldemort makes it personal that Harry had no choice but to take it personal. Yet, if you really look at the conversation between Dumbledore and Harry, you will see that they are talking about two separate things, two separate things that when taken in context are not self- contradictory. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 16:59:06 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:59:06 -0000 Subject: Magic Late in Life In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609101552v61493bdbrd5092776445697b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158164 OK scratch Dudley. l will go back to my hopes for Mrs. Figg. Yes, I will bet $$$$ on her. Here is why. As I think about it, Mrs. Figg doing magic at Privet Dr. would have more of an impact on the Dursley's, especially on Petunia, than if it were one of the Dursleys themselves. Let me explain: Petunia puts great stock in what the neighbors think. She has structured her whole life around `what the neighbors think'. (I think she is modeled on Hyacinth in the British sitcom "Keeping Up Appearances") Imagine the pure shock of discovering that the `neighbors' are part of the WW too! When Petunia sees Mrs. Figg doing magic, Petunia will not know that this is Figgy's first successfully attempt. Petunia will say to herself "my God, they are everywhere!!" "They are my NEIGHBORS!!" And a great change will come over Petunia because of this. This is the 'something about Petunia" that we will discover in book 7. Tonks_op From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 11 18:11:06 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:11:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: <1157935245.1253.32153.m26@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20060911181106.72330.qmail@web25604.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158165 Ken wrote: >Even if they didn't have a culture of their own you would think they >would study English culture and history. Hogwarts has no art classes, >no music classes, no literature classes. Hogwarts is like the engineering >student's dream school, no humanities, just the "good stuff". That >strikes even this electrical engineer as an odd world for a writer to >create. A lot of hard science fiction novels I read have more cultural >references in them than Harry Potter does. I supose that Muggle Studies But then is not Hogwarts precisely the WW equivalent of the Muggle engineer's dream school. No surprises, just look at the title "School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". Does just what it says on the box. But clearly the WW gets its culture elsewhere. As others have pointed out, the books are replete with references to music in its various forms, painting and photography, sculpture, jewellery, and so on. It's also a highly literate society, if you count up the number of periodicals that are referenced. I don't think you can argue from the limited perspective of the books that the WW is in any way disadvantaged vis a vis Muggledom. Cheers Ffred From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 18:17:56 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:17:56 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158166 zgirnius: Ah, Chapter Discussion time again! *rubs hands together* Thanks, akh, for the nice summary (snipped) and questions! > akh's Questions: > > 1) Later, we discover the "small girl" was Crabbe or Goyle, and he was serving as lookout for Draco. Who suspected this was more than it seemed at the time? (I didn't at all suspect polyjuice, but I did think this wasn't just a throwaway scene.) zgirnius: Ah, the joys of obliviousness. I had no idea the girl had any meaning at all. > 4) What does the scene with Trelawney do at this point? It keeps her on the reader's radar, but is there a larger purpose for seeing her at this point? Do we need reinforcement that she is antagonistic to Firenze? Is its purpose to remind us that she is in danger from the prophecy, of which she is oblivious? zgirnius: I tend to think this was just to remind us about Trelawney's link to the Prophecy, since she is going to let slip an important detail about it later on in the book. > 5) In this scene, we see one of the few times that Dumbledore really calls Harry to task for his failings. Does this scene fit the Dumbledore of Book 6? Does it fit the Dumbledore of Books 1 ? 5? How did you feel about DD in this scene? zgirnius: It was definitely very Book 6 Dumbledore, yes. We've maybe seen hints he had this sort of scene in him in GoF, as well. I liked the scene a lot. I felt badly for Harry, but I don't think Dumbledore was out of line. > 7) Dumbledore talks about how disappointed certain staff members are that Tom went to work at Borgin and Burkes. Is it because they see him as a "cashier," rather than an influential rising star, or is it because he's working for Borgin and Burkes, purveyors of Dark Arts paraphernalia? zgirnius: Heh, funny how the mind works. I never even thought that it being a Dark Arts shop was the source of disappointment, but the mundane work. Probably Sluggie's influence. As Head Boy, and such a charismatic, nice one too, he should have gone on to some brilliant Ministry career > 10) We get a glimpse of yet another House Elf, with Hokey. How does her story flesh out both the character of the House Elf and their plight? zgirnius: I think she lends more credence to my general impression that Winky is (was, before her freeing) a more typical house-elf than Dobby or Kreacher. She seems to have a good relationship with her mistress. > 11) This is the infamous "ten years later" scene that has caused much gnashing of teeth. Is there any way to reconcile this timeline with earlier reports, or do we just have to chalk this one up to Rowling's notorious maths? Is the Fawkes's presence at the interview with Riddle important? Does it merely set the scene, or should we look for deeper meaning? zgirnius: Personally, I am happy with the idea that young Lupin misunderstood, and Dumbledore had been Headmaster for years when he started. Lupin's folks just had no idea until Lupin got his Hogwarts letter, that any such thing would be happening, and had prepared Lupin for the knowledge that he would not be going to school like the other little wizards and witches. When he did get the letter, they attributed it to the new Headmaster (meaning, new to them, not brand spanking new). > 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in the Pensieve memory is Voldemort casting the DADA teacher curse? What else might he have been doing? zgirnius: That's what I always assumed. From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 11 12:52:02 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:52:02 -0000 Subject: leaky poll -- wands, Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158167 leb says: How will the relationship between a wizard and his wand become more important in book 7? If you remember he [Neville] had a used wand the first several years and so did not get a shot at trying the Fawke's wand like Harry did. Carodave: There has to be some significance to the fact that Neville was one of the last to purchase a wand prior to Ollivander's disappearance. Jade: Has anyone considered that the reason Neville had been doing so poorly in school is because the wand he was using was his dad's and not one picked for him? His one class he excels in is Herbology which doesn't require a wand. Now that he has his own wand I think we can expect better of him. Tinktonks says: I had considered this a possibility for Ron but sadly I dont think he has really shown any evidence of getting any better since POA when he received his first 'own' wand. I think Neville will improve, partly because of the wand, but mainly because he is becoming more confident as a person. IMHO I think Neville has always been rather afraid of magic, or more accurately what he might do wrong using magic. He is often branded 'idiot boy' and useless etc and I think that his magic was affected by this in the same way that Merope's and Tonks' was by unrequited love. I think that the marked improvement in Neville's casting during the DA meetings was not solely because Bellatrix was back on the loose (though I dont deny that it must have contributed to his resolve) but because he had someone who liked him, trusted him and had faith in him to nurture his talents. I think that given this atmosphere (maybe a relationship with Luna too) will give him the confidence to realise that he is powerfully magic and learn to harness the power rather than fear it. I would love to see Neville become a truly great wizard and be one of JKR's devices to show the WW how wrong it is to have preconceptions about people or creature. Tinktonks (who is now humming a go Neville cheer) From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Mon Sep 11 19:48:55 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:48:55 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lily (was why do people dislike this scene) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158168 > snip< > Ceridwen: > Oh, definitely Petunia is jealous. Her speech about her 'freak' > sister in PS/SS sounded bitter and sad and jealous. Their parents > were *proud* to have a witch in the family. That speech misled me on > first reading to think that, in the Potterverse, Muggles knew about > the WW since there had to be some basis for the Evans's pride. >snip< Laurawkids: Can we venture to say that whereas Harry exhibited rough-and-tumble boy magic, Lily was a very "charm"ing little girl which left her parents happily flabbergasted as to how she could have gotten orchids to cheer up sick Mom when she was young, and that kind of thing? They would have been curious as to what made her different, and then the letter comes and it all makes wonderful sense. They would have seen the positive side of magic. They know about magic like we do - from fairy tales, but then see it happening for real. If I had a magic little girl like that, I'd ask to house a geriatric wizard so that she could do more magic to help around the house! The old one could have companionship, and the young one could learn without having to risk wand removal. Laurawkids, putting off folding the laundry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 20:21:28 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:21:28 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158169 --- AnitaKH wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 20, Lord Voldemort's Request > > > ...edited... > > Questions: > > 1) Later, we discover the "small girl" was Crabbe or > Goyle, and he was serving as lookout for Draco. Who > suspected this was more than it seemed at the time? ... > bboyminn: Completely blew past me, though I think hints were being dropped in other parts of the books that this was significant. JKR does that frequently, drops small hints that we don't realize are important until later, then of course, it's clear as day. I did find it odd that the girl seemed so frightened, and wondered if Harry/Ron/Hermione's reputations had grown so grand that younger students were star-struck or frightened of their reputations upon encountering them. > 2) There's a fair amount of shipping in the beginning > of this chapter. Do we learn anything about the > relationships ... that we don't already know? > bboyminn: Well, we learned that Ron is a typical hopeless /boy/ when it comes to girls. And we get some of the first hints that Harry is developing a crush on Ginny. I don't think it is so much learning something we didn't already know as it is re-enforcing things we had suspected all along. > 3a) ..., Luna comes up with ... comic relief (CR). ..., > we're also given the information that there is an > antidote in the Gurdyroot ? is this simply CR or will > we discover Luna's not as "loony" as we presume? > bboyminn: Well, I don't know if the Gurdyroot is significant since it is an antidote for a probably non-existant 'Gulping Plimpies'. But I will say that Luna is not as 'loony' as she seems to be presented. She seems quite capable and did well at the Ministry of Magic Battle. I think in some ways, her quiet detached nature makes people underestimate her. Notice how Luna is pretty much left unguarded in Umbridge's office when the Inquistor's Squad capture everyone. We didn't see that scene but it is possible that part of what allowed them to affect an escape was the I.S. underestimating Luna as the threat. > 3b) On a related note: What did you think of Ron's > reaction to Luna in this scene? Did it surprise you? > Is your own reaction to Luna similar or different from > Ron's? > bboyminn: No, I think Ron's reaction was genuine. Luna has proven herself a relaible ally and a trusted friend. I think Ron, much like Harry on the train ride to Hogwarts, is expressing a new found admiration for his excentric friend. > 4) What does the scene with Trelawney do at this point? > It keeps her on the reader's radar, but is there a > larger purpose ...? Do we need reinforcement that she > is antagonistic to Firenze? Is its purpose to remind us > that she is in danger from the prophecy,...? > bboyminn: I think this really is just JKR keeping Trelawney on our radar screens, and on several points reminding us of her significants. I think partly this sets up our/Harry encountering her in other parts of the book, and helps set up the ground work for the scene where Trelawney finds Draco in the Room of Requirements and Harry subsequently trying to encourage her to come and tell Dumbledore. So, I think on one hand it is a series for reminders to the readers. On the other hand, it is the set up for the later scene with Harry. Beyond that, I don't think it has any huge significants. > 5) In this scene, we see one of the few times that > Dumbledore really calls Harry to task for his failings. > ... How did you feel about DD in this scene? > > 6) Do you find Dumbledore being manipulative here, > playing on Harry's healthy sense of guilt? Or is he > genuinely seeking Harry's opinion for some reason? > bboyminn: I'll combine these two questions since they are related. I found Dumbledore's actions very genuine and very wise. Most administrators and parents would have approached it with 'What is wrong with you?', 'Can't you do anything right?', 'What am I going to do with you?'. All very much the wrong approach. Dumbledore treats Harry like and adult. He doesn't lecture him or belittle him. He speaks in a reasoned and reasonable why. He doesn't force guilt onto Harry, Harry's guilt comes from inside himself, and is founded in his own knowledge that he has not made his best effort at something that is immensely important. - - - quote - - - "I see," said Dumbledore eventually, peering at Harry over the top of his half-moon spectacles and giving Harry the usual sensation that he was being X-rayed. "And you feel that you have exerted your very best efforts in this matter, do you? That you have exercised all of your considerable ingenuity? That you have left no depth of cunning unplumbed in your quest to retrieve the memory?" --- end quote --- He isn't telling Harry he's failed, he is asking Harry to evaluate his own efforts in this matter. I think it was handled very well, and I am reminded of another scene in an earlier book in which Harry actually wishes Dumbledore would yell at him because the silent look of disappointment in Dumbledore's eye is more painful than any amount of shouting. I think it is a very Dumbledorean moment. > 7) Dumbledore talks about how disappointed certain > staff members are that Tom went to work at Borgin and > Burkes. Is it because ... a "cashier," ..., or is it > because he's working for ... purveyors of Dark Arts...? > bboyminn: Seems to me a combination of both. Tom is a brilliant wizard; powerful, intelligent, knowledgable, and charismatic. Why would he waste his huge potential on a clerks job in a dark magic story? I'm sure all his supporters saw him one day as Minister of Magic, perhaps the greatest so far. They had grand visions that didn't include being a store clerk. Little did they know that Tom had grand visions of his own, but in a far darker nature. I've always thought is was odd, that Voldemort could have easily been the most magically and politically powerful wizard ever, if he had pursued the right path. As it is, his own dark quest to achieve those very objectives will, in the end, be his downfall. The very power he is seeking could have been his, if he had only chosen the path of light. > 8)... speculation: if Dippet had still been Headmaster, > would he have given LV the DADA job when he returned to > interview for it? > bboyminn: My take on Duppet is that he is a very weak willed person. Someone prone to seeking crowd pleasing but ultimately hollow political solutions to whenever problem he encounters. As is perfectly illustrated in his Basilisk/ Hagrid problem and solution. He didn't want answers, he wanted it over with. As to whether he would have hired Voldemort, I think it depends on how much Dumbledore was able to influence him. Dippet seems to seek the path of least resistance, and it might have been politically easier to hire Voldemort in that moment, then to struggle with the consequences of denying him the position. > 9) Rowling describes a "red gleam" in Voldemort's > eyes when he sees and touches the locket. What clues > does this give us? ... > bboyminn: I think, as others have already pointed out, that JKR is marking Voldemort progress, we are seeing early hints of who he will eventuall become. Beyond this, I'm not sure these many Penseive scenes must contain subtle clues that Harry will eventually pull together, but at the moment I confess that I don't see them. > 10) We get a glimpse of yet another House Elf, with > Hokey. How does her story flesh out both the character > of the House Elf and their plight? > bboyminn: I'm not sure there is any significants to this beyond JKR showing us a range of personalities amoung house-elves that parallels the diversity among humans. Some are good, some are bad, some are poorly treated, some are well treated. > 11) This is the infamous "ten years later" scene that > has caused much gnashing of teeth. Is there any way to > reconcile this timeline ... or ... up to Rowling's > notorious maths? Is the Fawkes's presence at the > interview with Riddle important? ... > bboyminn: I'm not sure what timeline controversies are found here. But I suspect that it is a case of people taking generalizations as absolute all-encompassing all-defining statements. I believe there is a reasonable resolution to the timeline if one seeks it out. I think Fawkes's presents is another way of marking the timeline, of indicating that we are in a time when Dumbledore is Headmaster of Hogwarts. In a sense, it is Harry's first visual clue that Dumbledore is in charge and not just sitting in the Headmasters office. > 12) This scene encapsulated ...Voldemort's behavior in > the past that led to his downfall .... Are ... these > are the seeds of his destruction? How do you think > Ollivander's use of the word `great' ...fits ...with ... > DD & Voldemort on the issue of `greatness'?" > bboyminn: I agree that we are seeing that Voldemort has indeed chosen the wrong path. Everything Voldemort is ultimately seeking could have been his, if he had only followed a different path. Yet, it is clear here that he has chosen his path and will not be swayed, and will not yeild to reason or logic. His choice is irrevocable. I don't think Ollivander's use of the word 'great' is anything sinister. I don't think he means great as in good. I think he is simply saying that Voldemort's action were of a significant magical magnitude. There has never been any doubt that Voldemort was a powerful and knowledgeable wizard. Others used the example of Hitler. Hitler /did/ do some great things, and had he chosen a different path, could have done many more great things, but he let his own delusions of grandure and infalability lead him to his own destruction, as well has the destruction of many many innocent lives. But, deranged as he may have been, you can't deny his 'greatness'. I think the same it true of Voldemort, he is capable of doing things of a great magnitude, and of great historical significant's, but that doesn't mitigate his madness. > 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in > the Pensieve memory is Voldemort casting the DADA > teacher curse? What else might he have been doing? > bboyminn: I'm not so concerned with Voldemort cursing the DADA job, though I think the 'twitch' was either him casting the curse, OR just a reflection of him iching to curse Dumbledore. But I am concerned with people's insistance that Dumbledore should have done something about the DADA job curse. Exactly what was Dumbledore to do? If you curse my chair, I can point my wand at it and perform a counter-curse and get on with my life. But let me ask, where is the DADA job? Where do I point my wand to preform the counter-curse? Referring to the 'spot of bother' associated with the DADA job, it has been referred to as 'cursed' but it has also been referred to as 'jinxed'. I take a 'jinx' to be a very specific bit a magical bad luck that is forced into a situation. Draco use a 'trip jinx' on Harry that force a bit of bad luck onto Harry that caused him to trip. That seems to be the case with the DADA job, bad luck will befall anyone who takes the job. Since it is a very vague and non-specific action assigned to a very intangible entity, it would seem very difficult to conceive of a spell to counter it. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From mros at xs4all.nl Mon Sep 11 20:26:34 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:26:34 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. References: Message-ID: <000f01c6d5e0$934d38e0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 158170 Tonks: >>>Thank you for fresh input into this scene. The website you mentioned also says: "Hospitality is an act of redemption as well as a celebration. It not only forgives faults in others, it doesn't notice them. The hospitable person is only too aware of her own needs and shortcomings and of her own need for forgiveness. She is not only generous with what she has; she is generous in her assessment of others; in forgiving and accepting people. She exhibits an attitude of humility that looks for ways to serve the needs of others rather than being served. The hospitable person is not envious or covetous for all of us have been the stranger, the one on the outside, poor or weak in some way. In the ancient world, hospitality to the stranger was a holy obligation." If we look at the scene from this perspective what we get is DD offering forgiveness to the Dursleys and the Dursleys refusing. Instead of the Dursleys acknowledging their sins (which they are blind too) and asking forgiveness, DD is opening their mind to seeing their follies and still offering them forgiveness through the "hospitality" that they did not offer to him. I think if we look at the scene from this POV we see something quite different than we have before and the scene takes on a whole new meaning.<<<< Marion: Soooo.... if I, a total stranger would knock on your door, you would not only invite me in, give me food and drink and you would confess your 'sins' to me, because I could be an angel? Really? I mean, *really*?! So if I was of some religious sect and you said, 'No, I don't want to have anything to do with your ilk' (because you already go to the church of your choice and you're not interested in the sect, or you think the sectarian is misguided, wrong, scary or plain satanic) and the sectarian would put his foot in your door, wrestle his way inside against your strongest protests and demand some tea, banging you in the head with the teapot, you would fall onto your knees, asking for forgiveness? That sounds... scary. Ah, but your *sister* was once part of their little sect, wasn't she. And she was killed in mysterious ways (rumours of 'dark lords' and 'prophecies' and 'ritual killings' abound, which scared you even more, but you couldn't go to the police, could you? Because who would believe you? They'd throw you in the looney bin!) and her kid just appeared on your doorstep with a note telling you that if you didn't care for the kid evil, even death, would befall you and your family, but you couldn't *keep* the kid, because he belonged to the sect, and they would come and teach him in the ways of the sect when he was eleven. And they did come and taught him, oh God, how they taught him, and oh God, every time they come they force themselves into your house even though you tell them they are not *welcome* and then they attack your only son and you just want them out, out, OUT!! Leave me ALONE!!! But what *really* matters of course is that you graciously offer the creepy, scary, dangerous weirdo some tea. Personally, I'd probably try to knife the guy. It would be illegal of course (I live in Europe, where weapons are forbidden and attacking burglars and such ilk falls under 'manslaughter', strangely enough, and not 'selfdefence'). But those who live in the USA could safely shoot Dumbledore for unlawful entry. You, mr and mrs Dursley, are after all the owners and occupants of the property and you have refused entry to Dumbledore. Harry is an underage dependent of the occupants and does not legally possess the right to invite into the house people who the owners/occupants have forbidden entry. See, the Dursleys have the *right* to deny the entry of weird beardy guys in spangly robes in their own home. They do not live in Africa or Tibet or in a medieval monastry. They live in Britain in the 1990's. And as for 'asking forgiveness', if Dumbledore truly cared so much about manners, he would've apologised to the Dursleys long ago for dumping the kid on their doorstep without so much as a by-your-leave. Forcing your little problems on other people, letting them muddle though for ten years without help or even caring if they are willing or able to care for your problem, and then barging into their lives again, disrupting it yet *again*, letting your minion, pardon, your *groundskeeper* hex a pigstail onto your only child which has to be *surgically removed* and then have to gall to complain about not being offered *refreshments*, surely that must be the hight of rudeness. In my humble opinion, of course. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Mon Sep 11 20:35:51 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:35:51 -0400 Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_[HPforGrownups]_Re:_CHAPDISC?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: References: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609111335r57adfdeao3743ba3dc85995c1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158171 akh: > > 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in the Pensieve > memory is Voldemort casting the DADA teacher curse? What else might > he have been doing? > > zgirnius: > That's what I always assumed. Random832: There's a brilliant theory, though, from Red Hen Publications, that what he was really doing was a Confundus or something similar on the sorting hat, in order to get it to sort more of the kind of people he'd like as followers into Slytherin [get them all in one place for recruitment, after a generation or so Slytherin has a bad reputation so anyone sorted into there thinks he/she has nowhere else to turn but to become a DE], and the curse was a bit of misdirection later on, to make us (and DD) think that was what he was doing A lot of people like to think that the hat is immune to that sort of thing, immune to anything, after all, it's an artifact of the founders, therefore a mere confundus/occlumency/etc wouldn't have any effect on it, it's above that - but that's just not canon. Not even, IIRC, it having been created by the founders (but correct me if I'm wrong) -- Random832 From katbofaye at aol.com Mon Sep 11 20:36:18 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:36:18 -0000 Subject: Magic late in life- Dudley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158172 In fact Dudley has not been eliminated by JKR. All of her quotes are at www.madamscoop.org The following address this topic. JKR: "There is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare..." [Read the exact quote from Barnes & Noble chat #1, 1999] JKR: Aunt Petunia is truly a muggle, but there is "a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye." "She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." [Read the exact quote from Edinburgh Book Festival, 2004] JKR: "You should keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon. I feel sorry for Dudley. I might joke about him, but I feel truly sorry for him because I see him as just as abused as Harry. Though, in possibly a less obvious way." [Read the exact quote from the Fandom.com interview, 2000] JKR: Dudley is nothing more than he seems; he gets very few lines in book 6. [Read the exact quote from Edinburgh Book Festival, 2004] The last two seem to contradict each other, however she does not rule out Dudley. My personal favorite is Neville but Dudley is a close second. This would be the ultimate punishment for the Dursley's. Neville could perform extraordinary magic after being a below average wizard and still meet the qualifications of the quote. One person on this site suggeste Merope, but I do not think the extraordinary circumstances apply to her. Anyways no need to guess or trust to memory Madam Scoop's is well organized and easy to use. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 11 21:24:49 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:24:49 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158173 > > Tonks: > First I think you are comparing apples to oranges. You are talking > about college courses, not Jr. High and High School, which is the > equivelent of Hogwarts. And I don't think that the founders > were "shortsighted". > > I think that Hogwarts is based on a different model of education > than the U.S. in the 21st century. > > When my father when to school prior to 1914, they taught the 3 R's. > Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. And he knew a lot more in 8 years > of school than most high school graduates, (and some with a BA) do > today. > > I am not saying that someone with a gift of music or art should not > be trained. I think that much of the ways of Hogwarts is as it was > very long ago. Back then an artist or whatever would become an > apprentice and learn that way. And "culture" was for the higher > classes. They would learn that from their family or private tutors. > > I see Hogwarts as more of a trade school when children learn what > they need to learn and not anything extra. All children are taught > there, from all classes of WW society. I would guess that students > like Draco would know something of the arts and others like Ron > would not. They would get an equal education in magic, because that > is what Hogwarts is, a school of 'magic'. > > Tonks_op > Who doesn't remember learning a lot of "culture" in her small town > school either, which might explain why I hate classical music. > Ken: Yes, certainly I do reference my college experience but my humanities education experience from K through 12 was of a piece with college if not more intense. I never lived in a town larger than 1200 souls before college, my graduating HS class was 50 in number. My education dates from the mid 20th century, finishing well before the turn, and we have no children so I have no direct experience of 21st century educational practices in the US. Way back then we most certainly did have art, music, history, and english/literature classes as part of our normal public school education, even in small town schools in Illinois and Wisconsin. I had far more of a humanities education before college than I had during college. If I can remember correctly in college I had one sociology class, one mass communication class, English 102 (by decree of the college of engineering, the English department was perfectly happy to accept me into an advanced class) and two English lit classes. In terms of humanities hours my entire college course load was about the same as my annual experience in school in just about every year prior to that. I don't know what educational practice is in the UK beyond what I can surmise from watching BBCAmerica and reading the works of British authors. Oh, and I did live about 40 miles north of London for 6 months in the summer of 1988. My impression of my education relative to that of my colleagues there is that my engineering education was second to none but in the humanities I usually felt half a step behind. That could be simply because of the cultural differences though. And their engineering skills were right up to snuff too, I am not trying to say that *they* were second rate in that regard. My father's educational career began in an honest-to-goodness one room, rural school complete with sterotypical school marm. My mother went to school in suburban Harrisburg, PA. Mom always discounts her intellectual capacity because she did not finish high school but honestly I cannot see where my parent's education was second to mine in any way save length. By standing on their shoulders I was able to attend college and then with my employer's help, graduate school. I am sorry to hear that you hate classical music. My love of classical music stems not from the music classes we had in school in which we tended to sing popular songs from the 19th and early 20th centuries but from band. I can still remember the first time we played a piece that was derived from Wagner, what transcendt joy! Or the Bach-derived piece for a clarinet quartet I was part of for a competition. I attended a local two year campus of the University of Wisconsin and so was able to play in their band alongside the music majors since there were too few of them to staff it. As it happens the chorus was in even worse straights and recruited me along with several others from the band. And so I became a bass and performed Vivaldi's magnificent Gloria. It's not every day you see a young Baptist lad singing Mass in a Catholic church -- in Latin no less! I absolutely love baroque choral music to this day, I even spend perfectly good money on tickets to the Music of the Baroque concerts. I can hear the beginnings of the driving rhythms of my equally beloved rock and roll every time I hear Scarlatti's harpsichord sonata in G major, Kirkpatrick number 455 (what a catchy name, eh?). Crisp, precise, unrelenting. It gives me shivers. But then so does "Sweet Home Chicago". I know that Bach is placed in the realm of the elitist today but he was just a workaday church musician in his time. If he were alive today he would enjoy Fats Waller as much as I do but I hope he would still take the time to write the Brandenburg Concertos. I am a better person for knowing something of the humanities and though I would not have thought it at age 20, I am a better engineer for knowing these things. I've gone on at great length here and have not even mentioned almost the all of the humanities. It would take forever to describe how my relatively small formal humanities education has enhanced my personal and professional life. My basic childhood education gave me the itch to learn more as an adult. That itch must be implanted at Hogwarts. That is why the young wizards and witches at Hogwarts are in no less need of a cultural education. The Muggleborn need to know about the culture they are entering. Those who've been in the WW from birth need to understand the Muggle culture they hide from. Our heritage is their heritage. Aristotle enlightens them as much as us. Some aruge that the WW is too small to make a large cultural contribution, does that not argue all the more for embracing the common human cultural heritage? Do we imagine that the bonds between the Wierd Sisters and Cream are any less than those between Cream and Robert Johnson? Does Celestina Warbeck owe *nothing* to Lena Horne or Mel Torme? What would Dolores Umbridge be like if she had been exposed to Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr? Would she have a dream too, instead of being a nightmare? I reject the arguments that Hogwarts teaches these things and we just don't see it. Come on, we've seen Minerva go over Harry's schedule exhaustively several times, we've seen his OWL's, we've heard him moan and groan about every class he's had to take and we have never seen any sign of a humanities class anywhere. We have two classes that come close. History of magic qualifies but the exclusion of Muggle history is inexcusible. Astrophysics is definitely a science, astronomy can be taught as either a science or a humanities class or both at once. At Hogwarts it seems to be taught in the most dreary fashion imaginable. Are we sure that Binns isn't teaching that one too? Go on now, name the Professor of English for me. For that matter wizards have to balance their bank accounts and gravity pulls the apples down from a witch's apple trees too. Shouldn't they study basic math and science? They can't *all* marry Hermione Granger. Oh, and I forget Muggle Studies. Forgive me, nearly everyone at Hogwarts forgets it too! That one class could cover a multitude of sins, I admit it, if anyone actually took it. Every single pupil at Hogwarts should take this class. Even the Muggleborn need the WW's perspective on how the world of their birth relates to their new world. Or they would if there was any evidence that the WW had that perspective to teach the young wizards and witches. Ken From CliffVDY at juno.com Mon Sep 11 13:40:25 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:40:25 -0000 Subject: OoP clues?/Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > And of course besides Dumbledore's admission that it indeed was a > mistake, what I find interesting is that he tells Harry I **was** > sure at the time, **not** I am sure. I am interpreting it that at > the end of OOP Dumbledore is no longer sure of it. > > JMO, > > Alla, who thinks that Dumbledore messed up so very royally with > choice of the Occlumency teacher, but who is quite satisfied with > Dumbledore acknowledging his mistake in OOP and HBP > Cliff: I said I thought Snape taught wrong, and the above confirms it, but that doesn't mean that Snape taught any differently than the way he was taught (they may have not been kind to him either) thus he **may** have taught as best he could. Then again ... From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 11 23:30:12 2006 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:30:12 -0000 Subject: Magic late in life- Dudley/Neville/Merope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158175 > Katssirius: > In fact Dudley has not been eliminated by JKR. All of her quotes >are at www.madamscoop.org The following address this topic. JLV here: You imply that some of these are direct quotes, but they are slightly paraphrased and taken out of context I think the first Dudley comment is misleading and the second incomplete: > JKR: "You should keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for > Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon. I feel sorry for Dudley. I might > joke about him, but I feel truly sorry for him because I see him > as just as abused as Harry. Though, in possibly a less obvious > way." [Read the exact quote from the Fandom.com interview, 2000] Actual quotation: "A question also surfaced surrounding Harry Potter's non-magical relatives, the Muggles who have always tortured or mistreated Harry, because of their fear of magic. For revenge, Harry has magically tortured his cousin Dudley. `I like torturing them,` said Rowling. `You should keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon. I feel sorry for Dudley. I might joke about him, but I feel truly sorry for him because I see him as just as abused as Harry. Though, in possibly a less obvious way. What they are doing to him is inept, really. I think children recognize that. Poor Dudley. He's not being prepared for the world at all, in any reasonable or compassionate way, so I feel sorry for him. But there's something funny about him, also. The pig's tail was irresistible.`" > JKR: Dudley is nothing more than he seems; he gets very few lines > in book 6. [Read the exact quote from Edinburgh Book Festival, > 2004] Actual quotation: "Is there more to Dudley than meets the eye?" "No. [Laughter]. What you see is what you get. I am happy to say that he is definitely a character without much back story. He is just Dudley. The next book, Half Blood Prince, is the least that you see of the Dursleys. You see them quite briefly. You see them a bit more in the final book, but you don't get a lot of Dudley in book six?very few lines. I am sorry if there are Dudley fans out there, but I think you need to look at your priorities if it is Dudley that you are looking forward to. [Laughter]." > Katssirius: > The last two seem to contradict each other JLV: I don't think they do in context. JKR might mean that Dudley may get some kind of reprieve, but I don't think she means he might be a wizard. > Katssirius: > however she does not rule out Dudley. JLV: Not in so many words, but she does say "What you see is what you get". I don't think it's him. So who is it? What did Rowling say? [Barnes & Noble chat #1, 1999] Q: "Will there be, or have there been, any "late blooming" students in the school who come into their magic potential as adults, rather than as children? [ ]" "[ ] No, is the answer. In my books, magic almost always shows itself in a person before age 11; however, there is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare in the world I am writing about." > Katssirius: > My personal favorite is Neville > Neville could perform extraordinary magic after being a > below average wizard and still meet the qualifications of the > quote. JLV: Well, I don't think it is Neville as I think she means someone who was previously unmagical comes to magic after the age of 11. Neville showed his first sign of magic when he was eight. He does spells at school (albeit badly) once he is 11 so I really wouldn't describe that as `late'. > Katssirius: > One person on this site suggested Merope, but I do not think > the extraordinary circumstances apply to her. JLV: Heh heh ? well that was me. To be fair, there is an implication that Merope never does magic ? her father calls her a squib and Dumbledore comments: "I do not believe her magical powers appeared to their best advantage when she was being terrorised by her father once she was alone and free for the fist time in her life, then, I am sure, she was able to give full rein to her abilities and to plot her escape from the desperate life she had led for eighteen years." I think of these as somewhat desperate circumstances and she does appear to come to magic well after age 11, so when I read it I thought to myself `Oh, it must be her'. I just wondered if anyone else ever thought that. I suppose the answer depends on your interpretation of the quotation. Now I read it over again, it seems to mean that one previously non-magical person will be able to do one extraordinary piece of magic just once in a singular desperate situation. If this is the case then no, it probably wasn't Merope, but neither will it be Neville. > Katssirius: > Anyways no need to > guess or trust to memory Madam Scoop's is well organized and easy > to use. JLV: Well, I agree it's useful, but I sometimes find their paraphrases are a little misleading. All the best, JLV xx From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 01:45:26 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:45:26 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158176 Snow: >Snipped Anita's summary to the question portion< 1) Later, we discover the "small girl" was Crabbe or Goyle, and he was serving as lookout for Draco. Who suspected this was more than it seemed at the time? (I didn't at all suspect polyjuice, but I did think this wasn't just a throwaway scene.) Snow: The way you worded this made me think very hard since it really is quite difficult to recall just what I thought of any scene on first read, some obvious and some not. I seem to recall that the scene looked out of place making it suspicious looking but as you say, I never suspected the polyjuice again. 2) There's a fair amount of shipping in the beginning of this chapter. Do we learn anything about the relationships between Harry/Ginny, Hermione/Ron, Lavender/Ron that we don't already know? Snow: Not that I get into the whole shipping aspect to any grand degree, since to me it is almost a sub-subject, but the Harry/Ginny thing floored me, didn't even expect this one. Ron and Hermione have always been inevitable in my eyes but the Lav Lav scenes and the reason behind them was very age appropriately childish and good for a laugh. 3) Once again, Luna comes up with what could be viewed as comic relief (CR). However, we're also given the information that there is an antidote in the Gurdyroot ? is this simply CR or will we discover Luna's not as "loony" as we presume? On a related note: What did you think of Ron's reaction to Luna in this scene? Did it surprise you? Is your own reaction to Luna similar or different from Ron's? Snow: The Gurdyroot used to ward off Gulping Plimpies is right up there with Nargles (that infest Mistletoe) and if they exist at all. Then again Luna isn't anymore loony than Lupin who was also called loony possibly because he had an infliction that made him different (if the teachers new that Lupin was infected by a werewolf certainly Peeves knew and that's who called him loony), in fact maybe they are both inflicted Luna does mean moon, right? Ron's reaction to Luna seemed to be hesitant and stunned to me. 4) What does the scene with Trelawney do at this point? It keeps her on the reader's radar, but is there a larger purpose for seeing her at this point? Do we need reinforcement that she is antagonistic to Firenze? Is its purpose to remind us that she is in danger from the prophecy, of which she is oblivious? Snow: I think I like your last option best. There is no need to have Trelawney harp about the horse any more at this point and we can see this is frustrating Dumbledore to no end and yet she is not being dismissed from the appointment herself, so she must just be a liability. 5) In this scene, we see one of the few times that Dumbledore really calls Harry to task for his failings. Does this scene fit the Dumbledore of Book 6? Does it fit the Dumbledore of Books 1 ? 5? How did you feel about DD in this scene? Snow: I saw it as Dumbledore running out of time and becoming a bit frustrated at Harry's refusal to take this task as serious as he needed to. So yeah I did see Dumbledore act out of his usual character and I'm fairly sure this is what alerted me that Dumbledore was on a major time schedule. 6) Do you find Dumbledore being manipulative here, playing on Harry's healthy sense of guilt? Or is he genuinely seeking Harry's opinion for some reason? Snow: I think Dumbledore was testing Harry's astuteness of what he is learning and how serious he is taking this appointment. Is the boy actually putting 2 and 2 together the way Dumbledore expects him to. Is Harry aware of the hightened need for progression. 7) Dumbledore talks about how disappointed certain staff members are that Tom went to work at Borgin and Burkes. Is it because they see him as a "cashier," rather than an influential rising star, or is it because he's working for Borgin and Burkes, purveyors of Dark Arts paraphernalia? Snow: You know I was more interested in which staff persons took that much of an interest in Tom then again I have hindsight they might not have been privy to. 8) Idle speculation: if Dippet had still been Headmaster, would he have given LV the DADA job when he returned to interview for it? Snow: I think that Dippet would have been scared out of his panties at the sight of the Tom that returned to interview again for the position. Tom was a bit distorted at this point. 9) Rowling describes a "red gleam" in Voldemort's eyes when he sees and touches the locket. What clues does this give us? For instance, is he already well into his horcruxes? Is he manifesting his connection as the heir to Salazar Slytherin? Ideas? Snow: I think it may be a combination. Doesn't greed show in the eyes? And we know that Tom made at least one Horcrux at this point, don't we? If the green-eyed monster is jealousy, then maybe the red-eyed monster is greed. 10) We get a glimpse of yet another House Elf, with Hokey. How does her story flesh out both the character of the House Elf and their plight? Snow: Interesting question really since not one of the elf's we have been introduced to succeed in there appointed tasks. Dobby rejects his family, at great physical abuse to himself, to allow Harry some information he should never have been aware of. Winky actually does something similar when she employs her master Sr. to allow Jr. to get some fresh air, at where the Quidditch World Cup of all places. Hokey is the only elf so far that seems to have done everything the master said until she was cursed. Was Winky cursed to do Jr's bidding and if so was Dobby or is he really just the unusual elf (the one that doesn't like to make toys and just wants to be a dentist)? 11) This is the infamous "ten years later" scene that has caused much gnashing of teeth. Is there any way to reconcile this timeline with earlier reports, or do we just have to chalk this one up to Rowling's notorious maths? Is the Fawkes's presence at the interview with Riddle important? Does it merely set the scene, or should we look for deeper meaning? Snow: We don't know how many years there were between Tom's graduation and his employment or how long he had been employed to become so close with Hepzibah before he had her killed and left. The timeline isn't quite complete without a few more facts. As far as Fawkes, I have a whole summary related to him that I will be posting soon. 12) This scene encapsulated for me the whole dynamic of Voldemort's behavior in the past that led to his downfall during his first reign. Are we to presume these are the seeds of his destruction? How do you think Ollivander's use of the word `great' to describe Voldemort in PS fits in with this exchange between DD & Voldemort on the issue of `greatness'?" Snow: The word Great could very well be substituted with countless other words that mean the same such as the word Famous and what Voldemort did was just that, Famous or infamous. I very much doubt that Olivander meant that Voldemort did wonderful things. 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in the Pensieve memory is Voldemort casting the DADA teacher curse? What else might he have been doing? Snow: This supposition totally flew by me when I read it Very nice connection. I let it slide by as a brief thought from Tom to retaliate but thought better of it but thinking about it now, when would Voldemort have had the chance to place the curse if it wasn't then? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 01:52:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:52:38 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158177 > 1) Later, we discover the "small girl" was Crabbe or Goyle, and he was serving as lookout for Draco. Who suspected this was more than it seemed at the time? (I didn't at all suspect polyjuice, but I did think this wasn't just a throwaway scene.) Carol responds: I find it really hard to recall my initial response to most scenes in any of the HP books with any degree of exactness, but I think my reaction was something like yours. There's too much time devoted to the moment for it to be insignificant. And I *think* I was reminded of the two girls that Harry saw Draco Malfoy with earlier. At any rate, the girl watching the Trio as they left, standing in the corridor without moving, seems odd in retrospect. It may have seemed odd on a first reading as well. And "she looked terrified at the sight of the approaching sixth years" has the air of a false explanation. I didn't suspect that it was Goyle (and I do think it's Goyle, not Crabbe) or that the girl was polyjuiced. Should have, but I didn't. > > 2) There's a fair amount of shipping in the beginning of this chapter. Do we learn anything about the relationships between Harry/Ginny, Hermione/Ron, Lavender/Ron that we don't already know? Carol responds: Not really. I don't care about the SHIPping, so my reaction was essentially, "About time you three figured out who likes whom. Now get on with it!" I do, FWIW, like Ron and Hermione as a couple. I wish I could like OoP/HBP Ginny, but I don't. > > 3) Once again, Luna comes up with what could be viewed as comic relief (CR). However, we're also given the information that there is an antidote in the Gurdyroot ? is this simply CR or will we discover Luna's not as "loony" as we presume? On a related note: What did you think of Ron's reaction to Luna in this scene? Did it surprise you? Is your own reaction to Luna similar or different from Ron's? Carol responds: I think my reaction closely parallels Ron's except that I first started liking her or appreciating her when she helped Harry deal with Sirius Black's death (and I liked his feeling a touch of compassion for her, too). But I really loved her line in "the Unbreakable Vow" about the Rotfang Conspiracy, and her Quidditch commentary was funny, too. So I agree with Ron that she's "insane" (well, eccentric) but in a good way. And, yes, I think we'll learn that she's not as "loony" about some things (the Veil?) as both her schoolmates and many readers think. I keep hoping she'll be indirectly responsible for teaching Hermione a lesson about the value of intuition. You can't find the answer to everything in books, especially the reference books Hermione values so highly. Some things have to be taken on faith, and imagination is as important as fact. > > 4) What does the scene with Trelawney do at this point? It keeps her on the reader's radar, but is there a larger purpose for seeing her at this point? Do we need reinforcement that she is antagonistic to Firenze? Is its purpose to remind us that she is in danger from the prophecy, of which she is oblivious? Carol responds: Good question. We've already seen her with her deck of cards, which suggests (in hindsight) that she's not the complete fraud the Trio thinks she is, and here we get a foreshadowing of her appearance in "The Seer Overheard," where she's not foretelling but trying to hide her sherry bottles (which, of course, leads to the eavesdropper revelation and all that). I do think that the chief narrative purpose here is to remind us that she's in danger from the Prophecy (another instance of Dumbledore's disastrous policy of withholding information, in this case, not from a kid but from a teacher whom he perhaps rightly sees as unstable--but would she drink more or less if she knew why he was protecting her?). Maybe the herd will take Firenze back, considering that they honored DD at his funeral, which would leave Trelawney as the sole Divination teacher, but given McGonagall's feelings about Trelawney as a teacher (and Divination as a subject) and her presumed ignorance of her role in the Prophecy, will Headmistress McGonagall let her stay even if the school stays open? The more I think about it, the more I believe that we'll see Trelawney in real danger in Book 7. In fact, all the people that Dumbledore protected (Snape, Hagrid, Filch, Firenze, et al.) will find themselves in highly unenviable positions with him gone. Or that's what my crystal ball says, anyway. > > 5) In this scene, we see one of the few times that Dumbledore really calls Harry to task for his failings. Does this scene fit the Dumbledore of Book 6? Does it fit the Dumbledore of Books 1 ? 5? How did you feel about DD in this scene? Carol responds: I thought it was a beautiful piece of applied adolescent psychology. The silence after Harry's excuse while Dumbledore waited for a real apology and a promise to do what DD wanted and the realization that it must be important was brilliant, too. It was interesting, though, that he referred to Harry's "considerable ingenuity," which I confess I don't recall encountering in HBP or elsewhere. (The "ingenious" ideas are usually Hermione's and the Thestrals were Luna's inspiration.) "No depths of cunning left unplumbed" sounds like an appeal to Harry's Slytherin side (which is okay with me). I liked Dumbledore in this scene. He really knows how to deal with recalcitrant teenagers. (My all-time favorite Dumbledore line is "By all means continue destroying my possessions. I daresay I have too many"--not a line a RL parent or authority figure can borrow, unfortunately, as we can't do a Reparo spell to restore the status quo.) I'm not sure that we can compare HBP Dumbledore, who seems to be operating on the principle that time is running out, to the Dumbledore of the other books, who really hasn't asked anything of Harry directly. The closest is wanting him to take Occlumency lessons, and he never spoke to him directly about that for obvious reasons. DD still withholds some information because the time isn't yet right and he's trying to provide Harry with incentive for getting the memory, but overall, I like him better. (BTW, we saw the hospitality motif again in this chapter. DD treats Riddle/Voldemort with admirable courtesy despite being very wary of him, probably the way he expected the Dursleys to treat him.) > > 6) Do you find Dumbledore being manipulative here, playing on Harry's healthy sense of guilt? Or is he genuinely seeking Harry's opinion for some reason? Carol responds: Manipulative by stating that he values Harry's opinion? i don't think so. He's already received Harry's promise to get the memory. I do think he wants Harry to be attentive, though, and stating that he values Harry's opinion is a good way to motivate him to pay attention so that he can give sensible answers. But also, he's treating Harry with respect, and I think that Harry senses and appreciates that. DD is moving him gently forward to the point where he'll have to think for himself. The more practice he gets while DD is still around, the better. > > 7) Dumbledore talks about how disappointed certain staff members are that Tom went to work at Borgin and Burkes. Is it because they see him as a "cashier," rather than an influential rising star, or is it because he's working for Borgin and Burkes, purveyors of Dark Arts paraphernalia? Carol responds: I don't think that the WW in general has quite the horror or loathing of the Dark Arts that Sirius Black attributes to James Potter and that Barty Crouch Jr. expressed (despite being willing to fight fire with fire). So I don't think it's disappointment that he's working for Borgin and Burkes' per se so much as disappointment at wasted potential. Such a promising young man, blessed with charm as well as unusual intelligence and prodigious talent, should surely go into the Ministry or at least be a researcher for St. Mungo's. It would be like the valedictorian of the Yale class of '45 going to work as an assistant sales manager for J C Penneys. His teachers, especially Slughorn, would think it was beneath him. Only Dumbledore, IMO, would worry about the Dark Arts aspect of the job and what he might learn or find there. > > 8) Idle speculation: if Dippet had still been Headmaster, would he have given LV the DADA job when he returned to interview for it? Carol responds: I don't think that even Armando Dippet could fail to note the blurred features and blood-shot eyes and realize that something was rotten in the state of Denmark. Only Dark Magic could have caused such a terrible metamorphosis. But I don't think that Dippet had the moral courage to stand up to Voldemort's demand for a job. Then again, Voldemort had requested an appointment. If Dippet informed Dumbledore (the assistant headmaster?) of the appointment, DD might have been with him or even "interviewed" him himself. If not, I think that Dippet would have given in. I don't think he'd have been charmed or fooled--too late for that--but I do think he'd have been terrified into giving Voldemort the post. Fortunately for the WW, that didn't happen. > > 9) Rowling describes a "red gleam" in Voldemort's eyes when he sees and touches the locket. What clues does this give us? For instance, is he already well into his horcruxes? Is he manifesting his connection as the heir to Salazar Slytherin? Ideas? Carol responds: Almost certainly, he's made the diary, ring, cup, and locket Horcruxes but hasn't made the fifth or sixth Horcrux, the one that turns him snakelike. I've argued that this Horcrux was Nagini, made into a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow, but I don't think I've convinced more than two people at most. But manifesting a connection to Salazar Slytherin by becoming more snakelike? That thought hadn't occurred to me. I think it's "just" the Horcruxes, and it's Dumbledore's first clue that Voldemort is something more than an ordinary wizard serial killer. (Wonder what the rumors DD heard about him were?) > > 10) We get a glimpse of yet another House Elf, with Hokey. How does her story flesh out both the character of the House Elf and their plight? Carol responds: I think that Hokey is quite happy in her post, like a parody of an aging maid servant for an aging "fine lady" of, say, the eighteenth century. It's only when Voldemort treats her as he treated Morfin and the Ministry is predisposed to suspect her because she's a house-elf that her situation becomes really sympathetic. It's interesting that Harry temporarily empathizes with Hermione and her goals for S.P.E.W. even though he soon forgets about them. But I don't think that Hokey herself does anything to "flesh out the character" of house-elves since she speaks only a few words and simply obeys her mistress without question. She doesn't need to be coerced or punished; she just does her job. > > 11) This is the infamous "ten years later" scene that has caused much gnashing of teeth. Is there any way to reconcile this timeline with earlier reports, or do we just have to chalk this one up to Rowling's notorious maths? Is the Fawkes's presence at the interview with Riddle important? Does it merely set the scene, or should we look for deeper meaning? Carol responds: If we take the time frame at face value, this scene can't be any later than, say, December 1959 or January 1960, allowing Tom about four and a half years at Borgin and Burkes' plus ten years away (and note that this isn't a normal late summer interview--Professor Merrythought must have died at last--or was she murdered?). That fits with the time frame for McGonagall becoming Transfiguration teacher (taking DD's place), but doesn't fit with Lupin's statement (or inference) that DD became Transfiguration teacher right before he started school, ca. 1970. Maybe Lupin is wrong, but his date fits with Apollyon Pringle still being caretaker when Molly and Arthur were in their last year if they got married when Voldemort first started taking over. IMO, DD would not have kept Pringle as caretaker because he wouldn't have approved of whipping and other cruel punishments. I think he outlawed them and hired Filch instead, on condition that he not use the "old" punishments. But I don't want to get into the whole question of how old the Weasleys really are or where Ogg and Pringle fit in. We *could* move the DADA interview to ca. 1970, about the time when Voldemort started taking over, which would mean that he worked at Borgin and Burkes' for fifteen years (till 1960) and was about thirty-three years old when he had that cozy little conversation with Hepzibah and forty-three during the DADA interview. But it makes more sense and fits the description of B&B Tom better to have that job last no more than four years, which again gives us ca. 1949 for Hepzibah's murder and ca. 1959-60 for the DADA interview, in which case, we have Voldemort disappearing again for ten years before VWI starts in about 1970. Am I confused? Obviously. As for Fawkes, he's "just" DD's pet or familiar (in the sense of a *good* spirit in animal form), and of course it's ironic that his feather is in Voldemort's wand, but I'm not sure there's any deeper significance. He's almost a part of the office when DD is headmaster, and is gone (or not there yet) when he isn't. What I noticed is that the Pensieve wasn't there yet. Maybe it's a recent acquisition, as of GoF year? > > 12) This scene encapsulated for me the whole dynamic of Voldemort's behavior in the past that led to his downfall during his first reign. Are we to presume these are the seeds of his destruction? How do you think Ollivander's use of the word `great' to describe Voldemort in PS fits in with this exchange between DD & Voldemort on the issue of `greatness'?" Carol responds: I'm not sure what you mean by the "seeds of his destruction"? Do you mean something like hubris or "pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall"? Certainly, we see his failure to understand certain types of magic and his rejection of the power of love, which led to his downfall at the hands of Lily Potter and may lead to his permanent destruction at the hands of her son. As for "greatness," I agree with whichever poster said that "greatness" isn't the same as "goodness." (Catherine the Great, anyone?) "Great" originally meant "large" (we can see that sense of the word elsewhere in the HP books--"a dirty great fang," for example) and can also mean "remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness," which I think is more or less the sense in which both Voldemort and Ollivander are using the word. Now, granted, Ollivander probably doesn't know about the Horcruxes and it's hard to see anything else that Voldemort has done as requiring unusual skill and knowledge, but I suppose that organizing the Death Eaters and exercising widespread mind control during VWI could qualify. Ollivander is a rather ambiguous figure, yet he seems to be an ally of Dumbledore's, maybe even part of his network of spies. > > 13) Are we to presume that the twitch Harry saw in the Pensieve memory is Voldemort casting the DADA teacher curse? What else might he have been doing? Carol responds: Finally, an easy one. Yes, I do think that the twitch is Voldemort cursing the DADA position. Even though Dumbledore doesn't specifically mention the hand twitch, the chapter ends with his statement that he's never been able to keep a DADA teacher for more than a year since that interview. So, putting two and two together and knowing that DD views the one relic of Godric Gryffindor as safe (ad JKR has said that the Sorting Hat isn't a Horcrux), I think we can safely conclude that the twitch was the curse being nonverbally cast. (IMO, Voldemort must have planned to end the interview that way if he didn't get the job.) The curse explains a lot of things, and I think that this chapter shows us that it's real. So, yes, IMO, the twitch is Voldemort casting the DADA curse and not something else. Carol, thanking Anita for the thought-provoking questions and for giving us something different to think about From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Tue Sep 12 02:33:24 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:33:24 -0000 Subject: OoP clues?/Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158178 > > Alla, who thinks that Dumbledore messed up so very royally with > > choice of the Occlumency teacher, but who is quite satisfied with > > Dumbledore acknowledging his mistake in OOP and HBP > > > Cliff: > I said I thought Snape taught wrong, and the above confirms it, but > that doesn't mean that Snape taught any differently than the way he > was taught (they may have not been kind to him either) thus he **may** > have taught as best he could. Then again ... > Abergoat: Cliff's comment about how Snape was (or was not) taught brings up a possible important point. Harry didn't learn Occlumency and JKR has stated in an interview that he won't, he can't. She said his emotions are too close to the surface. This being the case, how important was the Occlumency plotline? I suspect very important - I think Harry needs to know what Legilimency and Occlumency are even if he never uses them himself. Because I suspect Harry might learn that Lily was the Legilimens that Snape used to learn Occlumency... Snape's regret over Lily would be perfectly explained (without messy emotions like unrequited love) if Lily helped Snape gain the skills he needed to became a successful Death Eater...and he repaid that debt with death. Abergoat From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 02:32:29 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:32:29 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat and Founders (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP20) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609111335r57adfdeao3743ba3dc85995c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158179 > Random832: > A lot of people like to think that the hat is immune to that sort of > thing, immune to anything, after all, it's an artifact of the > founders, therefore a mere confundus/occlumency/etc wouldn't have any > effect on it, it's above that - but that's just not canon. Not even, > IIRC, it having been created by the founders (but correct me if I'm > wrong) zgirnius: No canon for infallibility. I would be very reluctant to assert Voldemort would be unable to tamper with the Hat. But it was created by the Founders, by its own account. The following is an excerpt from its GoF song: > 'Twas Gryffindor who found the way, > He whipped me off his head > The founders put some brains in me > So I could choose instead! > From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 02:53:36 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:53:36 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158180 > Ken: > > Hogwarts has no art classes, no music classes, no literature classes. > Hogwarts is like the engineering student's dream school, no > humanities, just the "good stuff"." >> BAW: >> That we know of. Rowling doesn't try to tell us everything >> about her world, but only what is relevant to the plot. >> As another successful fantasy author, Katherine Kurtz, remarked, >> "Absence of presence is not the same thing as presence of absence." zanooda: I read this post about JKR only showing "relevant" things and remembered that no one in the HP books ever takes a shower or a bath. The only exceptions are Harry's night trip to the prefects bathroom and Wood trying "to drown himself" in the shower after loosing a Quidditch game. The rest of the time the kids (boys at least) just go from the common room directly to bed, without even brushing their teeth, or, if in the morning, just wake up, get dressed and go to breakfast. We know that they do take baths (well, at least I hope so!!!), but we are never shown this. It's irrelevant to the plot,see? :-) It's not the same with the subjects that are taught in Hogwarts though. They are all described in such detail, and the kids do homework in every chapter, and take exams; it's unrealistic to think that there are other subjects, which are not shown. Maybe there is more to the WW culture than we know, but this culture is definitely not studied at Hogwarts. However, sometimes it feels like something is missing from the story when it comes to studies. Take languages, for example. I always thought it was strange that they don't teach Latin in Hogwarts, considering that most incantations are based on Latin. But, if you think about it, wizards have to know it, at least the ones who are talented enough to invent spells. If not at school, where do they learn it? Snape needed to know at least the basics of Latin to think of appropriate incantations for self-invented spells. He invented "levicorpus/liberacorpus" and "sectumsempra" when he was what, 15-16? How and where did he learn Latin? All by himself? Maybe, but maybe not. Next, Hermione used "mobiliarbus" spell in PoA. Maybe she read about it somewhere, but it seems like she created it right there on the spot from two parts, "mobili" being part of many similar spells (Lupin used Mobilicorpus later). If indeed she created it herself, she had to know that "arbus " means "tree". And what about Harry asking the Fat Lady "Quid agis?" OK, it may be a well-known expression, but still, do you see many teenage boys going around using Latin unless they were exposed to it somehow? There is more to the HP books than it is written in them, and this is one of the cases when it feels like some part of the story remains and will remain untold. From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 12 02:57:08 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (Argus Pyrites) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:57:08 -0000 Subject: Harry as Murderer? In-Reply-To: <019a01c6d53f$effa44d0$14b2a8c0@milesh5pt62nnd> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158181 Miles wrote: > And I'm quite sure, that she will not make her hero Harry doing > something so important she herself thinks is wrong in terms of ethics. Argus Pyrites responds: I was hesitant to add anything because about 70% of me agrees with your assessment. But. Of course there is a but, or I would have stayed quiet. There is the small matter of the prophecy. Harry knows that, according to this, one of them must die at the others hand. Now, I know that prophecies do not have to be binding, Dumbledore has told us that. But that is the problem with prophecies... once they are known, they become self-fulfilling. I can see Harry deciding that he must murder Voldemort, because it is his job, his quest, and noone elses. He wishes to kill Voldemort himself, because he does not want anyone else to die "doing his job". Yes, I can see about fifty ways that the following plot might flip, but for now, Harry believes his quest is this -- "... and then I've got to go after the seventh bit of Voldemort's soul, the bit that's still in his body, and I'm the one that's going to kill him." HBP 651 US HB I think that Mrs. Rowling is quite capable of having him do it. In my opinion, a writer who has killed off two of her main characters already, has proven that her allegience is to her story. If she sees the story ending with Harry killing Voldemort, she'll do it. She has already proven that he can be compassionate in a difficult situation. Perhaps it's time for her to show him doing what must be done, and growing, by taking on a man's burden. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Sep 12 04:05:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:05:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse References: Message-ID: <00e601c6d620$b45ba400$aa9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158182 zanooda: > And what about Harry asking the Fat Lady "Quid agis?" OK, it may be a > well-known expression, but still, do you see many teenage boys going > around using Latin unless they were exposed to it somehow? Magpie: I think I assumed "Quid agis" was the password and the joke was that she could also tell him to go inside to find out...? -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 04:49:30 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:49:30 -0000 Subject: Lily's Protection: Is it still there? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158183 A question I have been pondering. Is the protection (love/ancient magic) Lily gave to Harry still in place? We don't know anything about this protection. Was it a spell? Did she trick Voldemort into a magical contract? All speculation at this point. In PS/SS Dumbledore told Harry it is in his "very skin" and in the preceding sentence said that Lily's love for Harry "will give [him] some protection forever". (p.299, US) I don't recall Dumbledore ever modifying or qualifying that inference. Dumbledore does explain about the "charm" that Petunia sealed when she took Harry in, how that derived from Lily's/Petunia's blood and will expire on Harry's seventeenth birthday. But that was in addition to Lily's protection, not in place of it. The only person I recall who claims Harry won't have his mother around to protect him was Voldemort. Quite frankly, I'm not prepared to take the word of the wizard who already underestimated this protection and doesn't understand the power of love at all. He admitted earlier that he "miscalculated", that his curse was deflected by Lily's "foolish sacrifice". BTW, Diary!Tom called Lily's sacrifice a "powerful counter-charm". Doesn't sound like this "old magic" (LV's words) is a spell or incantation, sounds more like a binding magical contract, doesn't it? My question is: What has changed? DD says Harry will have "some" protection forever and if Lily did invoke old magic in the form of a magical contract, well, who released Voldemort from the contract? If the form of magic is something different, I still don't see why it wouldn't remain active especially after what Dumbledore said. Does anyone remember if JKR referenced this protection in any of her interviews? Did she say anything about it no longer being active? My curiousity was aroused when I noticed that JKR had LV twice fire AKs at Harry but both times it was blocked, once with Priori the other time by a statue. Now, of course she wasn't going to have Harry get killed, but I thought there might be some foreshadowing in how the *unblockable* curse was indeed blocked, not misfired. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 05:17:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 05:17:20 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: <00e601c6d620$b45ba400$aa9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158184 zanooda wrote: > > And what about Harry asking the Fat Lady "Quid agis?" OK, it may be a well-known expression, but still, do you see many teenage boys going around using Latin unless they were exposed to it somehow? > > Magpie: > I think I assumed "Quid agis" was the password and the joke was that she could also tell him to go inside to find out...? > > -m > Carol responds: I'm pretty sure that Magpie is correct here and the Fat Lady's response to "quid agis" is another of JKR's little jokes (which Harry didn't get). Unlike Teen!Snape, who would have had to know at least some Latin to invent spells like Levicorpus, its counterspell Liberacorpus, and Sectumsempra, Harry clearly doesn't know Latin or he'd have figured out what these spells do before he used them, and he'd never have considered using Sectumsempra on McLaggen to find out what it did. I think that Severus Snape (who seems able, like Hermione, to remember everything he reads) must have taught himself Latin at an early age. It certainly isn't part of the Hogwarts curriculum. We know the twelve subjects in which Percy and Barty Jr. got their OWLS: Potions Transfiguration Charms Herbology DADA History of Magic Care of Magical Creatures Divination Astronomy Ancient Runes Arithmancy Muggle Studies That's all there is, except for extras like Flying for first-years and Apparition for sixth-years. Carol, thinking that young Severus would have done well at nineteenth-century Eton From SWEETP_B307 at YAHOO.COM Mon Sep 11 23:45:43 2006 From: SWEETP_B307 at YAHOO.COM (Sweetp) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:45:43 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Non-crux - a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158185 > Geoff: > Dumbledore's comment was to highlight the risk - to Voldemort > - of making a "live" Horcrux: > > '"The snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as > Horcruxes?" > "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because > to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and > move for itself is obviously a very risky business."' > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.473 UK edition) > > Voldemort may have decided to take that risk either knowingly > or blundered into it unknowingly. However, on this general > question of destroying Horcruxes, > Sweetp: Just a thought I had while reading thru this wonderful form... THE REPAYMENT OF WORMTAIL...THE KILLING OF THE SNAKE...since he now posses a metal hand which Nagini would not be able to strike or bite and..which would highlight Professor Dumbledor's words above. I have to say this too..."Neither can live while the other survives...always get me because Professor Dumbledore always and even get a little bothered when Harry harps on about the prophecy which was made by Tom (not predicted) so what if is that Jo is not talking about Harry and Tom, but about Tom and something or someone else...But it is just Harry who has to carry it out ie: Say for instance the only two parts left are Tom and Nagini, do you think one or the other would want whats left or each others soul, so they themself would live? Please let me know what you think on these 2 subjects....Expecto Patronum (Happy Thoughts to All!) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 00:46:35 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:46:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: <000f01c6d5e0$934d38e0$63fe54d5@Marion> References: <000f01c6d5e0$934d38e0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <2795713f0609111746w1971db7es4d1979a5d375616f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158186 Marion: Soooo.... if I, a total stranger would knock on your door, you would not only invite me in, give me food and drink and you would confess your 'sins' to me, because I could be an angel? Really? I mean, *really*?! So if I was of some religious sect and you said, 'No, I don't want to have anything to do with your ilk' (because you already go to the church of your choice and you're not interested in the sect, or you think the sectarian is misguided, wrong, scary or plain satanic) and the sectarian would put his foot in your door, wrestle his way inside against your strongest protests and demand some tea, banging you in the head with the teapot, you would fall onto your knees, asking for forgiveness? Lynda: Begging the elves permission, I'd like to personalize this a bit. Several years ago, I was traveling down a highway. I got thirsty and pulled off at a gas station. There was, on the other side of the chain link fence that separated the gas station from the highway. On the other side of the fence there was a very disshelved very sweaty from the heat bum. (this man could not be described as anything but a bum) I went into the store, got myself a drink and then, went and bought a coke for the man. When I walked over to the fence and called out to him, he turned and walked back toward me. I told him that I noticed he was hot and that I had bought a coke for him if he wanted it. He said yes, and I handed it to him. I didn't know this guy. But he was hot and I thought that offering a coke was a nice thing to do. I don't even know if he drank it since I was traveling the other direction, and some people have told me that what I did was stupid, buying something for a total stranger, who might be a dangerous man. I knew that when I bought him the drink, but I still decided to offer and for his part, he accepted and neither of us came to harm. As for opening the door to a total stranger at night, I've never faced that situation. I did however, open the door to an enexpected guest at 10:00 the other night, invited her in, and carried on a conversation while I changed clothing since she wanted to go out. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Sep 12 08:06:41 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:06:41 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. References: <000f01c6d5e0$934d38e0$63fe54d5@Marion> <2795713f0609111746w1971db7es4d1979a5d375616f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000d01c6d642$61659270$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 158187 Lynda: >>>Begging the elves permission, I'd like to personalize this a bit. Several years ago, I was traveling down a highway. I got thirsty and pulled off at a gas station. There was, on the other side of the chain link fence that separated the gas station from the highway. On the other side of the fence there was a very disshelved very sweaty from the heat bum. (this man could not be described as anything but a bum) I went into the store, got myself a drink and then, went and bought a coke for the man. When I walked over to the fence and called out to him, he turned and walked back toward me. I told him that I noticed he was hot and that I had bought a coke for him if he wanted it. He said yes, and I handed it to him. I didn't know this guy. But he was hot and I thought that offering a coke was a nice thing to do. I don't even know if he drank it since I was traveling the other direction, and some people have told me that what I did was stupid, buying something for a total stranger, who might be a dangerous man. I knew that when I bought him the drink, but I still decided to offer and for his part, he accepted and neither of us came to harm. As for opening the door to a total stranger at night, I've never faced that situation. I did however, open the door to an enexpected guest at 10:00 the other night, invited her in, and carried on a conversation while I changed clothing since she wanted to go out.<<< Marion: Ah, but so would I. And so have I. That's just being kind to strangers, which is a virtue. It might not be a virtue that the Dursleys possess (since I never claimed they were *nice* people), but it is a whooooole different kettle of fish to *offer* hospitality to a stranger than to offer tea to somebody who barged in when you told him to get out or to cuddle to your heart a child you did not want but were forced to accept, house and feed. One *does* have the right to deny entry into one's house to those we deem undesirable. We do have a right to eject (if we can) those we deem dangerous. The Dursleys have repeatedly stated, and shown by their actions towards Harry, that they want *nothing* to do with magic people. They do *not* want them in their house. They were forced, by Dumbledore, to accept Harry as their 'guest', but although they accepted him in their home (barely) they never granted him kin-right or even guest-right (in Roman times, a foundling left on the doorstep of a free man became that man's slave. In desperate times poor men who could not feed their children left them on the step of a rich man's house. The child might lose it's freedom, but at least it would not starve to death) We might fault the Dursleys for not granting their nephew kin-right or guest-right. (But they did not *choose* to take in the boy. He was forced upon them like a cuckoo forces it's young on a warbler. I for one do not judge them for that. If they were consulted, had the option to say 'no', they might, just might have said yes and treated the boy better. Or not, but then we would have the freedom to judge them, because in accepting a guest of your *own free will* means you have to treat him right) We might fault the Dursleys for being 'stupid' because they fear magic (but I would fear magic too if one sees what total unethical morons wield it. Great power brings great responsibility, yet we see little responsibilty in the WW and a whole lot of muggle-baiting and disdain for non-wizarding folk) We might fault the Dursleys for being boors and bad parents (but how is this Dumbledore's concern?) We might even fault the Dursleys for being not very nice people to begin with who would probably (*very* probably) never give a coca cola to a thirsty bum. (But again, is not having a virtue something Dumbledore should concern himself about?) But for Dumbledore to enter their house against their express wishes, to browbeat them and intimidate them with his magic and then to chide them for not being hospitable to him (and by implication to Harry over the years) is the height of hypocrisy. It was Dumbledore's decision that put Harry there. It was Dumbledore who intimidated and possibly threatened them if they refused to take the child ("Remember my last, Petunia!") To scold them for not being kind enough to the child they were browbeaten reluctantly into accepting into their home (if not their hearts) is just.... words fail me. Oh, I agree, the Dursleys are awful people. But Dumbledore is a bully and a hypocrite, and I know which I think is worse. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 12 11:13:46 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:13:46 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158188 A bit of snipped JKR quote: -You need what's > in there if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution in > book seven. > Carol resumes: > So all the subplots are necessary for the resolution--house elfs and > boggarts and all. What do those who think Phoenix is a "bad" book with > a lot of wasted pages think should have been cut because it won't play > a part in book seven? And what do OoP's defenders think will prove to > be important besides the locket that won't open and the Veil and the > Love Room in the DoM? Potioncat: Personally, I think JKR is channeling Agatha Christie. She too commented about "playing fair" with the readers and providing the right information. She certainly enjoyed providing it in sneaky ways! I suspect readers, if not JKR, will look at those pieces of information in OoP after they read book 7 and ask, "But why did she use this sub-plot to tell us that?" I don't think anything will be so much a clue before hand, as an big groan afterwards---reminding me of the Battle on Tower section we discussed a while back. In some cases, it will be an odd turn of phrase or some slightly off section that will turn out to be evidence of a "clue" (for lack of a better word.) I offer "Oops!" as such a section. (That little word generated a long, heated thread.) The whole thing with Gwarp may turn out to be all about the importance of "blood" and give us a glimpse of that ancient magic associated with it. Mainly, I agree with Tonks that it would be fun now to re-read OoP and discuss those scenes that jump out at us---or try to hide from us. Darned if I can remember what was in which book now. >Carol: > Carol, who wouldn't mind endlessly debating Snape but reluctantly > concedes that there's more to the HP books than Sevvie Potioncat, who reluctantly agrees. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Tue Sep 12 13:19:11 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:19:11 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158189 Potioncat wrote: > I don't think anything will be so much a clue before hand, as an big > groan afterwards---reminding me of the Battle on Tower section we > discussed a while back. In some cases, it will be an odd turn of > phrase or some slightly off section that will turn out to be > evidence of a "clue" (for lack of a better word.) Abergoat writes: Which is why it continues to baffle me that so many readers aren't bothered by the fact that Dumbledore, head of the highest wizarding court of law, gave 'evidence' that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. Dumbledore wouldn't use hearsay, wouldn't say "Sirius had been their Secret Keeper" if he only knew of a plan and I seriously doubt the Potters lied to Dumbledore that they had successfully made Sirius the Secret Keeper (the only acceptable hearsay because they are dead). Which means Dumbledore saw Sirius (or someone that looked like him) as the Secret Keeper with his own eyes. I find it perfectly believable the Potters wanted Dumbledore to have the secret and Peter, knowing they were going to die, wasn't interested in exposing himself as the Secret Keeper. If he didn't use Polyjuice to look like Sirius I will be very surprised. Peter seemed to have a fairly elaborate plan to frame Sirius...and I think it started playing out with Peter using Polyjuice to handout the secret. Which means it is quite possible Snape - given the secret at Dumbledore's request because he was in a position to warn them the fastest - overheard part of Voldemort's 'the moment of triumph is near' speech and raced to tell the Potters their Secret was known. But James refused to believe and flattened him for suggesting his friend was a traitor. If true, then Lily had to spend the precious few minutes James bought her by hiding an unconscious Snape (freezing charm and invisibility cloak anyone? Another front row seat to tragedy just like Harry?) Abergoat, who admits for this to work Lily must have had no idea that Voldemort would kill Harry...and thinks her words in Harry's memory support that. From random832 at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 13:26:18 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:26:18 -0400 Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_[HPforGrownups]_Re:_CHAPDISC?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: References: <20060911010047.37924.qmail@web55106.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609120626h7b881593u1908598cd1c1b4ea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158190 [regarding the wand twitch being the casting of the DADA curse or not] See also http://www.redhen-publications.com/Hufflepuff.html for an explanation of the alternate theory. > Carol responds: > Finally, an easy one. It's _never_ an easy one. It's very obvious that we're intended to think that. It's much less obvious that it's in fact true. JKR is no stranger to misdirection, and neither is Voldemort. > Yes, I do think that the twitch is Voldemort > cursing the DADA position. Even though Dumbledore doesn't specifically > mention the hand twitch, the chapter ends with his statement that he's > never been able to keep a DADA teacher for more than a year since that > interview. So, putting two and two together and knowing that DD views > the one relic of Godric Gryffindor as safe If he actually _said_ the 'one' relic of GG, that means the hat is NOT in fact a relic of GG, because it would then have to mean the sword. And DD is not omniscient. He missed it on the GoF, he could have missed it on the hat. > (ad JKR has said that the Sorting Hat isn't a Horcrux) It's not a horcrux. That does _not_ mean it's not, like the Goblet of Fire, the victim of a Confundus or something similar. > I think we can safely conclude that the twitch was the curse being nonverbally cast. > (IMO, Voldemort must have planned to end the interview that way if he didn't get the job.) I think so too. But there's no reason he couldn't have cast it once he was out of Dumbledore's sight, as a _cover_ for the wand-twitch that he was worried he had noticed. It's a pretty big leap of Faith from "The sorting hat is not a horcrux" to "the sorting hat has not been messed with in any way whatsoever." Snow: > but thinking about it now, when > would Voldemort have had the chance to place the curse if it wasn't > then? Why should a curse on something as abstract as a job opening need to be cast at any particular time or place? I think it's quite clear that we're _intended to believe_ that is what's going on. It's quite a bit less clear whether it's actually true. From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 14:37:47 2006 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060912143747.603.qmail@web42208.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158191 zanooda wrote: >However, sometimes it feels like something is missing from the story >when it comes to studies. Take languages, for example. I always >thought it was strange that they don't teach Latin in Hogwarts, >considering that most incantations are based on Latin. But, if you >think about it, wizards have to know it, at least the ones who are >talented enough to invent spells. If not at school, where do they >learn it? Peg: I suspect subjects such as Latin and the three R's are folded into the regular Hogwarts curriculum -- to me, the long writing assignments the students have, along with being useful tools for the professors to teach and correct grammar and spelling, are evidence that the theory behind the spells is taught at Hogwarts, not just the spells themselves. I would think that, especially for charms and transfiguration classes, rudimentary Latin would be a part of that theory. And in order to be successful in potions and herbology, the students have to understand weights & measures, fractions, etc. The humanities stuff I have more of a problem reconciling, but not every student spends three nights a week practicing Quidditch. There could easily be extracurricular clubs or elective classes that deal with the arts. Harry as a "jock" might only be vaguely aware that there is a choral group at the school, just as I, as a "music geek" in high school, was only vaguely aware that there was a photography club in my school, and didn't know anyone who belonged to it (Colin Creevy, anyone?) My goal in life is to be as good of a person my dog already thinks I am. --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 15:27:11 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:27:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OoP clues? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40609120827o7249bdeeq17cbd49151c7d2fa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158192 > Abergoat writes: > > ... it continues to baffle me that so many readers aren't > bothered by the fact that Dumbledore, head of the highest wizarding > court of law, gave 'evidence' that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. > Dumbledore wouldn't use hearsay, wouldn't say "Sirius had been their > Secret Keeper" if he only knew of a plan and I seriously doubt the > Potters lied to Dumbledore that they had successfully made Sirius the > Secret Keeper (the only acceptable hearsay because they are dead). Kemper now: I don't recall that Dumbledore gave 'evidence' to the Wizengamot that condemned Sirius. I do recall that he gave 'evidence' that to pardon Snape. Will you site passages for me, so that I can look it up? I would like to re-read those sections. > Abergoat continues: > ... Peter seemed to have a fairly elaborate plan to > frame Sirius...and I think it started playing out with Peter using > Polyjuice to handout the secret. Kemper now: I don't think Peter had the wherewithall to frame Sirius. I think Peter believed Voldemort would be successful. The plan to frame Sirius occured only after Voldemort's failure. > Abergoat continues: > Which means it is quite possible Snape - given the secret at > Dumbledore's request because he was in a position to warn them the > fastest - overheard part of Voldemort's 'the moment of triumph is > near' speech and raced to tell the Potters their Secret was known. Kemper now: Snape wouldn't be able to find the Potter's unless Peter told him where they were... which I suppose would be easy for Snape to trick Peter into giving him that information. > Abergoat continues: > But James refused to believe and flattened him for suggesting his > friend was a traitor. > > If true, then Lily had to spend the precious few minutes James bought > her by hiding an unconscious Snape (freezing charm and invisibility > cloak anyone? Another front row seat to tragedy just like Harry?) > > Abergoat, who admits for this to work Lily must have had no idea that > Voldemort would kill Harry...and thinks her words in Harry's memory > support that. > Kemper now: Interesting theory. Can you give sitations again that list how Lily's words support it? Cause I'm finding it difficult to embrace and would like more documentation. Kemper, open to the idea that Snape was at the Potter's but not sure on the how he got there From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 15:49:57 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:49:57 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: <00e601c6d620$b45ba400$aa9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > zanooda: > > And what about Harry asking the Fat Lady "Quid agis?" OK, it may be >> a well-known expression, but still, do you see many teenage boys >> going > > around using Latin unless they were exposed to it somehow? > > Magpie: > I think I assumed "Quid agis" was the password and the joke was that she > could also tell him to go inside to find out...? > > -m > zanooda: Yeah, I understand that it was a little word game, sorry if I didn't make it clear. It's just that Harry says it "tentatively", which shows to me that he knows what this expression means. Maybe I'm wrong, of course. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 18:32:30 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:32:30 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158194 --- "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>bboyminn: > > OH MY GOD! Dumbledore annoyed the Dusleys, he should > > be shot! > > > > Betsy Hp: > Goodness, Steve, no one's suggesting shooting Dumbledore. > I'm merely expressing a bit of disappointment that he > released his anger (as understandable as that anger was) > in such a petty and childish fashion. I mean, let's keep > things in perspective. > bboyminn: Well, I'm going to assume you understand that statement as sarcasm. I understand that you didn't like the scene and that's OK; some do, some don't, that's life. But, as many people state their objections, they are inflaming the scene beyond reason. Some make it sound like Dumbledore is engages in this horrible and terrifying abuse of the Dursleys when in fact he merely annoyed them. For example, while Dumbledore forced the courtesy of inviting himself in, which by the way was a move as much for safety and security as it was for hospitality, he did not force his way in against the objections of Vernon. I don't recall Vernon objecting. Certainly he wasn't pleased to have Dumbledore there, but he never refused Dumbledore entry and he never told him to leave. Dumbledore is polite, never hostile or threatening, he greets Vernon, he greets Harry, he introduces himself, and certainly once he introduced himself and made them aware of who he was and why he was there, the most basic and minimal courtesy should have been observed. It's clear who he is and it is clear why he is there, from point on a reasonable, though terse and abrupt, level of courtesy could reasonably be expected by the Dursleys. Now, I understand that we all frequently over-emphasize a particular point simply to focus our point and comments on the subject in question, and I allow for that. But some comments are exaggeration in the extreme; beyond making a point and into the realm of rewriting the story. For example- Post #158187 by Marion Ros " ...than to offer tea to somebody who barged in when you told him to get out or to cuddle to your heart a child you did not want but were forced to accept..." Vernon never told Dumbledore to 'get out', and the Dursleys were not 'forced' to accept Harry. It is this kind of overstated hyperbole that creates such polarized discussions. No one objects to you or Marion not liking the scene, but we do object to such extreme overstatements. True it is clear that the Vernon is not pleased to have Dumbledore there, but there is no indication, that he is even remotely 'scared to death'. (which is a bit of my own hyperbole used to make exactly the counterpoint) Marion carries on in this vein - "They were forced, by Dumbledore, to accept Harry as their 'guest',..." "But they did not *choose* to take in the boy.(Harry)" 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, but until they refuse it, the obligation is theirs. Second, Dumbledore left a note explaining everything, until we read that note, which I hope we will do, we can't say what did or didn't happen when Harry was dropped on their doorstep. It's possible the note had instruction for what to do if they preferred not to take Harry. So, while they did so reluctantly, the Dursley DID indeed /choose/ to keep Harry in their care. But once having made the choice, didn't really extend a legally and socially acceptable level of 'care'. So, you and others are certainly free to not like this scene. This is especially true when you are expressing your gut feelings as you read the scene. Those of us arguing for Dumbledore can accept that. I know for my self, and I suspect for others, making Dumbledore case here, is not to counter your gut feeling, but to counter the extreme rhetoric we see. Feel free to not like Dumbledore here, but keep the conversation within the bounds of what actually occurred. In that context, my statement - "OH MY GOD! Dumbledore annoyed the Dusleys, he should be shot!" does make some sarcastic sense. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 19:08:15 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:08:15 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse/ OOP clues - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158195 bboyminn quoting Marion: >> Marion carries on in this vein - > > "They were forced, by Dumbledore, to accept Harry as > their 'guest',..." > > "But they did not *choose* to take in the boy.(Harry)" > bboyminn: > > 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, > but until they refuse it, the obligation is theirs. < HUGE SNIP> Alla: Steve, I want to stand up and give you big round of applauds for this post, in fact ITA with every word of it. But to make it not complete **me too** I want to add something - I would understand the POV of Dursleys not having the obligation much better if they were not the closest family Harry has, since they are **not** strangers to Harry, this argument does not work for me. bboyminn: I know for my > self, and I suspect for others, making Dumbledore case > here, is not to counter your gut feeling, but to counter > the extreme rhetoric we see. Feel free to not like > Dumbledore here, but keep the conversation within the > bounds of what actually occurred. Alla: YES, precisely. > In that context, my statement - > > "OH MY GOD! Dumbledore annoyed the Dusleys, he should > be shot!" > > does make some sarcastic sense. > > Steve/bboyminn > Alla: Well, suggestion was made to knife Dumbledore, no? Sounds like a plan to me to punish the headmaster :) > > Abergoat writes: > > > > ... it continues to baffle me that so many readers aren't > > bothered by the fact that Dumbledore, head of the highest wizarding > > court of law, gave 'evidence' that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. > Kemper now: > I don't recall that Dumbledore gave 'evidence' to the Wizengamot that > condemned Sirius. I do recall that he gave 'evidence' that to pardon > Snape. > Will you site passages for me, so that I can look it up? I would like > to re-read those sections. Alla: I will look up passages for you when I get home, but I am 99.99% sure that he indeed did it. Makes one wonder indeed and goes IMO to show how wrong Dumbledore can be and that he is not infallible and could be deceived in important matters JMO, Alla From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Tue Sep 12 19:28:37 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:28:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's 'evidence' (Was Re: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: <700201d40609120827o7249bdeeq17cbd49151c7d2fa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158196 Kemper wrote: > I don't recall that Dumbledore gave 'evidence' to the Wizengamot > that condemned Sirius. I do recall that he gave 'evidence' that > to pardon Snape. Will you site passages for me, so that I can look > it up? I would like to re-read those sections. Abergoat responds: Sure! Here it is. I don't know that he gave it to Wizengamot but to a man of the law (which Dumbledore is) the word 'evidence' is laden with meaning. PoA, page 422, Bloomsbury paperback edition "I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been the Potter's Secret-Keeper." Note the important words: evidence and 'had been'. Not 'was to be'. Dumbledore's evidence was not about a 'plan' to use Sirius. Kemper wrote: > I don't think Peter had the wherewithall to frame Sirius. I think > Peter believed Voldemort would be successful. The plan to frame > Sirius occured only after Voldemort's failure. Abergoat responds: That is a valid point I hadn't thought of - but I think Peter is a calculator. I think he always tries to have a foot in both boats if he possibly can. And I confess I'm not sure Peter didn't use Imperius to get Sirius and the Potters to switch to him. It would not have been hard, the Potters WANTED to trust him. He was a friend. But Dumbledore may have been suspicious about the change given he had been told James wanted to use Sirius. We know Imperius was in wide use at the time (fake Moody, GoF). Kemper wrote: > Snape wouldn't be able to find the Potter's unless Peter told him > where they were... which I suppose would be easy for Snape to trick > Peter into giving him that information. Abergoat responds: But we know from Dumbledore that Snape had 'rejoined' Dumbledore's side by this time. I don't think Snape tricked Peter, I think Dumbledore asked the Secret-Keeper (ployjuiced Peter) to GIVE the secret to Snape since Snape was a spy on Voldemort and therefore had the best chance of learning if Voldemort was looking for Sirius (the supposed Secret-Keeper). Dumbledore may have suggested it for SIRIUS's safety. By giving the secret to Snape there was no danger to the Potters - the secret cannot be given to Voldemort by Snape. Dumbledore would view it as a win/win situation. Dumbledore has someone in place to 1) warn Sirius if Voldemort started looking for him; 2) warn the Potters if Sirius was found. Kemper asked: > Can you give sitations again that list how Lily's words support it? Abergoat gives: I snatched this off the web: "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" "Stand aside, you silly girl...stand aside, now..." "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead--" "Not Harry! Please...have mercy...have mercy..." A shrill voice was laughing, the woman was screaming, and Harry knew no more. -POA, pg. 134 "Not Harry! Not Harry! Please -- I'll do anything--" "Stand aside -- stand aside, girl--" -pg. 177 Abergoat continues: I'll grant you it can be read either way (how JKR-like). The first line makes me think it came as a shock to Lily that Voldemort was going to kill Harry. And the 'have mercy' is suggestive of someone that thinks THEY are the one being punished and Harry is being killed to punish them. She says nothing about the prophecy, why isn't she trying to convince Voldemort it is meaningless? Or lying that her son wasn't born at the end of July? Or saying that Trelawney was just a destitute woman with a dramatic flair trying to get a job? I suspect she says nothing because she didn't know about the prophecy, Dumbledore didn't 'give it meaning' by telling her. Why? Perhaps Snape convinced Dumbledore that Voldemort didn't care about the prophecy and just thought they were the silly words of a woman desperate for a job? That would certainly compound Snape's guilt...and it is his greatest regret. Who really thinks that Voldemort would share his true feelings on the prophecy? Particularly with Snape? Abergoat, just guessing the same as everyone else. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 19:46:07 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:46:07 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158197 Ah, I see the embers of the discussions about the scene at the Dursley's. Even though I am a DD supporter, let me just add a few more coals to the fire. I have thought about the type of drink that he is offering them. And as someone wrote in a thread awhile back, "what is up with all of the alcohol in HBP". If I were Petunia or Vernon and had a health condition that prevented me from drinking alcohol what would DD have expected me to do? And he is giving alcohol to 2 minors. Now I don't blame DD for this thoughtlessness, I blame JKR. DD is a better man than that. The Dursleys could have just taken the drinks and held them. One does have to wonder, what is the significance of all of this alcohol? There must be something to it, I can't think that JKR would give alcohol to her own children or suggest that a teacher or headmaster of a boarding school give alcohol to the students. I mean if this scene were just about manners and hospitality, wouldn't he have just made a pot of tea? Could be herbal tea if they didn't want to have caffeine at midnight. Or even a spot of butterbeer, which doesn't seem to be alcoholic. Just seems a bit odd here. Maybe JKR just wasn't' thinking it all out in the detail that we do. Still I do wonder Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 20:45:58 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:45:58 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158198 > > zanooda: > > > And what about Harry asking the Fat Lady "Quid agis?" OK, it may be a well-known expression, but still, do you see many teenage boys going around using Latin unless they were exposed to it somehow? > > > > Magpie: > > I think I assumed "Quid agis" was the password and the joke was that she could also tell him to go inside to find out...? > > > zanooda: > > Yeah, I understand that it was a little word game, sorry if I didn't make it clear. It's just that Harry says it "tentatively", which shows to me that he knows what this expression means. Maybe I'm wrong, of course. > Tonks: OK, I will show that I have no class or 'culture'. What does it mean?? I just assumed it was a take off on Quidditch. Tonks_op From random832 at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 20:37:50 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:37:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609121337h7a660f3bra251939d431dce4f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158199 On 9/12/06, Steve wrote: > For example, while Dumbledore forced the courtesy of > inviting himself in, which by the way was a move as much > for safety and security as it was for hospitality, he did > not force his way in against the objections of Vernon. I > don't recall Vernon objecting. Some readers interpreted the scene with the perception that he had used a wandless/wordless silencing charm. > Post #158187 by Marion Ros > > " ...than to offer tea to somebody who barged in when you > told him to get out or to cuddle to your heart a child you > did not want but were forced to accept..." > > Vernon never told Dumbledore to 'get out', and the > Dursleys were not 'forced' to accept Harry. It is this > kind of overstated hyperbole that creates such polarized > discussions. No one objects to you or Marion not liking > the scene, but we do object to such extreme > overstatements. > > True it is clear that the Vernon is not pleased to have > Dumbledore there, but there is no indication, that he is > even remotely 'scared to death'. (which is a bit of my > own hyperbole used to make exactly the counterpoint) > > Marion carries on in this vein - > > "They were forced, by Dumbledore, to accept Harry as > their 'guest',..." > > "But they did not *choose* to take in the boy.(Harry)" > > 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, It's not clear where this "legal obligation" comes from, particularly if one uses the quite reasonable (and relevant, since it's likely the Dursleys share it) view that the MoM/wizengamot/etc's "laws", at least in as much as they create any obligation in any muggles, are rather extralegal in character. If you mean they were named as Harry's guardians in any sense other than in the imagination of the WW, there's no evidence of that - it seems much more likely that DD formed the idea of leaving him with Petunia after discovering the nature of the charm that Lily used to protect him than that James or Lily would have appointed the Dursleys to be Harry's guardians. > but until they refuse it, the obligation is theirs. There's no evidence either way for whether they were offered the option to refuse. We've seen no evidence otherwise of any wizard offering any muggle the option to refuse anything, from hogwarts attendance to obliviation, so it doesn't seem likely this is an exception. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 20:50:57 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:50:57 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158200 > > 6) Do you find Dumbledore being manipulative here, playing on > Harry's healthy sense of guilt? Or is he genuinely seeking Harry's > opinion for some reason? > > Carol responds: > Manipulative by stating that he values Harry's opinion? i don't think > so. He's already received Harry's promise to get the memory. I do > think he wants Harry to be attentive, though, and stating that he > values Harry's opinion is a good way to motivate him to pay attention > so that he can give sensible answers. But also, he's treating Harry > with respect, and I think that Harry senses and appreciates that. DD > is moving him gently forward to the point where he'll have to think > for himself. The more practice he gets while DD is still around, the > better. a_svirn: It's not like being manipulative is incompatible with showing that he values Harry's opinion. In fact, as manipulation techniques go, this one is the most common. First flattery, *you are special, Harry. You are unique. You don't even understand how special, how wonderful you are*. Then establishing a special exclusive trust relationship, *I love you, Harry, I always have, I've watched you from afar, made plans for you. My heart bleeds for you, I'd sacrifice myself to spare you pain; I was ready to sacrifice other people to prolong your innocence, if only for couple of months*. And finally, a classic guilt trip: *it's only this one thing I've ever asked from you. Was that too much to ask?* But that not what bothers me most about this situation. What really, really disturbs me is that I quite frankly do not understand what he manipulates Harry to do. He obviously uses his influence on Harry to use Harry's influence on Slughorn to get that memory. The glitch is that Harry's influence is based on the fact that Slughorn himself is not averse to using Harry. So here is Slughorn, a user extraordinaire, a man who operates a whole favour-trading network, and he's got Harry on the top of his list of people to be used. He even came out of hiding and risked Voldemort's disfavour in hope to use Harry in some way. Something tells me that it wasn't crystallized pineapples he was after. And here is Headmaster Dumbledore telling Harry basically "do what you must and spare me the details, but get me that memory. I don't care how you'll do it as long as you do it" (and he didn't ask any questions too when Harry finally pulled it off). In the end it turned out to be a piece of cake for Harry ? what with a little help of the lucky potion. Yet Dumbledore could not have possibly anticipated that, so just *what* he was asking of Harry? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 20:56:37 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:56:37 -0000 Subject: DD & the Dursleys: Alcohol (was: Better Manners...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158201 --- "Tonks" wrote: > > ... > > I have thought about the type of drink that he is > offering them. And as someone wrote in a thread awhile > back, "what is up with all of the alcohol in HBP". > ...edited... One does have to wonder, what is the > significance of all of this alcohol? There must be > something to it, I can't think that JKR would give > alcohol to her own children or suggest that a teacher > or headmaster of a boarding school give alcohol to the > students. ... Still I do wonder > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: We have several 'Brits' in the group and I'm sure they can give better answers than I can, but I think that age 16 in the UK is roughly the age when society feels it is appropriate to give a teen alcohol under /limited/ circumstance. Let me emphasize the 'limited circumstances' aspect. These would include family dinners and other supervised social occassions. Wouldn't want you to think it was a free-for-all at age 16. I recall when the young Hero of the 'Narnia' movie (Lion, Witch, Wardrobe), who I think might be William Moseley, was on a late night talk show. I'm not sure if he is from England or Australia, nor am I sure whether he went to a day school or a boarding school, but his secondary (high) school had a PUB (tavern/bar) on the school grounds that served alcohol to students who were age 16 and older. Most likely it was limited to beer and ale, but none the less that is a pretty progressive attitude towards alcohol. And to some extent, I think it reflects the overal attitude of Europe in general. The idea behind it is that you bring your kids to drinking is a slow and safe manner. That you help them establish a responsible and measure attitude toward drink. Unfortunately, here in the USA, adults don't teach kids how to drink responsibly. Instead KIDS teach kids how to drink very irresponsibly. I've heard rumors of American teens and twenties going to Europe and their European counterparts being appalled at the American 'drink until your nearly dead' attitude. Hopefully some of our resident Brits will put this into a little better prespective. Relative to you question, I think JKR is reflecting something that is pretty typical of Europe. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Sep 12 21:18:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:18:36 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HBP20,_Lord_Voldemort=92s_Request?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158202 > a_svirn: > It's not like being manipulative is incompatible with showing that > he values Harry's opinion. In fact, as manipulation techniques go, > this one is the most common. [snip] ...And here is Headmaster > Dumbledore telling Harry basically "do what you must and spare me > the details, but get me that memory. I don't care how you'll do it > as long as you do it" (and he didn't ask any questions too when > Harry finally pulled it off). In the end it turned out to be a piece > of cake for Harry ? what with a little help of the lucky potion. Yet > Dumbledore could not have possibly anticipated that, so just *what* > he was asking of Harry? Magpie: That was more my take on the scene. I thought Dumbledore was being completely manipulative throughout all those Pensieve scenes and it was working like a charm--which is not the same as saying he was necessarily lying about his basic feelings. The odder thing for me was also that it all seemed to have much more value besides getting Harry to do what he said and giving JKR a way to kill time before the climax. It seemed like Dumbledore could have got the whole thing quicker just talking to Slughorn in the right way, and that all the focus on how important this memory was and how important it was for Harry to get it from him himself didn't exactly pay off. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 21:16:53 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:16:53 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609121337h7a660f3bra251939d431dce4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158204 Steve: > > but until they refuse it, the obligation is theirs. Jordan Abel: > There's no evidence either way for whether they were offered the > option to refuse. We've seen no evidence otherwise of any wizard > offering any muggle the option to refuse anything, from hogwarts > attendance to obliviation, so it doesn't seem likely this is an > exception. Alla: Well, this is true - that there is no evidence either way whether Dursleys were offered the option to refuse or not. That is why reading that note would be cool. :) There **is** though rather strong hint IMO ( grudgingly she took you in - paraphrase) that Dursleys made their choice, not forced. But IMO there is plentiful evidence of Dumbledore never forcing people to make choices, but sort of stepping back ( where I would prefer him no to) and allowing people to make their own choices. Therefore IMO it is more likely than not that Dursleys were not an exception to that Dumbledore mode operandi ( spelling?) JMO, Alla. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 21:27:54 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:27:54 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609121337h7a660f3bra251939d431dce4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158205 --- "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > 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, > Jordan: > > It's not clear where this "legal obligation" comes > from, particularly if one uses the quite reasonable... > view that the MoM/wizengamot/etc's "laws", at least in > as much as they create any obligation in any muggles, > are rather extralegal in character. If you mean they > were named as Harry's guardians in any sense other than > in the imagination of the WW, there's no evidence of > that - ... bboyminn: Note I never said 'law', I said 'obligation', and I meant normal muggle social and legal obligation. They are Harry's nearest and only living relatives, therefore by normal muggle convention, both social and legal, they have the 'right of first refusal'. In otherwords, they are number one on the list of possible guardians whether they were formally named guardian or not. If fact, we know that Sirius was specifically named Harry's guardian. But Sirius being named guardian doesn't erase the Dursley's rights and obligations. If they chose the Dursleys could legally contest Sirius as the assigned guardian which I'm sure they would have been tempted to do if they knew there was a huge vault of gold involved. No matter how you slice it and dice it, whether in the wizard or muggle world, the Dursley have legal rights and obligations that they can chose to accept and enforce, and equally chose to reject, but the must make a choice. As it was, Sirius did the worst possible thing relative to Harry, he got himself arrested, which took him out of the running for guardian. That left /only/ the Dursley with a social and legal /obligation/ towards Harry. It seems logical that Dumbledore would have considered that the Dursley would not take Harry, equally reasonably, he must have had a back-up plan. Further, it makes more sense for Dumbledore to allow the Dursleys a choice. I will point out that the 'choice' in the matter seems important. It is possible the Protective Charm would not have worked if he had /forced/ the Dusleys into an agreement. I believe that Dumbledore said that by choosing to take Harry, Petunia sealed Dumbledore's protective charm. All the other things you speculated while fair speculations I don't think are /likely/ interpretations of canon. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Sep 12 21:28:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:28:05 -0000 Subject: DD & the Dursleys: Alcohol (was: Better Manners...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158206 > bboyminn: > The idea behind it is that you bring your kids to > drinking is a slow and safe manner. That you help them > establish a responsible and measure attitude toward > drink. Unfortunately, here in the USA, adults don't > teach kids how to drink responsibly. Instead KIDS teach > kids how to drink very irresponsibly. > > I've heard rumors of American teens and twenties going to > Europe and their European counterparts being appalled at > the American 'drink until your nearly dead' attitude. Magpie: Not to speak in generalizations one way or another, but to stick up for the Americans, "drink until you're nearly dead" isn't completely unheard of amongst UK and Irish teens--I mean, different kids are different, but it happens. One thing that could also contribute to the perception is that I believe a lot of American beer is less alcoholic. So a kid who might usually drink a beer or two goes out for a pint of two and doesn't know what hit her.:-) I certainly don't remember a lack of drinking to excess when I was at school in England. Though I do agree with you on the attitude about drinking. In the US there's often a big difference depending on ethnicity (as I'm sure is true in other places too). Cultures that are okay with controlled drinking at a young age but frown on drunkenness tend to have a lower incidence of alcholism than cultures that keep drinking forbidden and outside the home. In HP, it seems the kids have been drinking pretty openly since they were at least 11, since I believe Butter Beer does have some alcohol content; it's just low enough that it's not getting them drunk. Fire whiskey seems to be more associated with heavy drinking. At the same time, the kids' attitude isn't particularly sophisticated. I seem to recall Ron wanting to order Fire whiskey in the Hog's Head and Hermione scolding him about being a Prefect, which sounded to me like Ron was the kid who wanted to do something daring because he had the chance and Hermione was being a goody-two-shoes. I'd say given the adult examples we see wizard attitude towards drinking is definitely the unhealthier sort. Look at the maudlin drunkenness in response to bad luck with Hagrid, Trelawney (who sticks to cooking sherry for some odd reason), Rita Skeeter. Mundungus also gets drunk (which Ginny finds amusing) and Sirius' smelling like alcohol doesn't seem like a good sign in OotP. Harry intentionally gets Hagrid and Slughorn good and sloppy drunk. Personally I was surprised to see that wands could produce wine in GoF--surprised the kids aren't drunk all the time if they can just produce it at will! I think all the drinking in HBP is a great nod to the water nature of Slytherin--the book's sopping with all sorts of liquids all the time. If people aren't drinking they're crying, bleeding, dipping into Pensieves, going to bathrooms, trying Potions, floating in boats... -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 21:49:03 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:49:03 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158207 > >>bboyminn: > > OH MY GOD! Dumbledore annoyed the Dusleys, he should > > be shot! > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Goodness, Steve, no one's suggesting shooting Dumbledore. > > I'm merely expressing a bit of disappointment that he > > released his anger (as understandable as that anger was) > > in such a petty and childish fashion. I mean, let's keep > > things in perspective. > >>bboyminn: > Well, I'm going to assume you understand that statement > as sarcasm. I understand that you didn't like the scene > and that's OK; some do, some don't, that's life. Betsy Hp: You are correct, sir. Hence my . I was cleverly (IMO), and with devilish glee, turning your own words against you. (I was especially proud of the keeping things in perspective bit.) And I was doing so with tongue firmly in cheek. It was all meant in good fun. (It might help to picture me giggling like a maniac as I typed my reply. ) > >>bboyminn: > But, as many people state their objections, they are inflaming the > scene beyond reason. Betsy Hp: At that time in the discussion I don't think they had. Though, since you and I are veterans of wars past, I think we both realized it was only a matter of time before hyperbole took it's honored place. I was just thrilled that the other "side" was the first to introduce it this time around. (At least, that's how I recalled it happening - I could well be wrong being somewhat less sensitive to hyperbole used by my "side".) > >>bboyminn: > Some make it sound like Dumbledore is engages in this horrible and > terrifying abuse of the Dursleys when in fact he merely > annoyed them. > > Dumbledore is polite, never hostile or threatening, he > greets Vernon, he greets Harry, he introduces himself, > and certainly once he introduced himself and made them > aware of who he was and why he was there, the most basic > and minimal courtesy should have been observed. > Betsy Hp: (with a more serious hat on at this time) I think there are two things going on in this scene, which is why poster's points of view can become confusing. We have the Dursleys' actions, and we have Dumbledore's actions. I don't think anyone has argued that the Dursleys behave well. (When do they ever?) Certainly they exhibit no grace under pressure. And frankly, I'm not sure they exhibit grace when under no pressure at all. Emily Post would not be pleased. But I don't think she'd be all that pleased with Dumbledore either. If we're talking simple rules of etiquette, Dumbledore may have been pleasant, but he wasn't polite. And I think that was okay. He's in a difficult situation dealing with difficult people. He started off fairly pleasant and seemed to be dealing with the difficult issues as well and as graciously as he could have, IMO. However, he chose to bring magic into the picture. And he used it against the Muggles in that home. All of them. Including the child he identifies as having been abused. True, he's not swelling organs, or sending them into near fatal depression. But he's using magic. In a manner designed to make the Muggles uncomfortable. I find little to praise in it. And it shifts my sympathies to the Muggles, as badly behaved as they are. I *do* think Dumbledore was both hostile and threatening. Just, in a very low key sort of way. He uses his magic to put the Dursleys (including the child he's labeled as abused) in a place he wants them to be. That's an intimidation technique. I think too highly of Dumbledore's intelligence to think him stupid enough to not get that. I think Dumbledore does this on purpose. He's angry at the Dursleys, he's dying (I think), and this is all he can do. Is it human? Sure. Is it well behaved? No. Could Dumbledore have done better? Of course. One need only look to the Tower to see Dumbledore at his most powerful and (not surprisingly) most gracious. This was Dumbledore at a weak moment, I think. And the cracks showed. Betsy Hp From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 21:58:18 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:58:18 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > > I think I assumed "Quid agis" was the password and the joke was > > > that she could also tell him to go inside to find out...? > Tonks: > > OK, I will show that I have no class or 'culture'. What does it > mean?? I just assumed it was a take off on Quidditch. In Latin "quid agis" is a greeting, something like "How are you", "How are you doing", "What's up" etc. I really liked that you connected it to Quidditch though, I never even noticed that the words are so similar! I also think that people can "have culture" without knowing some stupid Latin expression. I used to be a French teacher, and when you study French seriously, you have to learn Latin too, because it serves as a foundation for French. That's why I still remember some of it. Oops, I'm afraid this message is very much off-topic, sorry! Cheers, zanooda From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 22:05:59 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:05:59 -0000 Subject: Transfiguration question/ Was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158209 This is probably not a very logical switch from the previous thread, but, since we are discussing Hogwarts' curriculum, I just cannot miss the opportunity to ask about something that is bugging me. At the beginning of the "Sectumsempra" chapter kids are supposed to turn vinegar into wine at their Charms lesson. This scene confuses me, because I always assumed that it was Transfiguration where they learn how to turn something into something else. Please, if someone remembers whether it was discussed before, or just knows the answer, I would appreciate any idea. I think I need just a nudge to understand it. I had hard time accepting that Vanishing and Conjuring belong in Transfiguration, but after thinking it over really well I kind of saw the light. As for this vinegar/wine transformation, I just don't get it! I don't know much about natural sciences (or magic, at that). Please help! From littleleah at handbag.com Tue Sep 12 22:15:35 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:15:35 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Ah, I see the embers of the discussions about the scene at the > Dursley's. Even though I am a DD supporter, let me just add a few > more coals to the fire. > > I have thought about the type of drink that he is offering them. > And as someone wrote in a thread awhile back, "what is up with all > of the alcohol in HBP". If I were Petunia or Vernon and had a > health condition that prevented me from drinking alcohol what would > DD have expected me to do? And he is giving alcohol to 2 minors. > Now I don't blame DD for this thoughtlessness, I blame JKR. DD is a > better man than that. > > The Dursleys could have just taken the drinks and held them. One > does have to wonder, what is the significance of all of this > alcohol? There must be something to it, I can't think that JKR > would give alcohol to her own children or suggest that a teacher or > headmaster of a boarding school give alcohol to the students. I > mean if this scene were just about manners and hospitality, wouldn't > he have just made a pot of tea? Could be herbal tea if they didn't > want to have caffeine at midnight. Or even a spot of butterbeer, > which doesn't seem to be alcoholic. Just seems a bit odd here. > Maybe JKR just wasn't' thinking it all out in the detail that we > do. Still I do wonder > > Tonks_op Leah: Dumbledore is offering mead, which is fermented honey. Since Dumbledore's name means bumblebee, I wonder if there is meant to be some connection there. Mead was historically considered a drink which helped promote long life and vitality, and was made in a number of monasteries in Britain. So it's not as if DD is offering absinthe. It's also very sweet which would mean you wouldn't want a lot of it- a whiskey sort of glass, I imagine. Later Draco attempts to poison DD with this same mead, which Slughorn keeps to himself, so it's clearly a popular drink in the WW. I think what we are seeing here is a 'proper' use of alcohol as part of a ritual of hospitality. Interestingly this is also as we see it at Spinners End. There is meant to be a contrast, I think, between that usage and the 'improper' use by Trelawney. Hagrid and Slughorn at the wake come somewhere in between IMO. As to English usage, DD is calling in the evening, and I would certainly expected to be offered and to offer alcohol on such an occasion as the first choice drink unless there were obvious reasons why this would be unacceptable eg religious. Tea is for the daytime as far as I'm concerned. It never occured to me to be surprised that 17 year olds were being offered alcohol in the home; this would I think be considered quite acceptable. The legal rule is that a person must be 18 to purchase alcohol in a licenced establishment such as a pub. However, younger teenagers (think over 14 but it might be 16) can drink alcohol with a meal on licensed premises if accompanied by an adult. In the home, children of 5 or over can be given alcohol, so DD is doing nothing illegal. We gave our children very watered down wine with meals from about 6 onwards, and they were probably drinking a normal glass at about 15/16 with a meal. They didn't have drinks (in the home at least) at other times. The idea is to introduce alcohol as a normal part of life not something to binge on. This is not to say that binge drinking does not occur in the UK- it is quite a problem, as is under-age drinking. This tends to be consumption of beer or alco-pop type drinks outside the home. Leah From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 22:26:26 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:26:26 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158211 > bboyminn: > > Note I never said 'law', I said 'obligation', and I meant > normal muggle social and legal obligation. a_svirn: What is the difference between `law' and `legal obligation'? I guess if the obligation is legal it must be falling within the province of law, mustn't it? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 22:38:29 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:38:29 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158212 > >>Ken: > > It would take forever to describe how my relatively small formal > humanities education has enhanced my personal and professional > life. My basic childhood education gave me the itch to learn more > as an adult. That itch must be implanted at Hogwarts. > That is why the young wizards and witches at Hogwarts are in no > less need of a cultural education. The Muggleborn need to know > about the culture they are entering. Those who've been in the WW > from birth need to understand the Muggle culture they hide from. > Our heritage is their heritage. Aristotle enlightens them as much > as us. Betsy Hp: I've loved every single thing you've written, Ken. And I agree with it totally. As a total Humanities girl, I feel I should also point out how important my exposure to the Sciences were. Each discipline introduces you to a different way of thinking, of problem solving. It's cool to dive into one particular discipline, but I think it's important to have some sort of exposure to as many disciplines as possible. Hogwarts, unfortunately, concentrates pretty solely on the pragmatic. Which has its place, of course. But it cannot replace the Humanities. Or the Sciences for that matter. (Harry doesn't take a single math type class. That's just as horrifying as the lack of literature, art and music, IMO.) I wonder if it has to do with when the WW went into hiding. Did they hide before the Renaissance? It would go along way towards explaining the darkness of their world. > >>Ken: > Some aruge that the WW is too small to make a large cultural > contribution, does that not argue all the more for embracing the > common human cultural heritage? > Betsy Hp: Exactly. That's the saddest thing, to my mind. That these solid English families have no idea about Shakespeare, for example. Have no clue about the many contributions their nation has made to the world. And they don't have the equivilant. (Honestly, how could they?) Certainly, *they* don't know what they're missing, but it makes me sad for them. > >>Ken: > I reject the arguments that Hogwarts teaches these things and we > just don't see it. Come on, we've seen Minerva go over Harry's > schedule exhaustively several times, we've seen his OWL's, we've > heard him moan and groan about every class he's had to take and we > have never seen any sign of a humanities class anywhere. > Betsy Hp: Obviously there are limits when one is world building. You can't include *everything*. But JKR could have given hints. Mention a glee club, have Dean excited about his art class. It would only take a sentence or two to hint to a broader cultural world within the WW. JKR doesn't do it. Personally, I'll bet that some wizards (the braver sort) do wander into concert halls and Muggle museums. (I think JKR does hint about that.) It's just too bad that they don't see this sort of thing as important enough to share with their children. > >>Ken: > They can't *all* marry Hermione Granger. > Betsy Hp: Except, Hermione is frozen at an eleven year old's level. Well, knowing Hermione, maybe a fifteen year old's level. She's been busy studying magical stuff and doing her best to ignore (it appears) the Muggle world. It makes sense, this is her world now, and it's all very new and fascinating. But it comes at a high cost. Hermione will not be able to go home again. Her Muggle relatives will think her sadly uneducated, and her cultural knowledge will be badly (especially for Hermione) limited. Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 22:53:30 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:53:30 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158213 > Betsy Hp: > I wonder if it has to do with when the WW went into hiding. Did > they hide before the Renaissance? It would go along way towards > explaining the darkness of their world. > Exactly. That's the saddest thing, to my mind. That these solid > English families have no idea about Shakespeare, for example. Have > no clue about the many contributions their nation has made to the > world. And they don't have the equivilant. (Honestly, how could > they?) Certainly, *they* don't know what they're missing, but it > makes me sad for them. a_svirn: Well, the stature of secrecy is 1696 or something, a century after Shakespeare. So why wouldn't they know about him? Wizards and muggles had a shared culture at the time. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 23:07:15 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:07:15 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158214 > >>a_svirn: > Well, the stature of secrecy is 1696 or something, a century after > Shakespeare. So why wouldn't they know about him? Wizards and > muggles had a shared culture at the time. Betsy Hp: Oh, for some reason I had the 1200's in mind. (Is that when Hogwarts was founded?) So yeah, you're right they don't have any reason to *not* know about Shakespeare. Obviously Hogwarts doesn't teach him (or any other form of literature) but I suppose they might get him at home. That also means the WW went into hiding well into the Renaissance. I wonder what the Hogwarts curriculum was like at the time? Was more covered? Has generations of warfare taken their toll? Betsy Hp From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Sep 12 23:51:00 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:51:00 +0200 Subject: Harry as Murderer? References: Message-ID: <010a01c6d6c6$4ddcea30$14b2a8c0@milesh5pt62nnd> No: HPFGUIDX 158215 > Miles wrote: > >> And I'm quite sure, that she will not make her hero Harry doing >> something so important she herself thinks is wrong in terms of >> ethics. > > Harry knows that, according > to this, one of them must die at the others hand. Miles: Now, the prophecy tells that "one must die at the hand of the other" and that the boy can "vanquish" Lord Voldemort. It does NOT say "the boy will kill him". Both could be interpreteted like that, but something quite different can happen without contradicting the exact words of the prophecy. I think it's important that the prophecy is not clear. JKR herself stated, that the exact phrases are very important. > Yes, I can see about fifty ways that the following plot might flip, > but > for now, Harry believes his quest is this -- > > "... and then I've got to go after the seventh bit of Voldemort's > soul, > the bit that's still in his body, and I'm the one that's going to kill > him." HBP 651 US HB Miles: And as we perfectly well know, Harry quite often fails when he believes something important. If he will again, it would not be a surprising twist of the plot. Miles From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 13 00:00:29 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:00:29 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158216 Betsy HP: > But I don't think she'd be all that pleased with Dumbledore either. > If we're talking simple rules of etiquette, Dumbledore may have been > pleasant, but he wasn't polite. Pippin: This is not a social situation. Dumbledore is there acting as the executor of Sirius's estate. He also has some sort of ongoing business with Petunia which she has apparently concealed from the rest of her household. JKR has told us that 'remember my last' means there were earlier letters. In other words, DD is not there as a social equal, he is there to negotiate and he knows the Dursleys respect only strength. He is not obligated to be polite, IMO, and he acknowledges that he isn't. He admits he is tresspassing on the Dursley's hospitality and he apologizes for the wineglass thing. He is, perhaps, being hostile and threatening for the same reason that, IMO, he allows Snape to be hostile and threatening -- because there are threatening wizards out there and the Dursleys, like the children at Hogwarts, need to be reminded that outside their fortress, it's going to be getting dark. Betsy HP > However, he chose to bring magic into the picture. And he used it > against the Muggles in that home. All of them. Including the child > he identifies as having been abused. True, he's not swelling > organs, or sending them into near fatal depression. But he's using > magic. In a manner designed to make the Muggles uncomfortable. I > find little to praise in it. And it shifts my sympathies to the > Muggles, as badly behaved as they are. Pippin: I believe Dumbledore thinks Dudley has been abused in that, among other things, Dudley has never been taught that there are more important things than his personal comfort. Harry, in that situation, would be thinking of how he could protect those he loves. Dudley thinks only of himself. I can't really judge whether this was a weak moment, equivalent to when he kicked Barty Jr over on his back, because until we know what Dumbledore was doing during the ten minutes he and the Dursleys were alone, we don't really know the purpose of his visit. Pippin From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Sep 12 23:53:01 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:53:01 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158217 > Hogwarts, unfortunately, concentrates pretty solely on the > pragmatic. Which has its place, of course. But it cannot replace > the Humanities. Or the Sciences for that matter. (Harry doesn't > take a single math type class. That's just as horrifying as the > lack of literature, art and music, IMO.) Quick_Silver: I agree that Hogwart's focus on the pragmatic is unfortunate (to me the biggest failing is the joke that's called History of Magic). The Sciences are an interesting topic however especially since JK and Hermione stated that technology specifically computers, radar, and (correct me if I'm wrong) electricity don't work around heavy concentrations of magic (like Hogwarts). So I don't think that the Sciences have the same "cross-over" value as the Humanities (Human is right there in the name!) or Math (which I agree the wizards suffer a lack of maybe JK too) or History for that matter. > I wonder if it has to do with when the WW went into hiding. Did > they hide before the Renaissance? It would go along way towards > explaining the darkness of their world. Quick_Silver: I got the impression from Quidditch though the Ages that the wizarding retreat was more gradual then a schism. A lot people seem to have this view that the Statue of Secrecy was a huge change forcing massive social changes on wizarding society but the impression I got was that it was simply the formal declaration of something that appears to have been ongoing for at least three hundred years. > > >>Ken: > > Some aruge that the WW is too small to make a large cultural > > contribution, does that not argue all the more for embracing the > > common human cultural heritage? > > > > Betsy Hp: > Exactly. That's the saddest thing, to my mind. That these solid > English families have no idea about Shakespeare, for example. Have > no clue about the many contributions their nation has made to the > world. And they don't have the equivilant. (Honestly, how could > they?) Certainly, *they* don't know what they're missing, but it > makes me sad for them. Quick_Silver: But doesn't that become Patronizing to their culture? I mean you speak of the contribution that "their" nation has made to the world but they would argue that muggle England has made many contributions to the muggle world. This seems like a "cultural" minefield for me because it seem to me that you're saying that Hogwarts should basically be teaching the wizards something that will help them be assimilated into the muggle world. > Personally, I'll bet that some wizards (the braver sort) do wander > into concert halls and Muggle museums. (I think JKR does hint about > that.) It's just too bad that they don't see this sort of thing as > important enough to share with their children. Quick_Silver: Actually I find this interesting because it means that the "muggle-cultured" wizard will be one with the daring and effort. And they'll do it on there own time and because they want to not because it's a school course. Which really isn't all that bad in my mind exploring on one's own will is always more rewarding (at least in my opinion). I've learned more history reading books for pleasure and on my own time then I ever did at school. I'm pretty sure that Dumbledore likes concert hall and tin pin bowling (isn't that on his chocolate frog card?) those hardly seem like wizarding activities maybe he's the one you're thinking of? > Betsy Hp: > Except, Hermione is frozen at an eleven year old's level. Well, > knowing Hermione, maybe a fifteen year old's level. She's been busy > studying magical stuff and doing her best to ignore (it appears) the > Muggle world. It makes sense, this is her world now, and it's all > very new and fascinating. But it comes at a high cost. Hermione > will not be able to go home again. Her Muggle relatives will think > her sadly uneducated, and her cultural knowledge will be badly > (especially for Hermione) limited. Quick_Silver: But that's totally subjective her muggle relatives will be thought sadly uneducated by her and they'll be culturally limited in her view (them having never seen the Quidditch world cup or heard the name of the boy who lived). Quick_Silver From random832 at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 01:02:00 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:02:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as Murderer? In-Reply-To: <010a01c6d6c6$4ddcea30$14b2a8c0@milesh5pt62nnd> References: <010a01c6d6c6$4ddcea30$14b2a8c0@milesh5pt62nnd> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609121802i5d973b25ibea2f4673685d5e6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158218 > Miles: > Now, the prophecy tells that "one must die at the hand of the other" and > that the boy can "vanquish" Lord Voldemort. It does NOT say "the boy will > kill him". Both could be interpreteted like that, but something quite > different can happen without contradicting the exact words of the prophecy. > I think it's important that the prophecy is not clear. JKR herself stated, > that the exact phrases are very important. Most theories around unusual interpretations in the wording center around there being a third party called "the other" (I've heard it as Pettigrew - which adds a couple possible new meanings to "the hand of the other" as well.) Any thoughts? -- Random832 From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Sep 13 01:16:44 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:16:44 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD & the Dursleys: Alcohol (was: Better Manners...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4507E89C.24813.90767F@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 158219 On 12 Sep 2006 at 20:56, Steve wrote: > I recall when the young Hero of the 'Narnia' movie (Lion, > Witch, Wardrobe), who I think might be William Moseley, > was on a late night talk show. I'm not sure if he is from > England or Australia, nor am I sure whether he went to a > day school or a boarding school, but his secondary (high) > school had a PUB (tavern/bar) on the school grounds that > served alcohol to students who were age 16 and older. > Most likely it was limited to beer and ale, but none the > less that is a pretty progressive attitude towards > alcohol. And to some extent, I think it reflects the > overal attitude of Europe in general. I'm not sure it's progressive - rather it's often an old fashioned attitude. A small number of the older British Public Schools (and possibly one or two of the younger ones) have such a pub connected to the school for historical and traditional reasons - up until the 19th Century, it was common for young people to drink beer and ale for a number of reasons, not least of which that it was often safer - boarding schools especially worried about cholera in their water supply. I'm not British, but I did attend an Australian school run on very traditional British lines, and I can certainly confirm being given alcohol by my Headmaster and other staff members once I was sixteen. The idea was to teach us to drink responsibly under supervision - we learned how our bodies reacted to alcohol, how much we could drink safely, and we also learned the social skills associated with alcohol in our society. We certainly were *not* allowed to get anywhere near drunk, and the illicit drinking of alcohol was regarded as very serious misbehaviour - but in the presence of, and with the approval of, a responsible adult, it was fine. Dumbledore lets Harry partake of a social drink - that is, in no way, a big deal. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 01:19:09 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:19:09 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158220 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>a_svirn: > > Well, the stature of secrecy is 1696 or something, a century after > > Shakespeare. So why wouldn't they know about him? Wizards and > > muggles had a shared culture at the time. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, for some reason I had the 1200's in mind. (Is that when Hogwarts > was founded?) So yeah, you're right they don't have any reason to > *not* know about Shakespeare. Obviously Hogwarts doesn't teach him > (or any other form of literature) but I suppose they might get him at > home. > > That also means the WW went into hiding well into the Renaissance. I > wonder what the Hogwarts curriculum was like at the time? Was more > covered? Has generations of warfare taken their toll? > > Betsy Hp > Carol responds: The Statute of Secrecy was enforced in 1692, a year which I, at least, associate with the Salem Witch Trials, but I'm not going to go into that again! But if we consider what was actually taught in British schools at the time, we can be pretty sure that the curriculum didn't contain any works by Shakespeare. In Shakespeare's own time, his plays were the equivalent of popular culture, while his "sugared sonnets" were either circulated privately among his friends or commissioned by wealthy patrons. (They were written around 1595-99 and first published in 1609, but not taught in English schools until much later.) In fact, until the mid-nineteenth century, the curriculum of British public schools such as Eton consisted of the Seven Liberal Arts. The Trivium (set of three studies) included grammar, rhetoric, and logic. The Quadrivium (set of four studies) included arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. English was not taught. The only languages were Latin and Greek. (Later, parents with enough money could pay extra to have their sons taught French or natural philosophy, i.e., science.) Hogwarts would, of course, predate Eton by some six centuries, but the liberal arts curriculum was established by Alcuin of York in the eighth century. Now, granted, this liberal studies curriculum does seem to be an improvement over what's taught at Hogwarts, but it's classically based and ignores the contributions to civilization of the students' own country. Neither British literature nor British history would have been taught in English public schools from the time of the founding of Hogwarts until the Statute of Secrecy. Boys (and girls taught at home) would perhaps have learned Latin and arithmetic before coming to Hogwarts, either at home or in Muggle schools. I think that the Hogwarts teachers that we see count on the parents of non-Muggleborns to teach their children the tattered remnants of the liberal arts curriculum as prerequisites for their Hogwarts classes: reading, English grammar and spelling, the basics of essay writing, and at least elementary arithmetic (making change, measuring, the simple calculations required in Divination). Since we're speculating here, pretending that the WW is real and has its own history, we can guess that the original Hogwarts curriculum was adapted from the liberal arts curriculum and included both Latin and astronomy. Maybe arithmetic and similar skills were taught as part of Muggle studies, especially before the WW adopted its own monetary system and it was necessary for many wizards to pass as Muggles or at least live in that world. Once the Statute of Secrecy was passed, the curriculum diverged further from that in Muggle schools, which was also evolving but in an entirely different direction. In the modern WW, only astronomy is retained from the ancient liberal arts curriculum. Students who want to invent their own spells probably read up on theory in the library and, realizing that Latin is required to name the spells, learn it themselves. I think that vestiges of ancient language teaching may pop up in Ancient Runes (though maybe the language is Celtic?), and Potions is "natural philosophy" (an "extra" for the Eton boys of, say, the sixteenth century) with a vengeance. But music, as in many modern American (Muggle) schools, and perhaps modern british schools as well, has fallen by the wayside. It isn't even taught in Muggle Studies, which seems to be all about electricity and heavy lifting--i.e., how the poor Muggles manage to live without magic. Carol, who thinks that the Statute of Secrecy, including Obliviating and hidden Hogwarts but resulting in things like the Hogwarts curriculum, is mostly a plot device to explain how the WW could exist under our Muggle noses without our even knowing it From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 01:23:04 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:23:04 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158222 > >>Betsy HP: > > But I don't think she'd be all that pleased with Dumbledore > > either. If we're talking simple rules of etiquette, Dumbledore > > may have been pleasant, but he wasn't polite. > >>Pippin: > This is not a social situation. > > In other words, DD is not there as a social equal, he is there to > negotiate and he knows the Dursleys respect only strength. He is > not obligated to be polite, IMO, and he acknowledges that he isn't. > Betsy Hp: I agree. I guess I was more responding to the suggestion that Dumbledore was behaving politely. He wasn't. And I agree with you that he knew he wasn't. > >>Pippin: > He admits he is tresspassing on the Dursley's hospitality and he > apologizes for the wineglass thing. Betsy Hp: I'm not sure that his apology was sincere. Generally an apology that ends with a "but you should have..." isn't a true apology. Of course, with the tresspassing thing I don't think Dumbledore should have felt it necessary to apologize. He had to do what he had to do and it was the Dursleys who set themselves up as the enemy... (...huh. Why am I hesitant about saying that? I think I've reached a place where I just don't trust wizards. Strange.) But, IMO, the wineglass thing was over the line. And it does nothing to further Dumbledore's cause that I could see. (Unless he was trying to drive home the point that wizards are scary and the wise Muggle bows his head and says "yes, sir; no, sir" whenever a wizard enters the room.) > >>Pippin: > He is, perhaps, being hostile and threatening for the same reason > that, IMO, he allows Snape to be hostile and threatening -- because > there are threatening wizards out there and the Dursleys, > like the children at Hogwarts, need to be reminded that outside > their fortress, it's going to be getting dark. Betsy Hp: Something the Dursleys don't really need reminding of though, yes? I mean, have they ever met a wizard that *didn't* bring darkness into their home? > >>Pippin: > I believe Dumbledore thinks Dudley has been abused in that, among > other things, Dudley has never been taught that there are more > important things than his personal comfort. Harry, in that > situation, would be thinking of how he could protect those he > loves. Dudley thinks only of himself. Betsy Hp: Are you suggesting that Dumbledore was trying out a form of therapy for Dudley by further demonstrating the power of wizards over Muggles? > >>Pippin: > I can't really judge whether this was a weak moment, equivalent > to when he kicked Barty Jr over on his back, because until we know > what Dumbledore was doing during the ten minutes he and the > Dursleys were alone, we don't really know the purpose of his visit. Betsy Hp: Hm, I don't really see the Barty Jr. moment as equivalent to the mead thing. Barty was an equal. Dumbledore was aggressive, yes, but I didn't see any pettiness in his actions. He came across as petty, IMO, with the Dursleys. I mean, sure book 7 might shine a different light on this scene, but as of right now Dumbledore seemed a bit lesser than his usual. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 01:27:12 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:27:12 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158223 --- , "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>bboyminn: > > Some make it sound like Dumbledore is engages in this > > horrible and terrifying abuse of the Dursleys when in > > fact he merely annoyed them. > > > > Dumbledore is polite, never hostile or threatening, > > ... once he introduced himself ..., the most basic > > and minimal courtesy should have been observed. > > > > Betsy Hp: (with a more serious hat on at this time) > > I think there are two things going on in this scene, > which is why poster's points of view can become > confusing. We have the Dursleys' actions, and we have > Dumbledore's actions. > > I don't think anyone has argued that the Dursleys behave > well. ... Emily Post would not be pleased. > > ... Dumbledore may have been pleasant, but he wasn't > polite. > bboyminn: Well, you will notice that when I said I though the Dursleys had an obligation to basic courtesy, I used terms like 'terse', blunt, 'get-to-the-point'. While I believe there was a minimum level of courtesy due, that doesn't mean they had to be 'nice'. I think the Dursleys could have observed a unpleasant but none the less courteous 'get on with and be done with it' brand of courtesy. As to Dumbledore's level of courtesy, I think he may have had valid reasons for it, which I will explore further down this post. > Betsy Hp: > > However, he chose to bring magic into the picture. And > he used it against the Muggles in that home. All of > them. Including the child he identifies as having been > abused. ... In a manner designed to make the Muggles > uncomfortable. I find little to praise in it. And it > shifts my sympathies to the Muggles, .... > > I *do* think Dumbledore was both hostile and > threatening. Just, in a very low key sort of way. ... > > Betsy Hp > bboyminn: I'm going to defend Dumbledore briefly, but not because I think you are wrong, you have a very reasoned and measured view of the situation and an honest reaction, but because, now after the fact, some hindsight or a shifted view point might help you judge Dumbledore less harshly. To the magic, I can see your point and can even believe it. Even Harry thinks Dumbledore is having some fun at the Dursleys expense, and he probably is. But, let us remember that to Dumbledore magic is mundane. In any other forum, under any other circumstance, if Dumbledore wanted a pot of tea or a glass of wine, he isn't going to schlep down to the kitchen and put the kettle on. No, a quick wave of his wand, and he has what he wants. Which brings me to my more critical point - expedients. Dumbledore has things to do and places to go, he can't spend his time in verbal duels with the Dursleys. He can't stand there tapping his toe waiting for the Dursleys to slip out of their social coma. He needs to do what he needs to do, and he needs to say what he needs to say, then he needs to leave and go where he needs to go. That would never get done if he had waited for the Dursley's to take the lead. So it's - 'Let us assume you have invited me in.' 'Let us assume you have further invited me into the living room where we can talk.' 'Seems pointless to assume you will offer me a drink, so let me offer you one.' ...Sirius ...Grimmauld Place ...Kreather ...Dursley are nasty ill-mannered people ...Harry pack you bag ...we are out of here. ...bing ...bang ...zoom ...and they are out the door. I have sympathy for Dumbledore even though he was certainly teasing the Dursley because I see the unnecessary resistance he was facing to accomplishing his tasks. If the Dursleys really wanted Harry and Dumbledore gone, they would have tried to expedite the situation. And really, I can't deny that it would have been nice of Harry to give the Dursleys some advance warning. Let us not forget Harry role in this fiasco. Even so, I do see how you can see the use of magic as 'unfair' and somewhat intimidating to the Dursleys, but on the otherhand, the Dursley seem bent on intimidating everyone they meet, so while I can understand your sympathy, my own is very limited. Steve/bboyminn From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 01:27:58 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as Murderer? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609121802i5d973b25ibea2f4673685d5e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060913012758.61142.qmail@web39511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158224 --- Jordan Abel wrote: > > Miles: > > Now, the prophecy tells that "one must die at the > hand of the other" and > > that the boy can "vanquish" Lord Voldemort. It > does NOT say "the boy will > > kill him". Both could be interpreteted like that, > but something quite > > different can happen without contradicting the > exact words of the prophecy. > > I think it's important that the prophecy is not > clear. JKR herself stated, > > that the exact phrases are very important. > > Random832 writes: > Most theories around unusual interpretations in the > wording center > around there being a third party called "the other" > (I've heard it as > Pettigrew - which adds a couple possible new > meanings to "the hand of > the other" as well.) Any thoughts? > > -- > parisfan writes: I have always had the idea if Harry didn't kill Lord V than someone else would. pref. Pettigrew or Neville. I kinda like to see it be one of those out of the blue situations you wouldn't expect. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 01:41:31 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Transfiguration question/ Was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver Message-ID: <20060913014131.64323.qmail@web30202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158225 Zanooda2 said: <>> Zanooda2 Vinegar and Wine are really the same thing. The difference is only in the fermentation period. Making Vinegar from Wine is a magic even muggles could do, but to reverse the process and make Wine from Vinegar would require true magic. This pafe from Wikipedia explains about vinegar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar The charm spells that we see in hogwarts are the closest thing to illusion in the magic world. I always though they work by charming the mind into believing something. So maybe the vinegar is not transfered but the drinkers tastebuds are made to believe that it is wine? Zanooda2 also said: <> I can understand that. Vanishing and conjuring didn't make much sense to me either until I thought abou tit this way. Transfiguration is not changing but transfering. Transfiguration spells seem to work by transfering something. For instance the turing teacups into mice requires that a whole mouse be swapped through space and with a teacup. Notice in transfiguration you generally need similar size items to swap. This is why for instance transfiguration is hard to use on large creatures such as a dragon or Giant. You'd hap to swap them with a whale or a skyscrapper and that takes a lot of power. If your partially transfigure something it still is attached to it other half but it must be through some sort of tunneling effect through space otherwise the partially transformed mouse would die and we don;t see that happening. DA Jones --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 13 03:23:04 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:23:04 -0400 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158226 Marion: "(But they did not *choose* to take in the boy. He was forced upon them like a cuckoo forces it's young on a warbler. I for one do not judge them for that. If they were consulted, had the option to say 'no', they might, just might have said yes and treated the boy better. Or not, but then we would have the freedom to judge them, because in accepting a guest of your *own free will* means you have to treat him right)" BAW: We don't know that. We don't know all what was in the letter DD left with baby Harry. It might well have included instructions as to what to do if they were unwilling to keep Harry. We do know that DD asked them to raise Harry as their son, which they certainly did not do. We have seen that the WW takes vows, promises, and contracts very, very seriously. B. A. Wilson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From technomad at intergate.com Wed Sep 13 04:47:43 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:47:43 -0500 Subject: Alcohol use in the Wizard subculture Message-ID: <004d01c6d6ef$c0eca5a0$36560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 158227 One thing to keep in mind, as far as alcohol use among wizards and witches goes, (including those whom we would consider "underage") is that the Wizard world is, in many ways, very old-fashioned. It basically ranges from feeling roughly like Britain of the period before World War II all the way back to medieval survivals. Hogwarts itself is run like an English "public school" of the period before Thomas Arnold "reformed" Rugby. Sports are not compulsory, for one thing (compare-and-contrast other "school stories," such as _Stalky & Co._ by Rudyard Kipling) and the students run their own lives far more than I believe was the case after Arnold's time. In some ways, Hogwarts is a deliberate inversion of a traditional "public school"---the abundant, luxurious food and extremely comfortable beds are a contrast to the accomodations at many very exclusive public schools, where students were expected to supplement the "food" they were provided with their own money (in _Stalky & Co_ this is called "brewing") and the dormitories compared rather unfavorably to the sleeping accomodations at Colditz. Given its rather "Regency-to-Early-Victorian" ambiance, a certain amount of _moderate_ alcohol use by students is hardly unusual. It is often forgotten (Particularly in America, where nearly a century of temperance propaganda did a lot to distort history) how widespread drinking was in the old days, particularly before tea and coffee became so cheap and easily obtained. Children routinely drank "flip" (a mixture of ale or cider and an egg, beaten to a froth---quite enough to get one tiddly, particularly a child) in Colonial America, and the same held true for Europe. In _Tom Brown's Schooldays,_ Flashman is expelled, not for drinking as such, but for _drunkenness._ If he had been better able to hold his liquor, or hadn't mixed his drinks, he would probably have gone on at Rugby until the usual school-leaving time. And, be it noted, nobody thinks anything's unusual about Flash being served alcohol in a public house, or the publican getting into any trouble for doing so. Drinking by children became more and more taboo as the nineteenth century wore on, until it was all but forbidden. Wizards, though, do not come under Muggle laws---otherwise there are a lot of people at Azkaban who could file petitions of _habeas corpus,_ and win, because they never got a trial. *pausing to imagine Rumpole of the Bailey's indignation at how the Wizard World conducts trials---it would be _epic!_* From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 05:34:18 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:34:18 -0000 Subject: Transfiguration question/ Was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver In-Reply-To: <20060913014131.64323.qmail@web30202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158228 DA Jones said: > Transfiguration spells seem to work by transfering something. For instance the turing teacups into mice requires that a whole mouse be swapped through space and with a teacup. Notice in transfiguration you generally need similar size items to swap. This is why for instance transfiguration is hard to use on large creatures such as a dragon or Giant. You'd hap to swap them with a whale or a skyscrapper and that takes a lot of power. > > If your partially transfigure something it still is attached to it other half but it must be through some sort of tunneling effect through space otherwise the partially transformed mouse would die and we don;t see that happening. > Tonks: I do not agree. First lets look at what the word means both inside and outside of the WW: -------- Dictonary.com says that Transfiguration means: ?noun the act of transfiguring. the state of being transfigured. (initial capital letter ) the supernatural and glorified change in the appearance of Jesus on the mountain. Matt. 17:1?9. (initial capital letter ) the church festival commemorating this, observed on August 6. Crystal Reference Encyclopedia An event described in the synoptic gospels when Jesus was temporarily changed in appearance on a mountain in front of his disciples Peter, James, and John, so that his clothes became `gleaming white' (Mark 9.2?3) and his face `shone' (Luke 9.28? 9; Matt 17.2). The revelation of glory is described as accompanied by an appearance of Elijah and Moses, and a heavenly voice similar to that at Jesus's baptism. Feast day 6 August. Wikipedia says: Transfiguration may refer to: ? the Transfiguration of Jesus, an event reported by the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus underwent transfiguration. ? In the Harry Potter books and films, transfiguration is the art of metamorphosis, changing of the form and appearance of an object, and the conjuring and creation of objects. HP Lexicon says: Transfiguration is magic which changes one object into another. It is possible to change inanimate objects into animate ones and vice versa. Some Transfiguration spells alter a part of something, such as changing a person's ears from normal into rabbit ears. At Hogwarts, Transfiguration is taught by Professor McGonagall. Fifty years ago, Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher at Hogwarts (CS). Transfiguration spells were cast in ancient times as well. Circe, a Witch who lived in the Greek island of Aeaea, was famous for turning lost sailors into pigs (CS/g). The opposite of Transfiguration is Untransfiguration, which would be returning something to its proper form. (OP29) --------- It seems that it is a form of metamorphosis, not a transfering one object through time and space to another. It is, IMO, more like what happens to a butterfly. And I think that the fact that it was a course that was taught by DD, our in-house 'saint' and by McGonagall who's first name means 'wisdom', is no accident. I think the key to this class is that at it's highest level one is taught to transform the self. I think it is a reference to the other "transfiguration" because of all the words JKR could have used she used one that in the RW has only one meaning. Also it is probably DD who can do it best and the reason that he does not need an invisibility cloak to be invisible. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 07:05:58 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:05:58 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse - Humanities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158229 --- I "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > > I wonder if it has to do with when the WW went into > > hiding. Did they hide before the Renaissance? It > > would go along way towards explaining the darkness > > of their world. > > > > Exactly. That's the saddest thing, to my mind. That > > these solid English families have no idea about > > Shakespeare, ... > > a_svirn: > Well, the stature of secrecy is 1696 or something, a > century after Shakespeare. So why wouldn't they know > about him? Wizards and muggles had a shared culture at > the time. > bboyminn: Let us not forget that the Wizard world and the Muggle world share /aspects/ of a common history and culture. At various times in history, the wizards and muggles commingling to varying degrees. Sometimes wizards were part of the power structure and the advisors of kings - honored members of the community, at other times they were known and accepted but kept a low profile, at other times the were ferociously hunted and killed. Plus, in the modern age, there is a certain blending of the two worlds. Muggle-borns come to Hogwarts with music and modern culture of their own. True, the wizard world dominates at Hogwarts, but muggle students must have some small influence. Clothing is a good example. While their school uniforms are fixed and traditional, their 'off-duty' clothes seem to be whatever fashions are common for kids of that age. Consequently, Fred and George are much more comfortable passing for muggles in common muggle clothes than their parents are. Further, I think their is more art and culture than we are giving the wizard world credit for. I believe Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog card says he likes 10 pin bowling and chamber music, and if I remember correctly Flamel and his wife love opera. Also note that one time when Harry goes to Slughorns office, he hears a gramphone playing; Slughorn is listening to music. There is certainly enough music available to justify a radio station (Wizard's Wireless). There are many periodical publications, and a large bookstore filled with books. They can't all be Spell books. But you are all right, these things aren't taught at Hogwarts. Though I will contest the idea that science and technology are not taught at Hogwarts. It seems that the wizard and muggle world went off on divergent paths with wizards finding magical ways to solve their problems and muggles using math and science to solve those same problems. To wizards, magic IS science; it is science as they understand it. As far as knowledge of Latin, I suspect part of the theory of magic is explaining the root words that make up a spell. So, Latin as the roots of magical words would be taught as part of the theory aspect of Charms and Tranfiguration. But, you are right, assorted Humanities and Liberal Arts are not part of the Hogwarts curriculum, but there seems to be many after-hours school clubs that Harry generally steers clear of. Certainly these clubs would reflect the students interest to the extent that they are able to pursue them without the aid of technology. Part of the problem is that Harry generally keeps to himself, and as a result, there are many things are Hogwarts that we don't see. But overal the concensus is correct, if wizards pursue cultural experiences, they must do it on their own. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 07:22:28 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:22:28 -0000 Subject: The Dursley - Law and Obligation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158230 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > Note I never said 'law', I said 'obligation', and I > > meant normal muggle social and legal obligation. > > a_svirn: > What is the difference between `law' and `legal > obligation'? I guess if the obligation is legal it > must be falling within the province of law, mustn't > it? > bboyminn: I knew that was going to come back to bite me. Trouble is I'm not sure I can really explain it. But I think the context is contained in my use of 'right of first refusal'. The Dursley's HAVE certain legal rights and obligations, but unlike criminal law, they have the right to refuse to honor those obligations. In other words, legally the Dursley are Harry's defacto guardians by the mere fact that the are his CLOSE and only living relatives. Legally, I would speculate that both wizard and muggle law requires that they be consulted first regarding Harry's disposition. If they are not consulted, they do have some legal rights that would allow them to take the matter to court and have a legal ruling made on the matter. I suspect, if Dumbledore had taken it on himself to make other arrangements and the Dursleys discovered there was a pile of gold involved, they very well may have demanded guardianship and would likely have received it from either the muggle court or the wizards court. Why? Because being Harry nearest relatives gives them some legal rights. However, the Dursleys would also be legally free to refuse to care for Harry. They could /decide/ to send him to an orphanage. They could /decide/ to give him back to Dumbledore. But the key point is that THEY DECIDE because they have the strongest legal position from which to make decisions. Is there anyone with a legal background that could put what I am trying to say into a better legal context? Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 08:55:56 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:55:56 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse - Humanities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158231 > bboyminn: > > Let us not forget that the Wizard world and the Muggle > world share /aspects/ of a common history and culture. > At various times in history, the wizards and muggles > commingling to varying degrees. Sometimes wizards were > part of the power structure and the advisors of kings - > honored members of the community, at other times they > were known and accepted but kept a low profile, at > other times the were ferociously hunted and killed. a_svirn: Er.. so what? The same goes for muggles, does it not? Some were lording over others and any one of them could have been ferociously hunted and killed any day. The fact still remains that until after the Glorious Revolution they lived together. > bboyminn: > Plus, in the modern age, there is a certain blending of > the two worlds. Muggle-borns come to Hogwarts with music > and modern culture of their own. True, the wizard world > dominates at Hogwarts, but muggle students must have some > small influence. Clothing is a good example. While their > school uniforms are fixed and traditional, their > 'off-duty' clothes seem to be whatever fashions are > common for kids of that age. Consequently, Fred and > George are much more comfortable passing for muggles > in common muggle clothes than their parents are. a_svirn: I honestly don't see any blending of the two worlds. What I see is mugglebornes practically giving up their muggle heritage. At least, in Hermione's case. Fred and George do feel comfortable mingling with muggles but it's hardly qualifies as blending. > bboyminn: > Further, I think their is more art and culture than we > are giving the wizard world credit for. I believe > Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog card says he likes 10 pin > bowling and chamber music, and if I remember correctly > Flamel and his wife love opera. Also note that one time > when Harry goes to Slughorns office, he hears a > gramphone playing; Slughorn is listening to music. a_svirn: Dumbledore could have loved muggle chamber music. And gramphone sounds like something Slughorn could have picked up from muggles. He was comfortable enough in muggle milieu, when Harry and Dumbledore found him. As for Flammel, he was about six centuries old, so it follows that he was well versed in muggle ways. > bboyminn: > As far as knowledge of Latin, I suspect part of the > theory of magic is explaining the root words that make > up a spell. So, Latin as the roots of magical words > would be taught as part of the theory aspect of Charms > and Tranfiguration. > a_svirn: Seems like Harry managed to bypass this part of the curriculum altogether. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 09:09:09 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:09:09 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158232 > Pippin: > He is, perhaps, being hostile and threatening for the same reason > that, IMO, he allows Snape to be hostile and threatening -- because > there are threatening wizards out there and the Dursleys, > like the children at Hogwarts, need to be reminded that outside > their fortress, it's going to be getting dark. a_svirn: It is an incredibly lame explanation, one, moreover, doesn't reflect well on his brainpower and moral qualities. There is quite a few threatening muggles out there in the world, you know. It doesn't give one (especially a teacher) free licence to be hostile and threatening. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 09:28:55 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:28:55 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158233 > Carol responds: > But if we consider what was actually taught in British schools at the > time, we can be pretty sure that the curriculum didn't contain any > works by Shakespeare. In Shakespeare's own time, his plays were the > equivalent of popular culture, a_svirn: But that's exactly my point. Shakespeare was an equivalent of popular culture at the point when muggles and wizards had *common* popular culture. So it would be much more probable for modern wizards to know about Shakespeare rather than about Ovid or Cicero whose works were part of the school curriculum at the time. From jamess at climaxgroup.com Wed Sep 13 10:02:15 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:02:15 +0100 Subject: Why Latin For magic? (was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver se - Humanities) Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C14@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 158234 In the Thread "Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse - Humanities" bboyminn: Wrote As far as knowledge of Latin, I suspect part of the theory of magic is explaining the root words that make up a spell. So, Latin as the roots of magical words would be taught as part of the theory aspect of Charms and Tranfiguration. James Muses: I've always pondered why a lot of the magic seems to be Latin in origin. There are definitely hints that wizards existed before Latin, so why Latin? So I have a theory I would like to share with you. I have a suspicion this does not relate at all to why JKR picked Latin, but I always like to find explanations for things. I believe wizards could in theory use any language for spell craft, Latin is useful and common for spell craft exactly because it's a dead language that nobody speaks. Living languages (Like English) and fluid and constantly changing (Regardless of what the dictionary makers might have us believe). Most languages are littered with words that have radicly different meetings than they first started of with. I believe that the words involved in a spell have little to do with the actual magic; it's a focusing system to help shape the thoughts in your mind towards the goal. The kids are taught to say the words as a mnemonic to shape the thoughts. The dead nature of the language has fixed the meanings of the words making the words have a consistent taught meaning to the users. Imagine possible effects of a spell in English that used the word "bad" between kids who had (and had not) been exposed to 80's culture. Evidence For: Other Languages are used for spells. The AK is not Latin (Aramaic? Arabic? I can't remember.) Evidence Against: In HBP we see Harry use a couple of Latin spells without any idea of their effect. This can be partially countered if Harry has gained a partial subconscious understanding of Latin from HoM etc.. This is just me playing with ideas, I would be interest to know what you guys think. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 13 03:37:16 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:37:16 -0400 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158235 Jordan wrote: > It's not clear where this "legal obligation" comes from.... BAW: Petunia is his next of kin. Orphans are normally placed with relatives if they have any living relations. Steve wrote: > > but until they refuse it, the obligation is theirs. Jordan replied: > There's no evidence either way for whether they were offered the > option to refuse. We've seen no evidence otherwise of any wizard > offering any muggle the option to refuse anything, from Hogwarts > attendance to obliviation, so it doesn't seem likely this is an > exception. BAW: Since when do Muggles attend Hogwarts? If you mean Muggleborn wizardling children,the MoM doesn't kidnap them--they are sent letters inviting them to attend, and a Hogwarts professor or a MoM official comes to explain to the parents/guardians. We do know that children with magical abilities have 'breakouts', like the python incident, or the incident with the sweater; certainly a few such would give any parents with any brains that there was something odd about the child, and the letter and explanation would come as a relief; they'd at least some idea of what was going on. In Ursula K. Leguin's "Wizard of Earthsea" there is the statement "To keep dark the mind of the mageborn is a dangerous thing." Many other fantasy subcreations with working magic have similar sayings. It would not be hard to persuade Muggle parents that the little wizard/witch they produced needs training for his/her peculiar abilities. As for the Dursleys having a choice, DD does say that Petunia agreed to take Harry; this implies that she could have disagreed. Bruce Alan Wilson From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Wed Sep 13 04:22:19 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (fazkleto) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:22:19 -0000 Subject: Harry as Murderer? In-Reply-To: <20060913012758.61142.qmail@web39511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158236 Random832 writes: > > Most theories around unusual interpretations in the > > wording center around there being a third party called "the other" > > (I've heard it as Pettigrew - which adds a couple possible new > > meanings to "the hand of the other" as well.) Any thoughts? parisfan writes: > I have always had the idea if Harry didn't kill Lord V > than someone else would. pref. Pettigrew or Neville. I > kinda like to see it be one of those out of the blue > situations you wouldn't expect. Fazkleto: Here's a summary of several possible interpretations (it's kind of long, sorry), line for line, of Trelawney's 1979 prophecy, overheard by both Dumbledore and Snape. 1. "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches..." *Approaches means 'is coming'. *It could be taken to mean Harry's birth (especially considering the next line about 'born as the seventh month dies', as both Harry and Neville were born on the 31st July) *Or, and this is the out-there point, it could mean that the person is approaching at present, i.e. Snape is standing on the other side of the door, or there is a person approaching to throw Snape out, or Dumbledore, who is in the same room as Trelawney (Dumbledore was seemingly the Dark Lord's equal before he got killed off). 2. "Born to those who have thrice defied him," Meaning the son/daughter of people who have done something against (defied) the Dark Lord three times. It has not yet been established how James/Lily or the Longbottoms managed to defy the Dark Lord three times. 3. "Born as the seventh month dies..." Canon says this means someone born at the end of the seventh month (ie July). As I've previously said, Neville Longbottom and Harry Potter were born on the 31st of July. Snape was born in January (hp-lexicon info), so that seemly disproves the theory that he, as the one approaching the door, has the power to vanquish the Dark Lord. 4. "And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal," Harry was marked by Voldemort (ie his scar) and marked to die (if you think of it like Voldemort having a list of 'people who have to die'). Harry is also very similar to Voldemort (does this imply 'equality'?) *colouring (hair, eyes) *halfblooded *has the same wand core When Voldemort killed the Potters and attempted to kill Harry, he made Harry more of his equal by: *orphaning Harry *transferring to him some powers, including Parseltongue (according to Dumbledore) Neville doesn't seem to be marked in any way by the Dark Lord, unless this means being on 'Voldemort's hit-list' or that he becomes a Death Eater (something that seems very unlikely). Furthermore, while Death Eaters are marked by Voldemort, I would hazard a guess that Voldemort does not see them as his equals (slaves, more like). Ginny Weasley was at one point possessed by the Dark Lord. Does this imply that she was made his equal in someway (ie like as in becoming a horcrux?) As previously said, Dumbledore was thought to be the Dark Lord's equal. He was 'marked' by destroying the Ring Horcrux. 5. "but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ..." The equal has powers that the Dark Lord doesn't know about. *Dumbledore assumes this is 'love,' something that Voldemort never understood (very sociopathic). *Could also have something to do with Harry's mother's sacrifice, or with the powers transferred to Harry by Voldemort's killing curse (ie Voldemort doesn't know that he's done it). 6. "And either must die at the hand of the other" "Either" - implying either the equal or the Dark Lord. "Must die" - one of them has to die "Hand of the other" *the hand of the other person (ie either Harry has to kill the Dark Lord or vice versa) *Or, "the other" could imply a third person who can kill either the equal or the Dark Lord (perhaps after Harry gets rid of the horcruxes - however, it has been revealed that other people aside from Harry can destroy the horcruxes, as Dumbledore has managed to, and RAB was planning to)? In which case, who is the third person? *Neville, who is also born on the 31st of July (though JKR has disproved the theory that Neville and Harry have to kill each other to kill the Dark Lord on her website, she hasn't disproved the theory that Neville has to kill the Dark Lord). *someone else, Ginny Weasley (birthdate August 11), Peter Pettigrew, Dumbledore, RAB? (the latter three's birthdates aren't listed on HP- lexicon) 7. "for neither can live while the other survives ..." means: a. "Neither the equal nor the Dark Lord can live while the other one is alive (survives)" - implies that their lives are in someway interwoven together. *for example, if one was the horcrux of the other. *either Harry is the Dark Lord's accidental horcrux (implying that he would have to destroy part of himself to destroy Voldemort) *or, that Lily's sacrifice somehow rendered Voldemort's body a horcrux for part of Harry's soul? that would explain the mind link that the two have, just like that the Dark Lord seems to have with the snake Nagini (whom Dumbledore believed to be one of Voldemort's horcruxes). b. "Neither the equal nor the Dark Lord can live if the other (a third person) is alive." *for example, if the third person were one of the Dark Lord's horcruxes. Who could be a horcrux? *Ginny Weasley. We know for a fact that the Dark Lord has been in her head. This would probably mean that Harry didn't destroy the Diary horcrux and that instead it was transferred to Ginny. But one would have to wonder why, if this were the case, Ginny hasn't tried to kill or lure Harry away since, or shown any other signs of being possessed. She does, however, owe Harry a life debt for saving her life in CoS (something that will probably come into play in the next book). *Peter Pettigrew. Voldemort gave him a replacement hand. This hand may in fact be a horcrux, rather than Nagini. This would tie in with the 'either must die at the hand of the other' part of the prophecy. Peter also owes Harry a life debt. Killing Voldemort, or at least killing the final horcrux (his hand), would fufill that debt, and keep Harry alive. *Neville Longbottom. If Neville were a horcrux, it may explain why the Lestranges and Crouch Jnr. were so eager to go after the Longbottoms, even after the Dark Lord had seemingly died. However, when did Neville and the Dark Lord come in contact in order to transfer a part of the Dark Lord's soul? c. "Neither the equal nor the Dark Lord can get on with their life (can live), while the other one survives." As long as Voldemort is alive, he'll always have a hold over Harry's life (because Harry has to kill him), and vice versa. 8. "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies... " *Seemingly there to reiterate the point that a person who can kill the Dark Lord will be born on July 31st. *Or it could mean that there are two people who can vanquish the Dark Lord (the equal and the other). The equal is the son of the thrice-defying parents, born on the 31st of July, and the other is someone else born at the end of July (ie Neville). So what does it all mean? Are there three people mentioned in the prophecy? My money is on 'the other' being Peter or Neville, and having something to do with horcruxes. Fazkleto From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 13:17:04 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:17:04 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158237 bboyminn: In other words, legally the Dursley are Harry's defacto guardians by the mere fact that the are his CLOSE and only living relatives. Legally, I would speculate that both wizard and muggle law requires that they be consulted first regarding Harry's disposition. a_svirn: One cannot be "legally defacto guardians". If you are guardian de facto it means you are guardian in all ways but legal. As for the Dursleys, they were Harry's guardians, because Dumbledore decided so, not because of any laws muggle or wizard. When it suited Dumbledore he regarded them as Harry's guardians. When it didn't suit him he didn't. The law doesn't have anything to do with it. BAW: Since when do Muggles attend Hogwarts? a_svirn: I might be wrong, but I think Jordan meant that muggle *parents* aren't offered an option to refuse a place at Hogwarts for their children. The Dursleys certainly weren't BAW: If you mean Muggleborn wizardling children,the MoM doesn't kidnap them--they are sent letters inviting them to attend, and a Hogwarts professor or a MoM official comes to explain to the parents/guardians. We do know that children with magical abilities have 'breakouts', like the python incident, or the incident with the sweater; certainly a few such would give any parents with any brains that there was something odd about the child, and the letter and explanation would come as a relief; they'd at least some idea of what was going on. a_svirn: We don't know about ministry officials. As for Hogwarts professors we've seen how they go about explaining things to muggles, haven't we? Hugrid hunted them to the end of the earth and intimidated them, to say nothing of inflicting bodily harm on their son. He did explain some things to Harry, but he certainly didn't explain anything to the Dursleys, much less offered them a choice. As for Dumbledore, he simply used magic on the orphanage's matron to confuse her. That hardly sounds like offering a choice, I'd say. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 13:34:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:34:10 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158238 > a_svirn: As for the > Dursleys, they were Harry's guardians, because Dumbledore decided so, > not because of any laws muggle or wizard. When it suited Dumbledore he > regarded them as Harry's guardians. When it didn't suit him he didn't. > The law doesn't have anything to do with it. Alla: I would not claim familiarity with Great Britain laws, but do you know for a fact that the only living relative does not get the preference in being a guardian there? I would think that Petunia being Harry's aunt would make courts give her guardianship almost automatically unless she refuses. But as I said, can be wrong and please correct me if I am. But in any event, even if I am wrong , nothing would make me thing that Petunia does not have moral obligation towards Harry as his aunt. As to legal obligations in the US, somebody upthread brought the Texas Law - and this is what it is for me in the nutshell - aunt has an obligation to save a nephew or be held criminally negligent, really to me it is very simple. Actually, I am not even sure if this is true in all states, since I don't deal with family law, but IMO it really really should be. JMO, Alla. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 14:02:25 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:02:25 -0000 Subject: Why Latin For magic? (was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver se - Humanities) In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C14@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158239 > James Muses: > I've always pondered why a lot of the magic seems to be Latin in origin. There are definitely hints that wizards existed before Latin, so why Latin? > (snip) I believe wizards could in theory use any language > for spell craft, Latin is useful and common for spell craft exactly because it's a dead language that nobody speaks. > Tonks: That is an interesting theory. Botanical names for plants and the names for parts of the human body are also in Latin. And Latin was the official language for the Roman Catholic Church until the 1950's. So there is a common trend here as well as in the WW. As to the underlying reason why, I really have never thought about it. But I think the reason has to do with the fact that like English today, in the past Latin was the universal language. Tonks_op From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 14:02:45 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:02:45 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158240 Hello fellow HP4GU members. JKR updated her site today and I guess all of the members would be interested to know that she (JKR) answered, though belatedly, a question which was asked by one of the audience in her NY reading. The question was supposed to be like, "What is the question you have never been asked that you ought to have been asked?" Her answer can be found in her Extra Stuff section of her website, and clicking Miscellaneous. S P O I L E R S P A C E The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?" She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- answer." maria8162001 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 15:46:08 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:46:08 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Maria Vaerewyck" wrote: > > Hello fellow HP4GU members. JKR updated her site today and I guess all of the members would be interested to know that she (JKR) answered, though belatedly, a question which was asked by one of the audience in her NY reading. The question was supposed to be like, "What is the question you have never been asked that you ought to have been asked?" > > Her answer can be found in her Extra Stuff section of her website, and clicking Miscellaneous. > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?" > > She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- answer." Alla: Thanks, Maria. I find this bit of news the indication that JKR can still surprise me even after reading all the theories on book & and certainly done a fair bit of speculation myself. Why? Because I certainly did not think of this one as question with crucial answer. I mean, she already flat out denied the possibility of Dumbledore being Harry's grandfather, or other relative, right? One would think that if this was true, the answer indeed could have been crucial, since James would have leave cloak with family member. Why else it can be crucial? Ooooo, could the answer be that Snape who was there after all, took the cloak with him and brought to Dumbledore. Speculating, you know, but have no idea why this can be important. Alla. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 13 15:57:02 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:57:02 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158242 > > Betsy Hp: > I've loved every single thing you've written, Ken. And I agree with > it totally. As a total Humanities girl, I feel I should also point > out how important my exposure to the Sciences were. Each discipline > introduces you to a different way of thinking, of problem solving. > It's cool to dive into one particular discipline, but I think it's > important to have some sort of exposure to as many disciplines as > possible. > > Hogwarts, unfortunately, concentrates pretty solely on the > pragmatic. Which has its place, of course. But it cannot replace > the Humanities. Or the Sciences for that matter. (Harry doesn't > take a single math type class. That's just as horrifying as the > lack of literature, art and music, IMO.) Ken: Thanks for the kind words. I hoped for rather more support on this here than I seem to be getting. Maybe this group is not nearly as heavily populated by literature majors as I always imagined. You are exactly right about science being equally important. It should be important to Hogwarts students too but to a large extent magic plays the role that technology plays in the Muggle world so I can forgive the lack of basic science more easily. In fact magic *is* a technolgy. An author with a better understanding of that might have had more Muggle technology taught at Hogwarts because understanding one technology is generally helpful for understanding others. Science and math education for all is so much more important in the real world since our economy is based on them. Anyone who wants to grow up to be a good citizen and a wise voter simply must understand basic science. Things as diverse as gun control, energy policy, and medical policy simply cannot be understood without understanding science. As a working professional technologist I can tell you that you almost never hear proper technical explanations of anything in the media. And you *never, ever will* hear one from a politician. > Betsy Hp: > > I wonder if it has to do with when the WW went into hiding. Did > they hide before the Renaissance? It would go along way towards > explaining the darkness of their world. > Ken: All the discussions here about magical bullies and helpless Muggles have given me some cause to think about the Separation and I have come up with a theory. Unlike many here I do not think I would routinely feel helpless or fearful when dealing wizards and witches, assuming that they really existed. In all honesty I probably would just drink the mead and have a laugh over the toffee. These wizards and witches are not like those of folk tales. They are just like us but they have a talent to do magic instead of, in my case, calculus. So I don't think I would be fearful in their presence any more than I am in the presence of real people who are younger, bigger, stronger, quicker, or more atheletic than I am. We depend on our common culture to prevent normal interactions from turning into violent ones where we might be at a disadvantage. And this is a culture that is nearly worldwide at this most basic level, the WW shares it too. You can't depend on it in some isolated tribal areas of, say, South America where standards of decency differ strongly but in the majority of the world you can expect to be treated with a commonly held basic standard of decency by strangers. Not all human interactions are or remain at the level of basic courtesy. Among real humans a range of behaviour can occur that can end with tragic, lethal results in extreme cases. The same thing would happen in confrontations between wizards and Muggles. The "powerlessness" that is often attributed to Muggles here is not absolute. It is true that a Muggle has no response to intermediate level attacks like a Leg Locker Curse the way he could respond to a punch in the face with a kick in the groin, for example. That does not make the Muggle powerless. Unfortunately it means that the Muggle has to respond to any slight escalation of a conflict with a wizard either by using deadly violence, or by turning the other cheek and hoping for the best. A club, a knife, a sword, or a Colt 45 will kill a wizard. A wizard can block a punch in a way that leaves the Muggle truly helpless. A bullet trumps an AK if it gets there before the wand can be pointed and those words can be uttered/thought. So as population density rose and conflicts between Muggles and the WW became more frequent the Muggles would have adopted this "kill first and ask questions later" strategy for dealing with interpersonal conflict with members of the WW. That would have forced the WW into the Separation that we see in HP. They would have been overwhelmed and exterminated in open warfare, segregation was the only option. If you want to accept this theory as reasonable then I suppose the disdain the WW holds for things Muggle, including our high culture, can be seen as an outgrowth of the bitter conflicts that lead to the Separation. It's not a good thing, maybe these books should have been about healing the breach instead of defeating a monster like LV. But they are not my books, I have no vote in the matter. > > Betsy Hp: > Exactly. That's the saddest thing, to my mind. That these solid > English families have no idea about Shakespeare, for example. Have > no clue about the many contributions their nation has made to the > world. And they don't have the equivilant. (Honestly, how could > they?) Certainly, *they* don't know what they're missing, but it > makes me sad for them. > Ken: Yeah, I know. Even in the one Muggle subject they teach, Astronomy, their efforts strike me as pathetic, as I've mentioned before. England has a wonderful professional astronomer and popular astronomy author in Patrick Moore who would love to give a guest lecture series at Hogwarts. Steven Hawking, perhaps our (humanity's) greatest living astrophysicist, lives in Cambridge. Because of the demands of his profession and his terrible illness I doubt he lectures at grade schools and high schools very often, or at all. I suspect he would make an exception for Hogwarts. It is a little surprising that an author would build a world like this. In my reading experience the fictional worlds authors create tend to be more cultured than real life, not less. I'm not sure how many here would have read Jean Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear" series but the gentility of her ice age European societies is laughably implausible. Some of the counter arguments that people have raised to show that members of the WW are cultured do have merit. I don't think that an unseen cultural curriculum at Hogwarts does. Perhaps Rowling sees her wizards and witches as being as well educated in these matters as we are but in her focus on her primary story she never realized that she had neglected to show us how they get to be that way. My parents did not teach me about culture, the good old American public school did. Yes, even this somewhat politically conservative and definitely religously conservative Baptist agrees that it takes a village to raise a child. Ken From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 15:54:32 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:54:32 -0000 Subject: Transfiguration question/ Was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158243 > DA Jones: > Vinegar and Wine are really the same thing. The difference is only > in he fermentation period. Making Vinegar from Wine is a magic even > muggles could do, but to reverse the process and make Wine from > Vinegar would require true magic. zanooda: Thank you so much, it was exactly what I needed to understand what was going on in this scene. Worked like a charm for me :-)! It seems weird that after many (oh so many!) years of using vinegar in the kitchen I had no idea that it was made from wine. Now I understand that, if the spell doesn't really transform vinegar, but only reverses the process, it should belong in Charms. > DA Jones: > The charm spells that we see in hogwarts are the closest thing to > illusion in the magic world. I always though they work by charming > the mind into believing something. So maybe the vinegar is not > transfered but the drinkers tastebuds are made to believe that it is > wine? zanooda: I never thought about Charms as illusion. It wouldn't be very magical, would it? I like to think that when you say "wingardium leviosa", the object really rises into the air, and when you say "alohomora", the door really opens. > DA Jones: > Transfiguration is not changing but transfering. Transfiguration > spells seem to work by transfering something. For instance the > turing teacups into mice requires that a whole mouse be swapped > through space and with a teacup. Notice in transfiguration you > generally need similar size items to swap. This is why for instance > transfiguration is hard to use on large creatures such as a dragon > or Giant. You'd hap to swap them with a whale or a skyscrapper and > that takes a lot of power. zanooda: Never thought about transfiguration this way either. I'm in no way an expert on magic, and I need to think about it some more, but it seems to me that something doesn't fit here. Take for example Malfoy/ferret transfiguration. The difference in size is quite significant. As for dragons and giants, not only transfiguration spells (and we never saw anyone try) but other spells (like Stunning) don't work on them. And if it's true about giants, it's a shame, because I kind of hoped that Hagrid's dad could transform Hagrid's mom into someone more suitable for love during their relationship :-) Once again, thank you for vinegar/wine tip. zanooda From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Sep 13 14:51:10 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Jan) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:51:10 -0000 Subject: Why Latin For magic? (was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver se - Huma In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C14@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158244 "Arbatel de magia veterum (English: Arbatel of the magic of the ancients) is a treatise on ceremonial magic written in Latin, first published in 1575 in Basel, Switzerland. The author is unknown, but textual evidence suggests that the author was Italian." Wikipedia suggests that it's historically correct, AND maybe it's another way to get the students to learn another subject.... Casting a spell? learn Latin! Tesha From kennclark at btinternet.com Wed Sep 13 14:57:07 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:57:07 -0000 Subject: Why Latin For magic? (was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver se - Humanities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158245 > > James Muses: > > I've always pondered why a lot of the magic seems to be Latin > > in origin. There are definitely hints that wizards existed > > before Latin, so why Latin? > > > > (snip) I believe wizards could in theory use any language > > for spell craft, Latin is useful and common for spell craft > > exactly because it's a dead language that nobody speaks. > > > Tonks: > But I think the reason has to do with the fact that like > English today, in the past Latin was the universal language. Kenneth asks: But how does magic "know" that a certain Latin phrase means a specific magical event/spell? Spells are being created all the time - viz. Snape's Septumsempra - so however he created that spell and its magical effect, how does "magic" remember this so that when someone else, somewhere else, years later (like Harry does after reading the book), says the latin word(s)these word(s) produce the magical effect? Does this mean that magic is conscious? How else could it remember that a certain combination of words uttered by a wizard produces a certain magical effect. It must also be omnipresent since the memory is not restricted to a specific location time or spell sayer. Almost Taoist. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 16:21:08 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:21:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40609130921y1a2180acm5f532af1a25307fe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158246 > Maria wrote: > > > > .. JKR updated her site today ... she (JKR) > answered, though belatedly, a question which was asked by one of the > audience in her NY reading. The question was supposed to be > like, "What is the question you have never been asked that you ought > to have been asked?" > > > > Her answer can be found in her Extra Stuff section of her website, > and clicking Miscellaneous. > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at > the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself > invisible without a cloak?" > > > > She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- > answer." > > Alla: > > ... > > Why else it can be crucial? Ooooo, could the answer be that Snape who > was there after all, took the cloak with him and brought to > Dumbledore. > > Speculating, you know, but have no idea why this can be important. > Kemper now: Abergoat came up for a theory for it a day or two ago. It involved Snape unconscious, covered by the invisibility cloak. Snape's unconscious because theory involves James' freeze charming, stunning, or hitting Snape. Snape goes to warn them maybe encouraging them to leave. Maybe Snape hates James 'arrogance' because it got Lily killed when she wasn't suppose to be killed. Snape awakens to find Lily dead. Does he see Harry? If so, why not rescue him? Did he see him and put a protective charm until he could get help? Kemepr From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 13 16:45:15 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:45:15 -0000 Subject: Harry as Murderer? In-Reply-To: <010a01c6d6c6$4ddcea30$14b2a8c0@milesh5pt62nnd> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > Miles wrote: > > > >> And I'm quite sure, that she will not make her hero Harry doing > >> something so important she herself thinks is wrong in terms of > >> ethics. > > > > Harry knows that, according > > to this, one of them must die at the others hand. > > Miles: > Now, the prophecy tells that "one must die at the hand of the other" and > that the boy can "vanquish" Lord Voldemort. It does NOT say "the boy will > kill him". Both could be interpreteted like that, but something quite > different can happen without contradicting the exact words of the prophecy. > I think it's important that the prophecy is not clear. JKR herself stated, > that the exact phrases are very important. > Ken: I agree, a prophecy in a novel must be ambiguous otherwise it gives away the game. The novel "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" which is also about English magic but has a far different take on it likewise has a prophecy that is central to the story. I think it is a much more interesting prophecy partly because it is related in a very poetic form. I don't suppose it would make much sense out of its context but it almost could stand on its own in a book of poetry. All the major characters in the book dismiss it as babbling since the character who delivers it is little more than a street bum. Every word of it is literally fulfilled, just not in the way a simple reading of it would suggest. So I would say that to be an effective plot device without being a spoiler a good prophecy in a novel has to have alternate readings. By including a prophecy in a novel the author signs a "literary contract" with the reader to the effect that the prophecy will be satisfied in a way that reader will accept is literal. In HP even that normal convention has an escape clause. DD tells Harry and the reader not to put too much stock in the prophecy. In this particular case I would not feel cheated if the prophecy were left unfulfilled and I might even prefer it that way. In any event DD's words make it even harder to predict what will happen with respect to the prophecy than it is in most stories that have one. Ken From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 13 16:54:37 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:54:37 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: <700201d40609130921y1a2180acm5f532af1a25307fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158248 Maria wrote: > > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > > > > S > > > P > > > A > > > C > > > E > > > > > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility > > > cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could > > > make himself invisible without a cloak?" > > > > > > She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- > > > answer." Alla: > > Why else it can be crucial? Ooooo, could the answer be that Snape > > who was there after all, took the cloak with him and brought to > > Dumbledore. Kemper now: > Abergoat came up for a theory for it a day or two ago. It involved > Snape unconscious, covered by the invisibility cloak. Snape's > unconscious because theory involves James' freeze charming, > stunning, or hitting Snape. Snape goes to warn them maybe > encouraging them to leave. > > Maybe Snape hates James 'arrogance' because it got Lily killed when > she wasn't suppose to be killed. Snape awakens to find Lily dead. SSSusan: This is an interesting one, you two. I will confess, though, that when I read the update from Herself, I noted the word "at" in "at the time of James' death," and somehow assumed it meant that DD was in possession of the cloak *before* the attack occurred. Now, how would that be significant? Hmmmm. Haven't the foggiest. All I can think of is that it might have played a part in the Order's plan to protect the Potters and somehow in the BETRAYAL. But that doesn't really wash, does it? If something was fishy in how DD ended up w/ the cloak when James turned out to need it, DD would have suspected the *true* betrayer and not Sirius. And if James & Lily were protected by the Fidelius, presumably *no one* who knew that would have thought James still needed the cloak. So... huh... I guess that's a long way of saying, "I've no idea why this is *'crucial.'*" How 'bout anyone else? Does the word "at" in "at the time of James' death" mean that DD had it before/at the time of the attack, or does it simply mean that it "came to him" that night... which would fit with Snape or someone else having been at GH and then bringing it to DD afterwards. *That* would explain how DD came to know about the attack w/o an elaborate "Once the Fidelius spell is broken, you just 'know'" kind of scenario. But I can't imagine a DDM!Snape or another Order member having LEFT Harry in the rubble to deliver the IC to DD. That doesn't compute. Heh. Maybe our focus is supposed to be at least as much upon the "when DD could make himself invisible without a cloak" part as we are on the "at the time of James' death" part?? Drat that woman! ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From doliesl at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 17:13:02 2006 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: <700201d40609130921y1a2180acm5f532af1a25307fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060913171302.97066.qmail@web82208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158249 > Maria wrote: > > > > .. JKR updated her site today ... she (JKR) > answered, though belatedly, a question which was asked by one of the > audience in her NY reading. The question was supposed to be > like, "What is the question you have never been asked that you ought > to have been asked?" > > > > Her answer can be found in her Extra Stuff section of her website, > and clicking Miscellaneous. > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at > the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself > invisible without a cloak?" > > > > She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- > answer." I only remember in the book that it was mentioned that DD kept James' cloak, but never specified that Dumbledore actually have James' invisibility cloak *at the time of James' death*, did JKR slip-up? And the way she worded the second part "given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?", is she slipping that someone who can't make himself invisible would need/use the cloak that night? Which also suggested that YES someone else was really there in the house that night. The usual suspect is Snape, and anything that deals with Snape is story-significant and crucial (for me anyway). I like Kemper's suggestion. D. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 13 18:13:44 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:13:44 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158250 > > Quick_Silver: > I agree that Hogwart's focus on the pragmatic is > unfortunate (to me the biggest failing is the joke that's called > History of Magic). The Sciences are an interesting topic however > especially since JK and Hermione stated that technology specifically > computers, radar, and (correct me if I'm wrong) electricity don't > work around heavy concentrations of magic (like Hogwarts). So I > don't think that the Sciences have the same "cross-over" value as > the Humanities (Human is right there in the name!) or Math (which I > agree the wizards suffer a lack of maybe JK too) or History for that > matter. > Ken: JKR and Hermione may both say the electricty doesn't work at Hogwarts but the hard science fiction reader in me cannot accept this. Human beings like all the higher animals have nervous systems that run on electricity. The neurons in your brain that are firing right now as you read these words and form your scathing rebuttal to me are little electronic devices. Your brain is a natural elecronic computer. For that matter the chemical reactions that enable the Hogwarts plants to grow and the Hogwarts students to digest their lovely treacle tarts are moderated by electromagnetism. The life we know is impossible without electricity as we know it. Radio waves transmitted by the BBC differ from the starlight that Hogwarts students observe from Astronomy Tower only in frequency. To disrupt one is to disrupt the other. I can accept that Hogwarts is cloaked from the outside world by magical means. I don't accept the explanation that is given for this, it is impossible. But I don't require that it be explained fully either. Douglas Adams doesn't *really* explain how his Infinite Improbability Drive works, Larry Niven doesn't *really* explain how his Quantum Hyperdrive works. All they give are vague handwaving theories about them which don't truly explain but which don't contradict known physics either. Generally the magic in HP can be viewed in the same way but in the specific case of the protection at Hogwarts the story got a little bit too detailed to be believable. This reader would have been happier with a vague answer than with a detailed answer that can't work. A hard SF author could probably come up with satisfying handwaving theories to explain most of what Rowling depicts and she hasn't generally done a bad job of this herself. It's just that in a few cases like this one I have to grit my teeth and read on. Hogwarts students need a science education as much as anyone else. Magic in the Potterverse has to be viewed as an extension of ordinary physics not a denial of it. A science program that only teaches astronomy can hardly give students the breadth that they need and if you divorce it from other disciplines you can do at best a poor job of teaching astronomy. These books represent an opportunity to influence young minds that dwarfs the expectations that anyone had at the release of the first book. In a way it is a huge missed opportunity to omit cultural classes at Hogwarts and a tighter tie between magic and science because these features could have inspired young reader's interest in these fields. Ken From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 18:17:10 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:17:10 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158251 wrote: > > Hello fellow HP4GU members. JKR updated her site today and I guess all of the members would be interested to know that she (JKR) answered, though belatedly, a question which was asked by one of the audience in her NY reading. The question was supposed to be like, "What is the question you have never been asked that you ought to have been asked?" > > Her answer can be found in her Extra Stuff section of her website, and clicking Miscellaneous. > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?" > > She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- answer." > > maria8162001 > hpfan_mom now: I accept JKR's explanation that she blanked when asked this question on-stage, but it worked out nicely for her in that she got a chance to think about exactly how to phrase the question. I had previously wondered why DD had James' invisibility cloak, but never exactly as JKR suggests we think about it: AT THE TIME OF JAMES' DEATH. The logical inference for me is that DD received the IC *before* James died, in order to actually have it AT the time of death. This would preclude theories about someone taking the IC from the rubble of Godric's Hollow. Instead, we should be thinking about *why* James would have given DD the cloak. As members of the Order who had defied Voldemort at least once and perhaps already thrice, the Potters went into hiding. Why would James not keep his IC, surely a useful magical resource for someone who doesn't want to be seen? JKR tells us that DD doesn't need it for himself, so did DD need it for someone else? I can't see that DD would think someone needed the cloak more than James, who was so much in danger that he took his wife and toddler son into hiding. ICs are not common, but Moody even has a spare one, IIRC. Is there something about this particular IC that makes it significant? I'm not convinced of this theory either - James wouldn't worry about a thing more than his family, would he? And if it were magically significant, wouldn't DD have told Harry by now? Is it possible that James didn't *give* DD the cloak but that DD *took* it? I know I'm raising questions, not answering them, but hopefully some of these questions will lead to a fruitful discussion -- hpfan_mom From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 13 18:26:26 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:26:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse In-Reply-To: <1158143102.2189.71376.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20060913182626.4684.qmail@web25608.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158252 Quick_Silverwrote: >I got the impression from Quidditch though the Ages >that the wizarding retreat was more gradual then a schism. A lot >people seem to have this view that the Statue of Secrecy was a huge >change forcing massive social changes on wizarding society but the >impression I got was that it was simply the formal declaration of >something that appears to have been ongoing for at least three >hundred years. Or even longer. I think that the WW was de facto entirely seperate as far as "civilised society" went from before the time Hogwarts was founded, (though things would have been more fluid for poorer folk), and that once wizarding folk became aware that their abilities were inherited, they began to associate with one another rather than with Muggles - at the most basic level, a lot of the things on a wizard's weekly shopping list were things that wouldn't be purchased by Muggle households! I'd see the Statute of Secrecy and the formation of the Ministry as being socially far more important for the internal dynamics of the WW than for the relations between wizards and Muggles. >But doesn't that become Patronizing to their culture? >I mean you speak of the contribution that "their" nation has made to >the world but they would argue that muggle England has made many >contributions to the muggle world. This seems like a "cultural" >minefield for me because it seem to me that you're saying that >Hogwarts should basically be teaching the wizards something that >will help them be assimilated into the muggle world. Well said. We literally don't (and probably never will) know just what cultural resources the WW has, they could be equally or even more rich than anything that is available to us - what potential there might be for magically enhanced music or theatre, for example. We also don't know that the WW has the same political geography as the Muggle world, though there are strong hints that it doesn't. cheers Ffred From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 18:38:31 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:38:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609131138y3c3b7d12nd4ade198ec0b4b0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158253 SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! I didn't think this was a question that needed to be answered as in SS it is stated albeit rather obliquely that it was being held for Harry for when the time came that he could use it and would appreciate it. So there was no reason for me to ask this particular question. On 9/13/06, hpfan_mom wrote: > > wrote: > > > > Hello fellow HP4GU members. JKR updated her site today and I guess > all of the members would be interested to know that she (JKR) > answered, though belatedly, a question which was asked by one of the > audience in her NY reading. The question was supposed to be > like, "What is the question you have never been asked that you ought > to have been asked?" > > > > Her answer can be found in her Extra Stuff section of her website, > and clicking Miscellaneous. > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at > the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself > invisible without a cloak?" > > > > She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- > answer." > > > > maria8162001 > > > hpfan_mom now: > > I accept JKR's explanation that she blanked when asked this question > on-stage, but it worked out nicely for her in that she got a chance > to think about exactly how to phrase the question. > > I had previously wondered why DD had James' invisibility cloak, but > never exactly as JKR suggests we think about it: AT THE TIME OF > JAMES' DEATH. > > The logical inference for me is that DD received the IC *before* > James died, in order to actually have it AT the time of death. This > would preclude theories about someone taking the IC from the rubble > of Godric's Hollow. Instead, we should be thinking about *why* James > would have given DD the cloak. > > As members of the Order who had defied Voldemort at least once and > perhaps already thrice, the Potters went into hiding. Why would > James not keep his IC, surely a useful magical resource for someone > who doesn't want to be seen? JKR tells us that DD doesn't need it > for himself, so did DD need it for someone else? > > I can't see that DD would think someone needed the cloak more than > James, who was so much in danger that he took his wife and toddler > son into hiding. ICs are not common, but Moody even has a spare one, > IIRC. > > Is there something about this particular IC that makes it > significant? I'm not convinced of this theory either - James > wouldn't worry about a thing more than his family, would he? And if > it were magically significant, wouldn't DD have told Harry by now? > > Is it possible that James didn't *give* DD the cloak but that DD > *took* it? > > I know I'm raising questions, not answering them, but hopefully some > of these questions will lead to a fruitful discussion -- > > hpfan_mom > > > -- DeColores [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Sep 13 18:44:06 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (saberbunny) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:44:06 -0000 Subject: What did Dudley see with the Dementors? (WAS: Theory on Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158254 > > Abergoat suggests: >snipped... > I understand that parents are encouraged to handle a toddler's > transition from only child to 'older sibling' carefully. Dudley > wouldn't have had that preparation - he would have woken up to sharing the house with another toddler...and a 15 months his understanding would be sufficiently limited (that) must have been the first time in his young life that screaming didn't get him what he wanted. It must have been a horrible shock...one that it seems his parents are still trying to make up for. > > Catherine (de-lurking for a post) now: Actually, at 15 months, a child's short-term memory is pretty limited. Give him a few days, and he won't even remember having been an only child. He'll notice something is different, but won't blame it on the newcomer. The Dursley's, on the other hand, have enough resentment towards Harry that they just transferred it over to Dudley. If they were older, even closer to 2 years old, he might have memories of being an only child. But take it from me...I vaccinate babies and older children, and at a year old, I have to give 4 seperate injections, 2 of which burn a heck of a lot. By the 4th injection, I don't know who hates me more, the child or their parent. But what I can tell you, is that 5 minutes later, the child is giving me a great big smile having completely forgotten all the pain (or at least that I was the one inflicting it). The parents still hate me though....can't cure that with a sticker! Catherine (hiding back in the shadows of lurkdom) From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 18:57:47 2006 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:57:47 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609131138y3c3b7d12nd4ade198ec0b4b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158255 This is a really interesting question to think about. I've noticed a few people talking about the way that Jo phrased the question, focusing on the "at the time" part. I just wanted to point out the one thing we do know about the cloak, which is that Dumbledore told Harry, "Your Dad left it in my possession before he died and it is time it was returned to you" (or something along those lines, don't have my book for the exact quote) in the note he gave him along with the cloak. This points to James voluntarily leaving the cloak with Dumbledore for some reason, probably not being aware of the fact that he was going to die soon and would never get it back. So the question could be why did James give the cloak to Dumbledore, or possibly, why did Dumbledore ask James for the cloak? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 13 19:01:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:01:36 -0000 Subject: Why Latin For magic? (was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver se - Humanities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > James Muses: > > > I've always pondered why a lot of the magic seems to be Latin in > origin. There are definitely hints that wizards existed before > Latin, so why Latin? > > > (snip) I believe wizards could in theory use any language > > for spell craft, Latin is useful and common for spell craft > exactly because it's a dead language that nobody speaks. > > > > Tonks: > That is an interesting theory. > > Botanical names for plants and the names for parts of the human body > are also in Latin. And Latin was the official language for the > Roman Catholic Church until the 1950's. So there is a common trend > here as well as in the WW. As to the underlying reason why, I > really have never thought about it. But I think the reason has to do > with the fact that like English today, in the past Latin was the > universal language. Geoff: 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. Kenneth: But how does magic "know" that a certain Latin phrase means a specific magical event/spell? Geoff: Simply because it /is/ magic. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Sep 13 18:41:42 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Jan) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:41:42 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158257 Here are a few interesting thoughts... Muggle born children up to the age of 13 are quite likely to have been attending school that teach a full range of subjects. Are wizard childern taught at home? Are there pre-hogwarts schools? And I've forgotten, don't students choose their profession near the end of their studies at Hogwarts and then plan for further study? Could the Hogwart's years be set aside simply to learn to control their talent? curious, Tesha From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 19:37:45 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:37:45 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158258 maria8162001: > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?" She also stated that "there IS a significant -- even crucial -- answer." hpfan_mom: > The logical inference for me is that DD received the IC *before* James died, in order to actually have it AT the time of death. This would preclude theories about someone taking the IC from the rubble of Godric's Hollow. Instead, we should be thinking about *why* James would have given DD the cloak. Ceridwen: Could someone have needed to use it that day? That was a crucial day for the WW, LV and his DEs, and for the Potters. Some big things must have been going on in the DE camp leading up to this night, necessitating the use of the cloak by someone. Evidenced by the use of the invisibility cloak, this someone would have to be someone who would have been out of place in the DE circle, or someone who was not included in the plotting. This person would have used it either on the night of 30 October and returned it to DD the next day, or was going to use it the night of the 31st, or did use it that night in order to obtain information. SPECULATION ALERT ;) It could be Snape, or it could be someone else. If it was Snape, then he was not included in the plot against the Potters and so would have been out of place when that group met. It wouldn't have been impossible for him to be there due to teaching either on the night of the 30th or at some point on the 31st, since the 30th of October 1981 was a Friday and the 31st was a Saturday: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/calendar/monthly.cfm? Year=1981&Month=10&Audience=SSEP If Snape spied on the group, if there was a group who knew about the Potter attack, then Peter Pettigrew must not have attended any of those meetings. I don't think Snape knew Pettigrew was involved before the end of PoA, just based on reading. It's possible that LV kept his 'ace in the hole' a secret to all of his DEs, using only the name 'Wormtail' when discussing the plans. *IF* he discussed the plans at all. If it was someone else, that person could have needed the cloak for another crucial mission responding to some sort of decoy planning operation which would fool the Order (and the Ministry?) into thinking that this night would not be The Night. There may even have been something else going on to draw the DMLE and Order members away from GH and its area. We do know that there was more going on than just a plot to rid LV of the one who could vanquish him. His plans went on. *IF* LV came to the Potters' house alone (or with Wormtail), his minions could easily have been sent on other errands. The war must go on, after all. That's my idea on first reading what JKR said. Did I make sense to anybody? Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 19:49:46 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:49:46 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles: Magic & Science in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158259 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > > Quick_Silver: > > > I agree that Hogwart's focus on the pragmatic ... > > unfortunate ...the joke that's called History of > > Magic). The Sciences are an interesting topic however > > especially since JK and Hermione stated that > > technology specifically computers, radar, and ...) > > electricity don't work around ... magic (like > > Hogwarts). ... > > > > Ken: > > JKR and Hermione may both say the electricty doesn't > work at Hogwarts but the hard science fiction reader > in me cannot accept this. Human beings like all the > higher animals have nervous systems that run on > electricity. .. > bboyminn: Fair point but one doesn't necessarily eliminate the other. The brain is a electical instrument that is suprebly insulated. For example, when your TV reception suddenly goes staticy, it is because of outside electical interference; lightening strike or whatever. But when that happens, you brain doesn't go all staticy. On the subject of lightening strikes, most people do survive them, but very very very few electical or electronic devices do. Another indication that the electical properties of the brain are far different than that of electical or electronic devices. When you put your brain in an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) it still functions, but any electronic device put into the same MRI is going to go into 'overload'. I have always speculated that the aura of magic around Hogwarts doesn't prevent the simple flow of basic electrical current. For example, a simple flash light (torch) would likely work. But any electronic devices like calculators, radios, TVs, computers, printers, fax machines, cell phones would be 'overloaded' by the magical energy. So, the magical aura /can/ overload electical and electronic devices and still /not/ overload the human brain. > Ken: > > ...edited... > > Hogwarts students need a science education as much as > anyone else. Magic in the Potterverse has to be viewed > as an extension of ordinary physics not a denial of it. > ...edited... bboyminn: I've already said that Wizards do study science, they study the science of magic, which in their world serves that same purpose as technology in ours. I've also always contended that magic is just science/physics that muggles haven't discovered yet. Many items in fiction, even at the time unbelievable items, eventually become reality. Science has always been considered magic, until some muggle comes up with an explanation, at which time it is no longer 'magic' but science. If magic exists in the muggle world. That is, if we assume for the moment that it is real, then it must work within the realm of physics and other natural laws. We muggles simply haven't discovered that aspect of physics yet. I suspect what is holding us up is our absolute denial that magic is even possible. Some muggle scientist at some point is going to have to be convinced that it is possible before he will make the effort to discover how and why it is possible. It is possible in 500 years, muggle will discover the science of magic, and apply it to magical energy free cars, to faster that warp-speed spacecraft, to magical farming and food production, to powering our cities without polution. I'm reminded of the Star Trek Prime Directive that forbids tranferring technical knowledge to worlds until they are ready for it, until they have discovered it on their own. The reason the wizard world is hidden from us is because, like those primitive planets, we muggles simply aren't ready for that knowledge yet. When we finally are ready we will discover and apply it on our own. Only then can the walls between the wizards and muggles finally fall. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Sep 13 20:01:00 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:01:00 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158260 > Ceridwen: It wouldn't have been > impossible for [Snape] to be there due to teaching either on the night of > the 30th or at some point on the 31st, since the 30th of October 1981 > was a Friday and the 31st was a Saturday: > http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/calendar/monthly.cfm? > Year=1981&Month=10&Audience=SSEP Hickengruendler: In reality, yes. However, as the first chapter in PS informs us, the story begins on a Tuesday. It is Tuesday evening, when Hagrid and Baby Harry finally arrive at Privet Drive (after having done who knows what ;-) ), therefore it was on a Monday, when James and Lily died. But I don't think it matters much. JKR quite obviously doesn't care for dates. From random832 at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 20:51:03 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:51:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609131351x162b9ab5wae0c4ec01189cd17@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158261 Random832: > > We've seen no evidence otherwise of any wizard > > offering any muggle the option to refuse [...] Hogwarts > > attendance > > BAW: > Since when do Muggles attend Hogwarts? If you mean Muggleborn wizardling children Random832: I mean their parents. Vernon makes it quite clear that he doesn't want Harry going to Hogwarts and Hagrid will hear none of it. If they're really his legal guardians, don't they have a right to raise him as they see fit (and for those who think that they step over the line into child abuse - if that's the case, shouldn't that be determined in a court of law rather than having Hagrid or Dumbledore act as JJ&E?) -- Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 21:03:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:03:47 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609131351x162b9ab5wae0c4ec01189cd17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158262 > Random832: > I mean their parents. Vernon makes it quite clear that he doesn't want > Harry going to Hogwarts and Hagrid will hear none of it. If they're > really his legal guardians, don't they have a right to raise him as > they see fit (and for those who think that they step over the line > into child abuse - if that's the case, shouldn't that be determined in > a court of law rather than having Hagrid or Dumbledore act as JJ&E?) > Alla: Actually this is the point I am forced to take into consideration as to whether Dursleys are indeed Harry's legal guardians in full sense of the word. Yes, in RL they have to be allowed to raised him as they see fit. But one can argue that since magic is the integral part of who he is, that can be truly dangerous for Harry and people around him to deny him the recognition of his abilities, that it can be dangerous for his health in both literal and metaphorical sense to not develop his abilities, therefore even his guardians are sometimes not allowed to act against child's best interest, if that makes any sense. Oh, and YES of course whether Dursleys are abusive in RL should be decided in court, totally. But JKR is not writing a story about Dursleys and social services IMO, that has no place in the story, that is why she punishes them by the means that somehow can fit in the plot, as I argued in the past IMO. JMO, Alla, who thinks that very strong case can be built against Dursleys as child abusers From dougsamu at golden.net Wed Sep 13 21:01:58 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:01:58 -0400 Subject: Why Latin For magic? Message-ID: <3D1686B8-628C-4214-8E7B-9ED5B794E6F7@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 158263 As Literacy spread, so did written language. Ancient spell books would have been hand-written, if at all, in Aramaic, Sanskrit, Pali... the written languages of the place and time. Magic would have been passed on orally otherwise. I suspect that as our story is being told from a western European point of view, the appropriate language would have Latin roots. Language is the naming of concepts. Concepts are projected onto the world. Rocks and sticks don't care or even know they have a name. It is we who project and label it so. Naming things is itself magic, psychologically. The naming of a thing is differentiation, recognition, possession, projection of self in relationship to other. The patronus is Happiness projected outside of self, manifest as corporeal. But it needs to be named. The naming is the forming and the casting outside of self. It needs to be thought of, then named, then spoken. > Kenneth asks: > > But how does magic "know" that a certain Latin phrase means a > specific magical event/spell? Spells are being created all the > time - viz. Snape's Septumsempra - so however he created that > spell and its magical effect, how does "magic" remember this so > that when someone else, somewhere else, years later (like Harry > does after reading the book), says the latin word(s)these word(s) > produce the magical effect? Does this mean that magic is > conscious? How else could it remember that a certain combination > of words uttered by a wizard produces a certain magical effect. > It must also be omnipresent since the memory is not restricted to > a specific location time or spell sayer. Magic is then either manifest completely from within the magical self, or channelled through the magician from an outside source. I lean to the internal manifestation projected, rather than channelled from the outside. Conversely, sticks and feathers and willow tree bark can have and do have some projected or assigned qualities, or some actual active pharmaceutical properties. When we brew up a willow bark tea to cure aches and pains, is that channelled-from-the-outside magic? There are arguments on either side. If something of Harry knew Sectumsempra - without Harry himself ever having seen it, or been taught it- then the magic comes from what he "knows". If magic is from a great something outside and is channelled, then merely knowing the proper name for it is enough. That said, Snape is said to have invented the spell. Does this mean he 'discovered' the latent external force, or does it mean he imagined it, named it, made it real. No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic. ____________________ From juli17 at aol.com Wed Sep 13 21:19:05 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:19:05 -0400 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: <1158177270.2484.97304.m37@yahoogroups.com> References: <1158177270.2484.97304.m37@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C8A591606F4EB7-11E8-1D8A@MBLK-M32.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158264 Alla wrote: As to legal obligations in the US, somebody upthread brought the Texas Law - and this is what it is for me in the nutshell - aunt has an obligation to save a nephew or be held criminally negligent, really to me it is very simple. Actually, I am not even sure if this is true in all states, since I don't deal with family law, but IMO it really really should be. Julie: An aunt has an obligation to save a nephew if he is in grave danger at a given moment, e.g., he is about to be run over by a truck. Or at least to *attempt* to save him (if jumping in to save him would mean her death--she'd get run over by said truck--then I think the "legal" part of the obligation might be in doubt, though not the moral obligation in most cases). But an aunt does NOT have a legal obligation to provide protection for a nephew in *potential* danger, e.g., the Mob has taken out a hit on him because his father killed the big boss. That kind of protection is the legal responsibility of the government via the police, FBI, etc. I would equate the position of the Dursleys with the second example. They don't have any legal obligation to provide long-standing protection for Harry, especially if it puts their lives in danger. It would be morally upstanding of them to do so, but legally I don't know of any country that would require it. Equally, they have no legal obligation to take him in and raise him. (In fact any parent can turn his/her child over to the government if he/she is incapable of or unwilling to raise the child for whatever reason.) Moral obligation again, that is something else. Julie, who doesn't believe the Durlseys have any legal obligations to baby!Harry at all, only moral ones. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Sep 13 21:19:47 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:19:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... References: Message-ID: <007601c6d77a$57c04c40$9a66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158265 Ken: > > Thanks for the kind words. I hoped for rather more support on this > here than I seem to be getting. Maybe this group is not nearly as > heavily populated by literature majors as I always imagined. Magpie: Heh--well, I'm one. I just think of Hogwarts as being a joke on school on a child's level and don't think JKR has fleshed out that part of her world. I find that easier to believe, actually, than the idea there's a lot of stuff going on that we just never see in this small world. She could easily throw in another joke on Muggle culture at any time, but it would probably come across as just that to me, a joke on Muggle Culture. She's told us, I believe, that Hogwarts has no higher education as well. As a person I'd miss that aspect of Wizarding education--I'd also miss another thing Hermione says wizards lack, which is logic. Her own challenge to Slinkhard's text in OotP is a non-sequitor yet of course there's no actual rebuttle to it either. There's no discussion of philosophy or ethics in places where I think it really matters at Hogwarts either. An education that's practical in the way Hogwarts' is doesn't encouarge, imo, the same kind of thinking as the study of literature or philosophy might. Or history if it's coming from different sources. We know that Wizards have little understanding of basic science given Arthur's wistful desire to know "how Muggle airplanes stay up"---something he could learn. He lives in the same universe, so obviously physics still exist, even if there are a few different things he can do other people can't. I think that's also why Hermione's line about "books and cleverness" always jars me. Not because she says it, because I think it fits her character and I get what she's saying in the scene. But that it seems like such a commonly held belief in the WW at times, as if "books and cleverness" refers a lot of important things. I know I have read theories that this is part of the point Rowling is making, that Ravenclaw, for instance, is inferior because they represent the intellectual, as in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, which is a bad thing. Ken: > All the discussions here about magical bullies and helpless Muggles > have given me some cause to think about the Separation and I have come > up with a theory. Unlike many here I do not think I would routinely > feel helpless or fearful when dealing wizards and witches, assuming > that they really existed. In all honesty I probably would just drink > the mead and have a laugh over the toffee. These wizards and witches > are not like those of folk tales. They are just like us but they have > a talent to do magic instead of, in my case, calculus. So I don't > think I would be fearful in their presence any more than I am in the > presence of real people who are younger, bigger, stronger, quicker, or > more atheletic than I am. We depend on our common culture to prevent > normal interactions from turning into violent ones where we might be > at a disadvantage. Magpie: As somebody who's spoken a lot about wizarding bullying of Muggles, I do basically agree with this. When I think that I would feel "unsafe" around wizards I don't think of feeling unsafe in general. I mean that if I were, say, friends with a Weasley twin and then saw him having a big laugh over picking on a Muggle with magic because he deserved it, it would make me feel less safe around that twin. Or maybe "not safe" isn't the right term either, but I would definitely take note of it and remember it, not trusting that this is something he wouldn't do. That's just the same as with Muggles, though. I can be friends with men, but if I saw a man rough up a woman for fun that would become an important of his character for me. Same with any person who revealed that they liked that kind of thing. Your scenario for how the breach occurred due to this sort of thing makes sense to me. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 21:44:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:44:18 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: <8C8A591606F4EB7-11E8-1D8A@MBLK-M32.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158266 > Julie: > An aunt has an obligation to save a nephew if he is in grave danger > at a given moment, e.g., he is about to be run over by a truck. Or > at least to *attempt* to save him (if jumping in to save him would > mean her death--she'd get run over by said truck--then I think the > "legal" part of the obligation might be in doubt, though not the > moral obligation in most cases). But an aunt does NOT have a legal > obligation to provide protection for a nephew in *potential* danger, > e.g., the Mob has taken out a hit on him because his father killed > the big boss. That kind of protection is the legal responsibility > of the government via the police, FBI, etc. > > I would equate the position of the Dursleys with the second example. > They don't have any legal obligation to provide long-standing > protection for Harry, especially if it puts their lives in danger. > It would be morally upstanding of them to do so, but legally I > don't know of any country that would require it. Alla: And I would completely disagree. To me it is very similar to your example. I mean, the attempt on **Harry's** life had already been made. Yes, his parents were killed, but **his** life is already in danger for sure and who knows if Voldemort would not repeat the attempt? To me the danger is very grave, not potential at all. IMO of course. Julie: Equally, they have > no legal obligation to take him in and raise him. (In fact any > parent can turn his/her child over to the government if he/she is > incapable of or unwilling to raise the child for whatever reason.) > Moral obligation again, that is something else. Alla: Well, yes, of course. They have no legal obligations to do so,if that had been RL,except that they would have been first on line as potential guardians, but they certainly have a right to refuse. But moral ones should mean something, no? And I completely agree with Steve, we don't know what was in that note, I think it is very plausible via my general assesment of Dumbledore character that the note may have had the instructions of what to do if Dursleys do not want to take Harry in. Again, IMO Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 22:03:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:03:08 -0000 Subject: Transfiguration question/ Was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158267 DA Jones wrote: > > Transfiguration spells seem to work by transfering something. For > instance the turing teacups into mice requires that a whole mouse be > swapped through space and with a teacup. > > Tonks: > I do not agree. First lets look at what the word means both inside > and outside of the WW: > -------- > Dictonary.com says that Transfiguration means: > ?noun > the act of transfiguring. > the state of being transfigured. > Wikipedia says: > ? In the Harry Potter books and films, transfiguration is the > art of metamorphosis, changing of the form and appearance of an > object, and the conjuring and creation of objects. > > HP Lexicon says: > Transfiguration is magic which changes one object into another. It > is possible to change inanimate objects into animate ones and vice > versa. Some Transfiguration spells alter a part of something, such > as changing a person's ears from normal into rabbit ears. At > Hogwarts, Transfiguration is taught by Professor McGonagall. Fifty > years ago, Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher at Hogwarts > (CS). Transfiguration spells were cast in ancient times as well. > Circe, a Witch who lived in the Greek island of Aeaea, was famous > for turning lost sailors into pigs (CS/g). > The opposite of Transfiguration is Untransfiguration, which would be > returning something to its proper form. (OP29) > --------- > It seems that it is a form of metamorphosis, not a transfering one > object through time and space to another. It is, IMO, more like what > happens to a butterfly. Carol responds: I agree that Transfiguration is a form of transformation in which the form or nature of the object (or part of it) is altered. Vanishing objects and conjuring objects out of thin air are also considered Transfiguration though I agree with DA Jones that a Vanished object isn't necessarily obliterated; it's just transferred somewhere else. At least that seems to be the case with the Vanishing Cabinets, but the Evanesco spell that Snape uses (often nonverbally) to vanish spilled potions does seem to eliminate them completely. Conjured objects are another matter. It's quite possible that Dumbledore is just summoning the mead and glasses from somewhere rather than conjuring them; otherwise, the mead should in theory have no lasting effects. JKR said in an interview that you can't conjure (real) food or (real) money--it will vanish like Leprechaun gold (or, in the case of food, will presumably have no nutritional value. Otherwise, no one in the WW would be poor. Lupin, for example, could conjure clothes and meals. But back to ordinary Transfiguration, as opposed to conjuring and vanishing, which are inherently problematic. Unlike Charms, in which the properties of an object or person are temporarily changed (he/she/it can fly or float or be cheered up or feel a tickling sensation or be silenced or change color hear a buzzing in their ears), Transfiguration turns something (or someone) into something else (a match into a needle or a hedgehog into a pin cushion or a person into a dog). The wandless magic practiced by an Animagus or Metamorphmagus is a form of Transfiguration: a person is changed into an animal or into another person (I think an imaginary person, not a real one--IOW, the older women that Tonks transforms into in OoP are not real people, in contrast to the effects of Polyjuice potion). Since the definition of an abstract noun like "transfiguration" is likely to depend upon the verb from which the noun is derived ("the act of transfiguring"; "the state of being transfigured"), I think it would be more profitable to look at the defintion of the verb "transfigure" (from Merriam-Webster online): Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -ured; -ur?ing Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French transfigurer, from Latin transfigurare, from trans- + figurare to shape, fashion, from figura figure [Definition]: to give a new and typically exalted or spiritual appearance to: transform outwardly and usually for the better Tonks may be onto something with the "exalted" nature of Transfiguration and the fact that it's taught by Dumbledore and McGonnagall, both of whom are almost certainly on the side of Good or Light (but so is Flitwick, the Charms teacher). I'm not sure that Transfiguring an object into an animal is necessarily a transformation for the better, but vinegar into wine is certainly an improvement. And Sirius Black into Padfoot--never mind. It does seem to me that Transfiguration is more difficult and potentially dangerous than Charms, but I'm not sure that it's a more exalted subject. It's even possible to be better at Transfiguration than at Charms, as seems to be the case with Augusta Longbottom (maiden name unknown). Carol, who thinks that turning your eyebrows a different color ought to be taught in Charms rather than Transfiguration since it doesn't involve turning something into something else From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 22:06:56 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:06:56 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158268 > Alla: > And I completely agree with Steve, we don't know what was in that > note, I think it is very plausible via my general assesment of > Dumbledore character that the note may have had the instructions of > what to do if Dursleys do not want to take Harry in. a_svirn: Strangely enough according to *my* reading of Dumbledore's character I'd say that there weren't any such instructions in the letter. But that's one of those *JMO* kind of arguments. I've got a question, though. If he was willing to give them a way out, why didn't he simply ask? He already went to the trouble of coming to Privet Drive, so why did he dump Harry at Petunia's porch? If he asked and they refused, he could take him somewhere else, simple as that. So why complicate the matter? From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Wed Sep 13 22:06:22 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:06:22 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158269 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Maria Vaerewyck" wrote: > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?" > This could mean that James intended the cloak to be used to conceal something/someone else. Somewhere in the books it says that James gave the cloak to Dumbledore for 'safe-keeping', not so that 'someone else could use it', plus there are other charms and potions that can keep a person invisible (such as the one introduced at the beginning of OotP). And, as has been previously stated on this thread, the cloak itself was not unique (Ron knew what one was, Moody had one), so I don't think that it was given to Dumbledore specifically because of anything special about the cloak. Is it possible James gave Dumbledore the cloak, concealing something else important inside it? Perhaps James had something that the Dark Lord wanted? What about the sword of Gryffindor? We know that the sword ended up in the Sorting Hat, but not why or who put it there. Dumbledore was adamant that both the sword and hat weren't horcruxes. It's conceivable that James had the sword. The family home (or at least the home of Lily and James) was in Godric's Hollow, and Godric is the first name of Gryffindor. This may also explain why Voldemort chose to target Lily and James over the Longbottoms, who also seemed to fit the criteria of the prophecy. Though why James would give the sword to Dumbledore rather than trusting it to the vaults of Gringotts, which at that point, had never been broken into, is another question. Probably because Dumbledore was an extremely powerful wizard. This would imply that Dumbledore and James were aware that the Dark Lord was interested in objects owned by the Founders. This may be the case; Dumbledore was certainly suspicious of Tom Riddle's interest in the Sorting Hat. However, I don't think that Dumbledore realised the significance of these artifacts until after the Dark Lord slipped away from Godric's Hollow in his strange, 'lesser than the meanest ghost' half-life, or maybe not until after the debacle with the Diary and the CoS. Any thoughts? Cheers, Nate. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Sep 13 22:40:54 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:40:54 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158270 S P O I L E R S P A C E "jelly92784" wrote: > > This is a really interesting question to think about. I've noticed a > few people talking about the way that Jo phrased the question, > focusing on the "at the time" part. I just wanted to point out the > one thing we do know about the cloak, which is that Dumbledore told > Harry, "Your Dad left it in my possession before he died and it is > time it was returned to you" (or something along those lines, don't > have my book for the exact quote) in the note he gave him along with > the cloak. This points to James voluntarily leaving the cloak with > Dumbledore for some reason, probably not being aware of the fact that > he was going to die soon and would never get it back. So the question > could be why did James give the cloak to Dumbledore, or possibly, why > did Dumbledore ask James for the cloak? > Julie: This is interesting. I'm actually surprised JKR would give this much away, unless it's another clue like "why didn't Voldemort die?" where she figures we won't be able to guess the full answer. The only reason I can come up with so far for DD to want the cloak is so someone could infiltrate *behind* enemy lines. (Yet why not just use Moody's cloak and let James keep his in case it is useful in hiding from Voldemort?) Maybe though someone was being sent to spy on Voldemort in hopes of discovering his plan of attack against the Potters, or of discovering any potential betrayer of the Potters who might be passing info to Voldemort. On first thought this would seem to exclude Snape as he is already a spy within Voldemort's camp, and one who is able to spy right out in the open. Yet evidence suggests DEs are very much on a "need to know" basis with Voldemort, who seems to inform only those very directly involved about any given plan. So if Snape was not in on the plan to find and kill the Potters he would likely have been left out of the loop. To get any pertinent information he'd have to spy unnoticed, under an invisibility cloak, for instance. And he might even be the only one who could do it, as he is a DE so can pass through any protective barriers that would stop those without the DE mark. BTW, if Snape showed up at Godric's Hollow right after the fact (having followed Voldemort or figured out the location after the secret-keeper charm was broken, or whatever), we don't know whether he stayed or not. He might have placed a protective charm on Harry and then departed before anyone could spot him, or he might have remained under the cloak watching over Harry until Hagrid arrived (and still no one could spot him). So no reason to assume he deserted baby!Harry in his time of need ;-) Julie From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Sep 13 22:47:38 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:47:38 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nate Hennessey" wrote: > Is it possible James gave Dumbledore the cloak, > concealing something else important inside it? > Perhaps James had something that the Dark Lord > wanted? > > What about the sword of Gryffindor? > We know that the sword ended up in the Sorting Hat, > but not why or who put it there. Dumbledore was > adamant that both the sword and hat weren't > horcruxes. It's conceivable that James had the sword. Hickengruendler: But in the chapter "Lord Voldemort's request", Dumbledore clearly implied, that the reason why Voldmeort wanted to have the position as the DADA-teacher, was to get his hands at the Sword. He even confirmed it later in the Horcruxes chapter, when Harry asked. That means that at this time, which was even before James was born, the sword was already in the Hogwarts' office. That said, your theory is still pretty interesting. But it must have been something else that was hidden in the cloak. Not the sword. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 23:03:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:03:08 -0000 Subject: Why Latin For magic? (was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver se - Huma In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158272 Geoff 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. > > Kenneth: > > But how does magic "know" that a certain Latin phrase means a > specific magical event/spell? > > Geoff: > Simply because it /is/ magic. > Carol responds: I agree with Geoff's explanation and was intending to say something similar. I would add that having Latin as the language of the standard spells would help European Wizards to retain their common culture. Having the spells in the individual languages would tend, IMO, to erode the sense of unity in at least the European portions of the WW. (Interestingly, English appears to be the modern lingua franca in the WW, just as it is in the real world. The students and teachers from Beauxbatons and Durmstrang all speak it, but few of the Hogwarts students seem to speak Franch and none seem to speak Bulgarian or Russian or whatever the native language of the Durmstrang students happens to be--not German, despite the name of their school, if we look at the few names we're given.) As for magic being conscious, I think it's more that the wand is sentient. It can not only sense a nonverbal spell, it also senses intention (which is why the students need to concentrate on their objective rather than simply saying the words). But perhaps the core, a "powerful magical substance," understands the Latin words just as magical animals such as Hedwig and Cookshanks, seem to understand English. I realize that the part about intention seems to be contradicted by Sectumsempra working when Harry spoke the words for the first time, but he knew that it was "for enemies" and I'm pretty sure that he intended to hurt Draco, if not to slash his face and chest so deeply that he could have bled to death. Unfortunately, Harry's only "intention" in casting Levicorpus (nonverbally) was to find out what the spell did, so we're back to the wand or wand core understanding the Latin words. Don't blame me. Blame JKR. ;-) Carol, wondering if early Hogwarts classes were taught in Latin so that the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman kids had a common language From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 23:14:24 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:14:24 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse WAS: Re: DD at th... In-Reply-To: <007601c6d77a$57c04c40$9a66400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158273 > >>Magpie: > > I just think of Hogwarts as being a joke on school on a child's > level and don't think JKR has fleshed out that part of her world. > I find that easier to believe, actually, than the idea there's a > lot of stuff going on that we just never see in this small world. > Betsy Hp: I think JKR is being a lot more... would allegorical be the word?... with the WW than an actual world builder. It's like she wanted to set up this place that echoes the real world, but is basic enough and divided enough that she can use it to tell her story. One which I think will have a rather strong moral. So there are these gaps, and they're just there. With music, for example, IIRC JKR was asked about WW's musical culture and she pretty much dismissed the question with "I never really thought about it, and I don't see a reason *to* think about it." Not because she dislikes music but because it's not important to the story she's telling so she's not going to take the time with to figure out how the WW's musical tastes might have evolved, etc. A true world builder would, I think, either have an answer to that question, or know their world so well that they could figure out the answer fairly easily. Which is a long way of saying that I agree with Magpie. I don't think the WW is a complete culture. JKR didn't design it to be. *However* I can say that what JKR has designed seems *very* uninviting to me. It's a dark and backwards place, IMO. I think it's fair to make a call on that (form an opinion) because JKR has purposefully (I think) *not* put any culture or ethical awareness or sound legal policy into the WW. There's a lack of numinous, as houhnhnm points out. I can only think JKR did that for a purpose. > >>Phoenixgod: (way back in post 158049) > > Letting the inner snob out a little :) > Betsy Hp: Oh, I wouldn't say I was being snobby. I'm just pointing out that the WW is completely lacking in anything I consider essential to being civilized. Ooh, hang on, did I just make your point? > >>Quick_Silver: > But doesn't that become Patronizing to their culture? > I mean you speak of the contribution that "their" nation has made > to the world but they would argue that muggle England has made > many contributions to the muggle world. This seems like > a "cultural" minefield for me because it seem to me that you're > saying that Hogwarts should basically be teaching the wizards > something that will help them be assimilated into the muggle world. > Betsy Hp: I'm coming to the conclusion that I am a bit of a Muggle snob. But really, it's nearly impossible *not* to be. I mean, the WW is so horribly lacking. From what we've seen they're locked in the dark ages. Literally. Their finest educational institute is a trade school at best. So yeah, they *should* figure out how to assimilate into the Muggle world. If I were a Muggle parent of a magical child I'd be *horrified* at the dark world by child was being trained for. And I'd be equally horrified that she was being ruined for my world. Is that patronizing? Well it's so darn hard not to be! Mozart vs. the Weird Sisters? It's not even a contest. And in the end, it's the wizards that patronized first. They should have picked a fight with a culture they could stand toe to toe with. Like the giants or something. I think wizards look pretty good compared to giants. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 23:19:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:19:23 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158274 Ceridwen wrote: > SPECULATION ALERT ;) > > It could be Snape, or it could be someone else. If it was Snape, > then he was not included in the plot against the Potters and so would have been out of place when that group met. It wouldn't have been impossible for him to be there due to teaching either on the night of the 30th or at some point on the 31st, since the 30th of October 1981 > was a Friday and the 31st was a Saturday: > http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/calendar/monthly.cfm? > Year=1981&Month=10&Audience=SSEP Carol responds: In the RW, October 31, 1981, may have been a Friday, but in the Potterverse, it may not have been. September 1 is always a Monday, so October 31 should always be a Friday. But Halloween can't be either a Friday or a Saturday, since Uncle Vernon goes to work on November 1. Now, granted, Snape would not have been teaching at midnight regardless of the day of the week, but there's no evidence that he was at Godric's Hollow. ("Spinner's End suggests strongly that he was at Hogwarts.") Also, Dumbledore says in SS/PS that *James* placed the Invisibility Cloak in his keeping before he died. since we know that Dumbledore talkied with James about the Fidelius Charm and offered himself as Secret Keeper, it seems likely that James gave him the cloak at that time, realizing that he wouldn't need it any more but also, IMO, that there was a chance he would be killed despite the Fidelius Charm. (He knew there was a spy, evidently.) So, even though it doesn't sound very promising as a theory, I think he just gave the cloak to DD to keep for Harry. Canon says that James gave the cloak to DD. Otherwise, I might think that Hagrid found it and brought it to him after finding Harry in the rubble. Carol, betting that Snape was nowhere near Godric's Hollow but unable to think of any other reason for keeping the IC mysterious From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 00:17:50 2006 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:17:50 -0000 Subject: DD at the Dursleys: Better Manner to Accept. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158275 Tonks_op said: >> The Dursleys could have just taken the drinks and held them. One does have to wonder, what is the significance of all of this alcohol? There must be something to it, I can't think that JKR would give alcohol to her own children or suggest that a teacher or headmaster of a boarding school give alcohol to the students. I mean if this scene were just about manners and hospitality, wouldn't he have just made a pot of tea? Could be herbal tea if they didn't want to have caffeine at midnight. Or even a spot of butterbeer, which doesn't seem to be alcoholic. Just seems a bit odd here. Maybe JKR just wasn't' thinking it all out in the detail that we do. Still I do wonder << Montavilla: Now you're making me wonder. There is SO much alcohol in HBP compared to the other books. Slughorn's party, oak mead, wine... Is it to emphasis the "potions" aspect of the book? I'm wondering if it has some alchemical significance. Perhaps this is the distillation part of the process? Montavilla From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 01:11:55 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:11:55 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158276 First, a few odd instances concerning Invisibility Cloak(s): Dumbledore gives a child (Harry) a Cloak, for what possible purpose oh yeah, so he can find a mirror. Why would you give a child a Cloak that can only be used so no one can see what you are doing, unless you expect him to use it? Snape finds the Cloak outside the entrance to the Whomping Willow inside Snape thanks Harry for the Cloak, How does Snape know the Cloak is Harry's? Lupin gives Harry the Cloak after the fiasco at the Shack, how did he get it when he was in the woods all night as a werewolf? Dumbledore can see through Cloaks or knows when someone is present while wearing one. Dementors cannot be fooled by Cloaks Crouch Jr. ended up with a Cloak that Winky used to hide him, where did Winky get it? Fake Moody knew that Harry was on the stairs when he was under the Cloak. Moody says that Podmore (I think) never returned his Cloak. (Jr's Cloak perhaps) There are quite a few references to Cloaks that may be important when we are attempting to figure out what was so important about James giving Dumbledore his Cloak before his death. If Sirius were using the Cloak to hide himself during the Potters' seclusion, then how did Dumbledore get it back without knowing that Sirius was innocent? Likewise, if Peter were to have used it, how did it become in possession by Dumbledore? Snape couldn't have used it to spy on Voldemort since Dumbledore, Mad Eye and the Dementors, at the very least, feel a presence when you are underneath one; certainly Voldemort could detect one if they can. (I say presence because Dementors can't see) If Snape used the Cloak at Godric's Hollow then it might follow that Snape would have known who the betrayer was. I would think that there would have been some conversation between James and Voldemort before his death over the betrayer. Not only that, but again there is a slight problem with Voldemort feeling the presence of someone underneath a Cloak. Voldemort would have questioned Snape at his first physical opportunity (post graveyard scene, by about 10 min.) as to his allegiance to his fellows about the facts of that night if Voldemort knew Snape had been there. How could Snape worm his way out of his true allegiance to Voldemort if he had kept quiet all these years to Lucius et al about the facts of that night if Snape had actually seen what had happened from underneath a Cloak and Voldemort knew it? Just one last thought to add from whom did Harry's father, James, get this Cloak since James inherited it from his family but James mom and dad didn't die until, at least, his latter years of school (Sirius living with them after he turned sixteen or seventeen) and Dumbledore and Lupin referenced that James used it to nick food and Lupin said that he had seen it several times in their outings. The outings were in their fifth year so James parents haven't died yet, so who did James inherit the Cloak from cause it wasn't mom and dad? It might be important. Oops one more last thought, promise what if James allowed Dumbledore to borrow his Cloak to hide the other intended victim? Snow attributing many of these thoughts to listee's of days gone by From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 01:27:06 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:27:06 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158277 >Nate: > Somewhere in the books it says that James > gave the cloak to Dumbledore for 'safe-keeping', not so > that 'someone else could use it' > Carol: > Also, Dumbledore says in SS/PS that *James* placed the Invisibility > Cloak in his keeping before he died. Neri: I'm not aware of any canon that James left the Invisibility Cloak to Dumbledore for "safekeeping" or "keeping". If someone knows such canon, can he/she refer us to it? AFAIK Dumbledore refers to the subject twice in canon. First in the note that came with the cloak: ****************************************************** SS/PS, Ch. 12, p. 202: Your father left this in my possession before he died. It is time it was returned to you. Use it well. ****************************************************** So JKR hasn't actually told us anything new ? Dumbledore has already said that James left the cloak with him *before* he died. But there's no mention of "safekeeping". The second time Dumbledore refers to the cloak is in the end of SS/PS, after he promise not to lie: ****************************************************** SS/PS, Ch. 17, p. 299: When he had found his voice again, Harry said, "And the Invisibility Cloak ? do you know who sent it to me?" "Ah ? your father happened to leave it in my possession and I thought you might like it." Dumbledore's eyes twinkled. "Useful things your father used it mainly for sneaking off to the kitchens to steal food when he was here." ****************************************************** No additional information here, except that "happened to leave it in my possession" doesn't sound to me like safekeeping. It sounds like Dumbledore suddenly needed an Invisibility Cloak for something and James happened to have one available. And it doesn't sound like Dumbledore has any guilt feelings about depriving the Potters of that additional layer of defense, either. Maybe Voldy, like Dumbledore himself, can see through Invisibility Cloaks anyway. Also, there's no reason why James couldn't have met with Dumbledore after the Fidelius charm was in place. On the contrary ? I think it makes sense: James leaves GH to meet with Dumbledore so he covers himself with the cloak. Dumbledore happens to need an Invisibility Cloak for someone, so he borrows James's. The question would be who needed the cloak and for what. Neri From phil at pcsgames.net Thu Sep 14 01:45:24 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:45:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! References: Message-ID: <00cd01c6d79f$7bbeedc0$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 158278 Carol responds: In the RW, October 31, 1981, may have been a Friday, but in the Potterverse, it may not have been. September 1 is always a Monday, so October 31 should always be a Friday. But Halloween can't be either a Friday or a Saturday, since Uncle Vernon goes to work on November 1. Now, granted, Snape would not have been teaching at midnight regardless of the day of the week, but there's no evidence that he was at Godric's Hollow. ("Spinner's End suggests strongly that he was at Hogwarts.") Also, Dumbledore says in SS/PS that *James* placed the Invisibility Cloak in his keeping before he died. since we know that Dumbledore talkied with James about the Fidelius Charm and offered himself as Secret Keeper, it seems likely that James gave him the cloak at that time, realizing that he wouldn't need it any more but also, IMO, that there was a chance he would be killed despite the Fidelius Charm. (He knew there was a spy, evidently.) So, even though it doesn't sound very promising as a theory, I think he just gave the cloak to DD to keep for Harry. Canon says that James gave the cloak to DD. Otherwise, I might think that Hagrid found it and brought it to him after finding Harry in the rubble. Carol, betting that Snape was nowhere near Godric's Hollow but unable to think of any other reason for keeping the IC mysterious Now Phil: I see an interesting parallel to the astronomy tower death. James gave DD the cloak then Snape told him that something was going to happen at Godric's Hollow. DD gave him the cloak and he went there to warn James of what was to happen. James saw Snape near the house but Snape did not know it. James came out to confront Snape, and Snape told him that Peter told LV where James and Lily were and that they should go somewhere else. James didn't believe him and cast a Petrificus Totalus spell on Snape who was still under the Invisibility Cloak Then LV and PP showed up and LV told PP to kill James. He couldn't so LV did it himself. Snape watched it all standing there, imprisoned by the spell. When James died, the spell broke and Snape sent a Patronus to DD to tell him what happened. Phil who thinks this might work. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 01:50:32 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:50:32 -0000 Subject: Connections...again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158279 I promised a scenario about Fawkes in my response to Chapter Discussion, which I have been working on for a few days, however it is more than just a phoenix I will be discussing. Dumbledore may certainly be dead but will his spirit live on to give direction? My thoughts start with the Connection (I wrote about in message 109837 before HBP) between Dumbledore, Fawkes and Harry. I hadn't thought about the connection again until recently when I reread The Phoenix Lament and found a further connection to my first summary. Basically it goes something like this: (1) Harry's first true introduction to Fawkes was hearing his arrival by way of phoenix song in the Chamber immediately after saying "He's not as gone as you might think!" {COS pg. 315} Dumbledore confides to Harry that only true loyalty to him could have caused such a reaction from the phoenix. This is when and how the connection may have been created between the three of them. (2) The next connection that we see is in the Priori Incantatem chapter of GOF when the brother wands that have Fawkes cores, connect and form a webbed dome which simultaneously induced music: "And then an unearthly and beautiful sound filled the air It was coming from every thread of the light-spun web[ ]" {GOF pg. 664} This was a sound that Harry recognized because he heard it before; it was the phoenix song. To Harry "It was the sound of hope" {GOF pg. 664} and "He felt as though the song were inside him instead of just around him It was the sound he connected with Dumbledore "{GOF pg. 664} This connection Harry made between the sound of the phoenix song and Dumbledore was giving Harry orders: "Don't break the connection." (3) In the OOP we have yet another example of the connection between the Phoenix, Dumbledore and Harry but different from the first examples. This time the sight of Dumbledore induces the feeling that the Phoenix song gives Harry. "A powerful emotion had risen in Harry's chest at the sight of Dumbledore, a fortified, hopeful feeling rather like that which phoenix song gave him. {OOP pg. 139} (4) The final connection we see in HBP, there are three separate instances. (a) Harry had just announced to the persons visiting Bill that Dumbledore was dead: "-more Death Eaters arrived ? and then Snape ? and Snape did it. The Avada Kedavra." Harry couldn't go on. {HBP pg. 614} At these words Madam Pomphrey bursts into tears and Ginny whispers "Shh! Listen!" {HBP pg. 614} This is when everyone notices that the phoenix song is filling the air outside but Harry felt as though "[ ] the music was inside him, not without: It was his own grief turned magically to song that echoed across the grounds and through the castle windows." {HBP pg. 615} (b) Again we see that Harry's statement to Bill's room of visitors of Snape's comment "He shouted, `It's over," [ ] "He'd done what he'd meant to do." {HBP pg. 621} is directly followed by more feelings induced from the phoenix song, which Harry relates to Dumbledore when he thinks what has happened and will happen to Dumbledore's body. (c) The final mention occurs at Dumbledore's funeral {HBP pgs. 644- 45} directly after Harry has come to terms with the fact that Dumbledore really is dead and that there was no one left to protect him. At almost this precise moment "white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body", white smoke was obscuring the body which made strange shapes one of which Harry thought was a phoenix flying "joyfully into the blue". In example (1) Harry unknowingly calls Fawkes by making a loyal statement that Dumbledore is the greatest wizard that ever lived and is not as gone as Voldemort thinks he is. Voldemort snickers and comments that Dumbledore sent Harry a songbird and an old hat. Dumbledore told Harry that his loyalty called Fawkes to him and yet Voldemort states that Fawkes was sent: "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender!" {COS pg. 316} However it may be important to notice that although Harry didn't know what use Fawkes or the hat could be, Harry took comfort that at least he wasn't alone. (Unusual that Harry would take comfort I would think to not feel alone with a bird and an old hat that tells you were you will be sorted) In example (2) Harry's wand, which was created from Fawkes feather, spins a web that not only soothingly sings to Harry but also gives orders to Harry of what he should do. Now the music seems to not only be around him but in him to the point of telling Harry what to do. In example (3) the sight of Dumbledore induces the same feeling Harry found comforting about the phoenix song he heard in the graveyard. This example is quite unique since Harry doesn't actually hear the song but equates how the song made him feel to be the same as seeing Dumbledore; it gave Harry hope. (This makes me think of a quote from the bible "So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13 Harry possesses great quantities of love; Harry feels hope inside his very soul when he hears phoenix song; Faith is all that is left for Harry to capture of the three.) In example (4a) we find the announcement that Dumbledore is dead at the hand of Snape directly followed by phoenix song that Harry felt was in him and about him (his own grief over Dumbledore's death). In example (4b) Harry recounts the storyline of what happened that night with all parties involved and when he reaches the concluding statement that Snape had done what he meant to do, Harry finds himself lost in the music from the phoenix song thinking about Dumbledore's body, which in turn causes Harry to ask for a funeral. The final example (4c) is my favorite because it happens like an answer to a question. Harry is questioning himself and the loss of his mentors and protectors to a final conclusion that he is all alone when all of a sudden Harry envisions a phoenix joyfully flying from the place were his mentors body lay into the blue sky above. It's almost like Dumbledore could read Harry's thoughts and gave him a sign that he's not alone. Just a few extra thoughts Examples (2) and (4a) are quite similar since both of these instances conclude with Harry feeling the phoenix song is inside him. It isn't simply that Harry hears the song but that he feels the song strongly enough that it becomes part of him, like a bond. Examples (4a) and (4b) also have something in common both instances of phoenix song occur just after Harry concludes important messages about Snape killing Dumbledore. The first message is that Snape did the Avada Kedavra the second message was "He'd done what he'd meant to do." I will end this with but one more thought from COS pgs. 263-64: "However," said Dumbledore [ ] "you will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me. You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it." Is Dumbledore really gone remember; "He's not as gone as you might think!" Snow From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 14 02:57:48 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:57:48 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158280 Snow: > > Oops one more last thought, promise what if James allowed Dumbledore > to borrow his Cloak to hide the other intended victim? > > Snow attributing many of these thoughts to listee's of days gone by Potioncat: This is too much! We've discussed James's IC many times and at great lengths yet it turns to be something no one ever asked herself, but should have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, we may have figured out the important matter and not know we did. Or there's something more to the IC's location that we never considered. Where's SSSusan? How about rethinking TURBAN? (TURBAN DREAMS---whatever it was, I just recall it involved lots of margaritas) I can't think Snape or DD could have been involved with GH without knowing Sirius was not the SK---unless of course they were given the location on a piece of paper and thought it came from Sirius. You know, JKR just tossed out something for us to worry over that we thought was long ago deemed unimportant. Potioncat, who does not mean to imply by "we" that she actually came up with any original theory about the IC, but more likely was lurking about and reading about it. She was however, highly involved in turbans and margaritas. Oh, those were the days, my friends... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 03:17:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:17:48 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: <00cd01c6d79f$7bbeedc0$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158281 Phil wrote: > I see an interesting parallel to the astronomy tower death. > James gave DD the cloak then Snape told him that something was going to happen at Godric's Hollow. > DD gave him the cloak and he went there to warn James of what was to happen. James saw Snape near the house but Snape did not know it. > James came out to confront Snape, and Snape told him that Peter told LV where James and Lily were and that they should go somewhere else. > James didn't believe him and cast a Petrificus Totalus spell on Snape who was still under the Invisibility Cloak > Then LV and PP showed up and LV told PP to kill James. He couldn't so LV did it himself. > Snape watched it all standing there, imprisoned by the spell. When James died, the spell broke and Snape sent a Patronus to DD to tell him what happened. > > Phil who thinks this might work. Carol responds: I'll be as concise as possible here in explaining why this scenario disturbs me. It's supposed to be DDM!Snape, right? But if your idea (and that of the others who are proposing this idea) is correct, then Snape knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper. If we take PoA at face value, however, Snape didn't know who the spy/Secret Keeper was. He believed that it was Sirius Black and worked all through the book to keep Harry safe from him. If we allow a reading in which Snape knew that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper, not only is he not protecting Harry, he's trying to send a man he knows to be innocent back to Azkaban or to the Dementors. Not only that, but he's known for twelve years that Black was innocent but said nothing and allowed Black to go to prison for murders he didn't commit (unless he know that Black wasn't the Secret Keeper but thinks that he killed Peter and the Muggles and is therefore a murderer but not the betrayer of the Potters). If Snape went to Godric's Hollow to warn the Potters, he'd have had to know that Peter was the SK or he wouldn't know that they were in Godric's Hollow. But I can't imagine Peter telling him the secret, and he would surely have told Dumbledore if he knew. The only possible way this would work would be if Peter were polyjuiced as Sirius, but Sirius is even less likely to tell Snape where the Potters were hiding. My own belief, based on Snape's statement about James Potter's arrogance in the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, is that Snape tried to warn Potter *before* the Fidelius Charm was in place, that he believed Sirius Black to be the spy and James refused to listen to him (rightly, as it turned out). I don't think that Snape knew who the spy was; Voldemort would have kept his identity a secret and informed only those closest to him. I think Bellatrix knew but no one else did until she persuaded the Lestrange brothers and Barty Jr., the most loyal DEs she knew next to herself, to go with her to the Longbottoms. *They* knew Wormtail's identity and talked about it in Azkaban. That doesn't mean that Snape did. If someone who likes this Invisibility Cloak theory *and* believes that Snape is DDM can reconcile these conflicting elements for me, please do so. Until then, I believe Snape's statement to Bellatrix that he was at Hogwarts when the events at Godric's Hollow happened. I also believe Dumbledore's statement that the cloak was in his possession *before* James Potter's death. The Snape/IC theory requires a distortion of canon and imagining of circumstances that a straightforward reading does not require, and as I said, I find it impossible to reconcile the theory with a Snape who is not only loyal to Dumbledore but deserving of his trust. Carol, who thinks that Snape's role in the GH story consists mainly of showing Dumbledore his fading Dark Mark, proving that Voldemort was powerless but not dead From bobhawkins at rcn.com Thu Sep 14 01:57:56 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:57:56 -0000 Subject: Why Latin For magic? (was: Identifying with Muggles in Potterver se - Huma In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I realize that the part about intention seems to be contradicted by > Sectumsempra working when Harry spoke the words for the first time, > but he knew that it was "for enemies" and I'm pretty sure that he > intended to hurt Draco, if not to slash his face and chest so deeply > that he could have bled to death. Unfortunately, Harry's only > "intention" in casting Levicorpus (nonverbally) was to find out what > the spell did, so we're back to the wand or wand core understanding > the Latin words. > The difference between magic and Muggletech is that magic implements DWIM functionality (Do What I Mean). As we all know from painful experience, Muggletech does not. Now, consider poltergeists. They are a manifestation of emotional turmoil, made physical. I assume that Dumbledore tolerates Peeves because he's a necessary safety valve for the student body: he's a manifestation of Hogwart's collective emotional turmoil. At least Peeves can be controlled by the Bloody Baron! Perhaps a spell is similarly a manifestation of the wizarding world's collective intent. The caster's intent can modify it, but the default setting is whatever it's been used for previously. "Do What I Mean Traditionally." When Harry casts *Levicorpus* with no particular intent, he gets the pure default. The Death Eaters at the Quidditch World Cup could modify it to spin unfortunate Muggles, if they so intended. If everybody started doing that, maybe *Levicorpus* would change to spin victims by default. According to Muggle records, a spell similar to *Avada Kedavra* was used, thousands of years ago, as a healing spell. It was used to drive sickness out of diseased bodies. Perhaps Dark Wizards used it to drive life out of healthy bodies, eventually making it unusable for any good purpose. Perhaps all Dark Magic is such a perversion of normal magic. The invention of new spells probably requires an unusually strong will. Snape would, I think, qualify. Zero Irregardless From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Thu Sep 14 03:46:04 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:46:04 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > First, a few odd instances concerning Invisibility Cloak(s): >> There are quite a few references to Cloaks that may be important when > we are attempting to figure out what was so important about James > giving Dumbledore his Cloak before his death. > Nate wrote: There's another strange thing that happens with Harry's cloak at the beginning of HBP. Well, not strange exactly, but slightly suspicious. I don't have a copy of my book with me, but didn't Dumbledore take the cloak from Harry at Slughorn's then give slip it into Harry's pocket when they got to Hogwarts? I remember finding it interesting because Harry was never scanned for Dark Arts objects by Filch. He actually remarked on it to Ron. This is contrary to my previous post, but is it possible there was something DA about the cloak or something else Harry was carrying that would lead JKR to purposely state that Harry was never scanned? Or is that point in the plot just so the readers know what measures are in place to prevent bad things getting into the school? Cheers, Nate. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 14 04:29:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 04:29:20 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158284 Alla: Actually this is the point I am forced to take into consideration as to whether Dursleys are indeed Harry's legal guardians in full sense of the word. Yes, in RL they have to be allowed to raised him as they see fit. But one can argue that since magic is the integral part of who he is, that can be truly dangerous for Harry and people around him to deny him the recognition of his abilities, that it can be dangerous for his health in both literal and metaphorical sense to not develop his abilities, therefore even his guardians are sometimes not allowed to act against child's best interest, if that makes any sense. Pippin: I am not sure that suppressing Harry's abilities was against his interest. Ron says in PS/SS that Harry and Draco will only be able to shoot sparks at each other. While this may be the norm, other magical children have been precocious and it caused problems for them. I'm tempted to compare it to sexual precocity in that there seem to be few acceptable outlets. Dumbledore points out that magically precocious Tom Riddle used his powers without restraint or guidance. Snape's magical precocity certainly got him a nasty reputation. I'm wondering, since wizards tend to think children can't do advanced magic, whether Snape's precocious abilities weren't exploited by an older wizard who wanted to curse his enemies undetected. Though we might argue that Harry has a stronger character he's clearly not incorruptable and his powers might have proved too great a temptation for him if he had learned of them sooner, especially with the Dursleys as a provocation. Even with the Weasley twins, whose parents are the most conscientious and enlightened we have encountered, precocity gets them in trouble: turning Ron's teddy into a spider and trying to get him to make an unbreakable vow. Of course since Harry's powers were probably suppressed by his misery, we don't know if he would have been precocious. But since he has some of Riddle's powers and he was able to cast the patronus spell against hundreds of dementors at the age of thirteen, the evidence suggests that he might have come to harm if he'd been allowed to discover his powers earlier. If he's not a normal kid, he couldn't have had a normal childhood even if he'd lived with a loving family in the WW. Alla: > And I would completely disagree. To me it is very similar to your > example. I mean, the attempt on **Harry's** life had already been > made. > Yes, his parents were killed, but **his** life is already in danger > for sure and who knows if Voldemort would not repeat the attempt? > > To me the danger is very grave, not potential at all. IMO of course. > Pippin: It is not like Voldemort was standing on the doorstep. In fact many wizards believed he had been permanently defeated. To me it is more like a relative volunteering a kidney. Petunia is putting her own life and family in peril in order to help Harry escape a potential danger. IMO while it would be noble to do it, it would not be a sin to refuse. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 14 06:34:04 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:34:04 -0000 Subject: DD suspected JP was the spy? Was: JKR has updated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158285 > Neri: > The second time Dumbledore refers to the > cloak is in the end of SS/PS, after he promise not to lie: > > "Ah ? your father happened to leave it in my possession and I > thought you might like it." Dumbledore's eyes twinkled. "Useful > things your father used it mainly for sneaking off to the > kitchens to steal food when he was here." > ****************************************************** > > And it doesn't sound like Dumbledore has any guilt > feelings about depriving the Potters of > that additional layer of defense, either. > aussie writes: "... happened to leave it in my possesion..." like the Maunderers Map happened to be left in the possesion of Filch? What if Dumbledore CONFISCATED the cloak from James? James was meant to be in hiding and ventures out under the cloak. What is worse, Dumbledore knows there is a spy in the Order, and that the Potters are not the only ones that need protecting. If James tried to find out more information concerning their situation, he could have been sneaking around. If he went near the Longbottoms, and Dumbledore was there ... Dumbledore may have suspected James of being the SPY. The way to stop James from sneaking off and either endangering himself, or possibly spying, could be for Dumbledore to confiscate the IC. That is why the usually unflappable DD answered, "Ah ? your father happened to leave it in my possession." The plot thickens. aussie From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 14 07:02:39 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:02:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's 'evidence' (Was Re: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158286 > Abergoat wrote: > But we know from Dumbledore that Snape had 'rejoined' Dumbledore's > side by this time. I don't think Snape tricked Peter, I think > Dumbledore asked the Secret-Keeper (ployjuiced Peter) to GIVE the > secret to Snape since Snape was a spy on Voldemort and therefore had > the best chance of learning if Voldemort was looking for Sirius (the > supposed Secret-Keeper) Secca (formerly Argus Pyrites) responds: I wanted to throw in my brief two cents... I have nothing to nitpick about your theory, Abergoat; it seems as plausible as many floating around...but as I read it I must admit to thinking, 'Oh, I hope he's not right... polyjuice *again*? After OotP and Barty/Moody I'm a little polyjuiced out... So, for that very subjective reason, I hope the plot doesn't turn that way... (By the way, sorry about the name change; but I was just picked up on staff at Potter's Key's under my screename of 'Secca', and recently had a bit of my work show up on the Lexicon under that name as well, so makes sense to me to use the same name here...) From liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar Thu Sep 14 02:56:10 2006 From: liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar (liliput99ar) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:56:10 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158287 Maria wrote: > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > The answer is "Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility > cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could > make himself invisible without a cloak?" SSSusan: > Heh. Maybe our focus is supposed to be at least as much upon > the "when DD could make himself invisible without a cloak" part > as we are on the "at the time of James' death" part?? Nora now: Hi, this is my first post, and I really like this thread. I think that "at the time of James' death" fits with what we read in PS, in the note DD leaves Harry with the cloak, about James leaving the cloak to DD before his death. Maybe Susan is right, and we should focus on the "when DD could make himself invisible without a cloak" part. It is the first time (at least to my knowledge or memory) that it is actually stated that DD could make himself invisible without a cloak. We have guessed, suspected, etc, but never been positive about this fact. How could it be so crucial? Perhaps DD have been somewhere, sometime, invisible, without nobody knowing it? Nora From vinkv002 at planet.nl Thu Sep 14 08:42:01 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:42:01 -0000 Subject: Distillation (was: DD at the Dursleys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > Tonks_op said: > > One does have to wonder, what is the significance of all of this > alcohol? There must be something to it, I can't think that JKR > would give alcohol to her own children or suggest that a teacher or > headmaster of a boarding school give alcohol to the students. Just seems a bit odd here. > Maybe JKR just wasn't' thinking it all out in the detail that we > do. Still I do wonder << > > Montavilla: > Now you're making me wonder. There is SO much alcohol in HBP > compared to the other books. Slughorn's party, oak mead, wine... > > Is it to emphasis the "potions" aspect of the book? > > I'm wondering if it has some alchemical significance. Perhaps > this is the distillation part of the process? > > Montavilla Renee: I'd certainly think so: the sixth stage of Alchemy is called the Distillation stage, and HPB *is* Book 6. This stage is also called the White stage, and as it's very much Dumbledore's book and Albus means `white', this also fits. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 14 09:23:19 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:23:19 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158289 > Carol responds: > If we take PoA at face value, however, Snape didn't know who the > spy/Secret Keeper was. He believed that it was Sirius Black and worked > all through the book to keep Harry safe from him. If we allow a > reading in which Snape knew that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper, not > only is he not protecting Harry, he's trying to send a man he knows to > be innocent back to Azkaban or to the Dementors. Not only that, but > he's known for twelve years that Black was innocent but said nothing > and allowed Black to go to prison for murders he didn't commit Hickengruendler: I think the real problem with this is Dumbledore's non-reaction to Snape's behaviour in PoA. Let's say Snape for whichever reason really wanted Voldemort's downfall and/or to save the life of the Potters. That's why he went to warn them. But he also hates Sirius that much, that he had no problems watching him go to Azkaban, even though h knew Sirius to be innocent. I find this possible. But surely Dumbledore must have realized or at the very least suspected what Snape had done at the end of PoA. And he does not seem to be angry at Snape one minute, even though Snape clearly was enjoying the idea of Sirius being kissed by the Dementors. Carol: > If someone who likes this Invisibility Cloak theory *and* believes > that Snape is DDM can reconcile these conflicting elements for me, > please do so. Hickengruendler: I do not particularly like this idea as well, but maybe Wormtail didn't tell Voldemort personally, where the Potters were hiding, but merely left a note. And Snape happened to see the note and could therefore find Godric's Hollow, just like Harry could find Grimmauld Place after reading the note from Dumbledore. Admittingly, this theory does have a few problems as well. First, it seems unlikely that Voldemort and/or Wormtail would simply just leave the note lying around, but maybe he destroyed it and Snape used some magic to recreate it. Also, if Voldemort already saw it, we can assume he read it before Snape, which means he had to be somehow delayed for Snape to arrive in Godric's Hollow first. Hickengruendler, who doesn't really believe in this theory, and thinks that when James and Lily were killed, nobody but Voldemort and the Potters were at Godric's Hollow From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 14 11:21:25 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:21:25 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158290 > Hickengruendler: > > I do not particularly like this idea as well, but maybe Wormtail > didn't tell Voldemort personally, where the Potters were hiding, but > merely left a note. And Snape happened to see the note and could > therefore find Godric's Hollow, just like Harry could find Grimmauld > Place after reading the note from Dumbledore. Potioncat: Sirius was going to be the SK as far as DD knew. Sirius and Peter decided to switch, but they decided to secretly switch. James, Lily, Sirius and Peter were the only ones who knew. If the intent was to make Peter SK, but not let anyone know, then they must have passed on the location in a manner that made it seem that Sirius was the SK. So it's very likely a note was used to inform anyone about the location. Imagine this. Peter delivers a note to DD with the Potter's hiding place. He says the note is from Sirius. For that matter, Sirius could deliver it as if he wrote it. "Here's the location," he says. All the more reason for Sirius's reaction when Peter blows up the street. He realises that not only did Peter trick him much earlier in the game, but that Peter starting setting him up early on too. Now, back at DE HQ, Peter can tell LV. Peter can tell anyone. Or he can provide a note. If LV wants a DE to know where the location is, but does not want the DE to know who the spy is, he can have Peter write the note, and have someone else deliver the note. So if Snape was told as a DE, it could have been through a note that he assumed was from Sirius. Back to the IC. One of the older theories here has been that James gave DD the IC for the Order's use. DD might not need it himself, but the others would. It's possible that an Order member would be told to put on the IC and go to a certain area of GH and to report any unusual happenings. I don't know. That isn't very bangy unless whoever had the IC is important. Hagrid? Snape? Lupin? Potioncat, who thinks the address was 12 Gryffin Place. From kennclark at btinternet.com Thu Sep 14 11:02:37 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:02:37 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158291 Kenneth asks: What would be the final sentence in book seven which would give the most hostages to fortune, 'answer' the most pressing questions and generally cause the most consternation amongst aficionados here? My suggestion would be: Harry looked at Dumbledore across the bodies of Voldemort and Hagrid and said: "So it was Neville's task after all. Well, at least I've got rid of my scar." Kenneth From phil at pcsgames.net Thu Sep 14 11:55:24 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:55:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! References: Message-ID: <010001c6d7f7$c7e9f390$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 158292 Phil wrote: > I see an interesting parallel to the astronomy tower death. > James gave DD the cloak then Snape told him that something was going to happen at Godric's Hollow. > DD gave him the cloak and he went there to warn James of what was to happen. James saw Snape near the house but Snape did not know it. > James came out to confront Snape, and Snape told him that Peter told LV where James and Lily were and that they should go somewhere else. > James didn't believe him and cast a Petrificus Totalus spell on Snape who was still under the Invisibility Cloak > Then LV and PP showed up and LV told PP to kill James. He couldn't so LV did it himself. > Snape watched it all standing there, imprisoned by the spell. When James died, the spell broke and Snape sent a Patronus to DD to tell him what happened. > > Phil who thinks this might work. Carol responds: I'll be as concise as possible here in explaining why this scenario disturbs me. It's supposed to be DDM!Snape, right? But if your idea (and that of the others who are proposing this idea) is correct, then Snape knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper. If we take PoA at face value, however, Snape didn't know who the spy/Secret Keeper was. He believed that it was Sirius Black and worked all through the book to keep Harry safe from him. If we allow a reading in which Snape knew that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper, not only is he not protecting Harry, he's trying to send a man he knows to be innocent back to Azkaban or to the Dementors. Not only that, but he's known for twelve years that Black was innocent but said nothing and allowed Black to go to prison for murders he didn't commit (unless he know that Black wasn't the Secret Keeper but thinks that he killed Peter and the Muggles and is therefore a murderer but not the betrayer of the Potters). If Snape went to Godric's Hollow to warn the Potters, he'd have had to know that Peter was the SK or he wouldn't know that they were in Godric's Hollow. But I can't imagine Peter telling him the secret, and he would surely have told Dumbledore if he knew. The only possible way this would work would be if Peter were polyjuiced as Sirius, but Sirius is even less likely to tell Snape where the Potters were hiding. My own belief, based on Snape's statement about James Potter's arrogance in the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, is that Snape tried to warn Potter *before* the Fidelius Charm was in place, that he believed Sirius Black to be the spy and James refused to listen to him (rightly, as it turned out). I don't think that Snape knew who the spy was; Voldemort would have kept his identity a secret and informed only those closest to him. I think Bellatrix knew but no one else did until she persuaded the Lestrange brothers and Barty Jr., the most loyal DEs she knew next to herself, to go with her to the Longbottoms. *They* knew Wormtail's identity and talked about it in Azkaban. That doesn't mean that Snape did. If someone who likes this Invisibility Cloak theory *and* believes that Snape is DDM can reconcile these conflicting elements for me, please do so. Until then, I believe Snape's statement to Bellatrix that he was at Hogwarts when the events at Godric's Hollow happened. I also believe Dumbledore's statement that the cloak was in his possession *before* James Potter's death. The Snape/IC theory requires a distortion of canon and imagining of circumstances that a straightforward reading does not require, and as I said, I find it impossible to reconcile the theory with a Snape who is not only loyal to Dumbledore but deserving of his trust. Carol, who thinks that Snape's role in the GH story consists mainly of showing Dumbledore his fading Dark Mark, proving that Voldemort was powerless but not dead justcarol67 Now Phil again: OK, I added PP in to match the tower episode. LV could have told Snape that he knows of the location of the Potters since the secret keeper told him without naming him. This way Snape could have thought it was still Sirius. It could still go down the same way with Snape not knowing that the rat that was with LV was Peter. This would then eliminate the parallel of two people being unable to kill. Phil revising his theory frantically. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 14 12:42:37 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:42:37 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158293 Snow: > > Oops one more last thought, promise what if James allowed > > Dumbledore to borrow his Cloak to hide the other intended victim? Potioncat: > This is too much! We've discussed James's IC many times and at > great lengths yet it turns to be something no one ever asked > herself, but should have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > So, we may have figured out the important matter and not know we > did. Or there's something more to the IC's location that we never > considered. Where's SSSusan? How about rethinking TURBAN? (TURBAN > DREAMS---whatever it was, I just recall it involved lots of > margaritas) > > I can't think Snape or DD could have been involved with GH without > knowing Sirius was not the SK---unless of course they were given > the location on a piece of paper and thought it came from Sirius. > > You know, JKR just tossed out something for us to worry over that > we thought was long ago deemed unimportant. > > Potioncat, who does not mean to imply by "we" that she actually > came up with any original theory about the IC, but more likely was > lurking about and reading about it. She was however, highly > involved in turbans and margaritas. > > Oh, those were the days, my friends... SSSusan: *hic* Did someone say margaritas and turbans? Yes, indeedy, we did have a lovely time on our little dinghy DRIBBLE SHADOWS, didn't we? :-) [Anyone liking a refresher course or a trip down memory lane is welcome to peruse these: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128717 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128778 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128795 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128892 ] You know, that TURBAN addendum to DRIBBLE SHADOWS was truly, bloody brilliant, Potioncat. Tying Unguent Round Baby 'Arry's Noggin. Hee. What a hoot! But seriously, it *can* all still fit! I know it's not an overwhelmingly popular theory -- that DD, Snape & Hagrid had developed a potion containing dragon's blood which they intended to apply to Harry in hopes it would offer up additional protection from a Voldemort attack, and that it ended up having to be applied AFTER the attack, during the "missing 24 hours" -- but the Invisibility Cloak information from JKR can work quite nicely with the theory, in my view. That is, this notion that James might have given DD his cloak because someone else needed to be concealed, could fit in with it. How could this have worked? Well, if the plan was to get to Harry and apply this protection, then DD would have known that he needed the location of the Potters' hideout from the SK. As you noted, he'd have likely gone to Sirius. But Sirius could not have provided that information... unless he told PETER that DD needed it and so PETER would need to write it down so that Sirius could hand it to DD? Or unless DD told JAMES directly that he'd need the information "from Sirius" (or "from the Secret Keeper"), and so James instructed Peter to write it down for DD. Either way, it could explain how, on that fateful day, DD knew how to find the Potters. It could also explain how *PETER* would have known to warn Voldemort that he needed to act THEN, right? If Peter knew DD had been given the location (because he'd done so himself) and that DD had a plan to provide additional protection to Baby Harry, then it would make sense that Peter would've informed Voldy, would've told him he'd better act quickly. Thus, it could have played out like this... DD, Snape & Hagrid had developed this potion/ointment made from dragon's blood, which would be an additional protection for Baby Harry. They planned for Snape to read the location of the hideout provided by Peter and to use the IC to protect Snape from discovery on his mission to visit GH and apply said ointment. However, when Snape got there, he discovered the wreckage, apparated quickly back to DD to tell him the news (hopefully having done *something* to ensure Harry's safety in the meantime!), and then DD sent Hagrid to fetch the tyke, while he & Snape discussed what to do as an alternative plan. While Hagrid was off retrieving Harry, Snape & DD decided that the ointment could still be helpful, assuming as they did that Voldy hadn't truly been eliminated but would instead be returning to power someday, likely picking up right where he left off, determined to kill Prophecy Boy once and for all. Thus, DD had Hagrid bring Harry to Snape, and here we pick up with Potioncat's TURBAN addendum: the ointment/unguent is applied to Harry -- on the wound itself -- and wrapped in bandages resembling a turban [see 128795]. Heh. I rather like the convergence of all these things! In fact, even though it's damn early, I think I'm going to contemplate this further over a lovely frozen margarita. Care to join me, 'cat, or anyone else? :) Siriusly Snapey Susan From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 13:09:29 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060914130929.52886.qmail@web39514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158294 --- Kenneth Clark wrote: > Kenneth asks: > > What would be the final sentence in book seven which > would give the > most hostages to fortune, 'answer' the most pressing > questions and > generally cause the most consternation amongst > aficionados here? My > suggestion would be: > > Harry looked at Dumbledore across the bodies of > Voldemort and Hagrid > and said: "So it was Neville's task after all. > Well, at least I've got > rid of my scar." > > Kenneth > parisfan writes: I'd rather hear something eloquent like 'as he lay in his coffin he was eerily pale but what most remember about that last look at Harry was his blood red SCAR' __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ibchawz at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 13:19:32 2006 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:19:32 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158295 Nate wrote: There's another strange thing that happens with Harry's cloak at the beginning of HBP. Well, not strange exactly, but slightly suspicious. I don't have a copy of my book with me, but didn't Dumbledore take the cloak from Harry at Slughorn's then give slip it into Harry's pocket when they got to Hogwarts? ibchawz responds: I don't have my book with me either, but this is how I recall the events. I don't think Dumbledore took the cloak from Harry during their meeting with Slughorn. DD actually told Harry to keep the IC with him at all times, even at school. If I am not mistaken, this conversation occurred in the Weasley broom shed after they left Slughorn's. When Harry went to Diagon Alley (prior to start of term), he had his IC with him. ibchawz From dougsamu at golden.net Thu Sep 14 13:23:48 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:23:48 -0400 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158296 Carol67: > September 1 is always a Monday, so > October 31 should always be a Friday. doug: Uhm... September first was a Friday this year. Why are Humans the only primates with chins and nuclear weapons? ____________________ From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Sep 14 13:22:08 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:22:08 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > If we take PoA at face value, however, Snape didn't know who the > spy/Secret Keeper was. He believed that it was Sirius Black and worked all through the book to keep Harry safe from him. Brothergib responds: Agreed. The evidence suggests that Snape was not aware that Peter was the SK. Since it is clear that LV keeps his most important secrets to himself, it makes most sense that LV was the only one who knew that Peter was the traitor! Carol again: > If Snape went to Godric's Hollow to warn the Potters, he'd have had to > know that Peter was the SK or he wouldn't know that they were in > Godric's Hollow. But I can't imagine Peter telling him the secret, and he would surely have told Dumbledore if he knew. Brothergib again: >From the mouth of JKR herself '..Thenceforth nobody else - not even the subjects of the secret themselves - can divulge the secret. Even if one of the Potters had been captured, force-fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius Curse, they would not have been able to give away the whereabouts of the other two. The only people who ever knew their precise location were those whom Wormtail had told directly, but none of them would have been able to pass on the information (JKR)." I agree that it is very unlikely that PP told SS where the Potters were. I do believe that up until POA, SS was not aware the PP had been the SK. If we also take JKRs comments above as gospel, it would also suggest that DD did not know where the Potter's were either. It is possible with this scenario that SS overheard PP (without actually knowing it was PP!) telling LV about the Potters, but that is a bit of a stretch! Carol again: > My own belief, based on Snape's statement about James Potter's > arrogance in the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, is that Snape tried to > warn Potter *before* the Fidelius Charm was in place, that he believed > Sirius Black to be the spy and James refused to listen to him > (rightly, as it turned out). Brothergib again: The problem I have with this is that Lupin states at the end HBP that they trusted Snape because DD trusted Snape. This statement suggests that the OOTP did not personally witness the double agent role that Snape played during the first war. It makes sense to me that DD would not have let the others know that Snape was a double agent - all the evidence of DD in these books shows a man who lets people let know as little as possible of his furture plans. Therefore, the Potters would still regard Snape as the enemy! Carol again: > > If someone who likes this Invisibility Cloak theory *and* believes > that Snape is DDM can reconcile these conflicting elements for me, > please do so. Brothergib again: It seems likely that when James & Lily decided to go into hiding, it is possible that DD may have asked for James cloak so that other members of the order could use it if necessary. Since James would be under the Fidelius charm, he would not need it. That seems the likely reason why DD had the cloak. I do not believe that PP could ever have revealed the location of the Potters to SS. However, it is possible that LV may have boasted that he was going to prevent the prophecy from occurring. SS may have told DD that LV seemed to know where the Potters were and he was going to finish them off. Maybe DD gave SS the cloak and asked him to try and tail LV. The huge problem here is that when LV gets to Godric's Hollow, he can enter and attack the Potters, whereas even if Snape manages to follow LV, he would not be able to find the Potters, even if he was in their house! From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Sep 14 13:33:21 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:33:21 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158298 Just to follow on from my previous post. It seems likely that the only person PP told about the Potter's location was LV. LV went to Godric's Hollow and killed the James & Lily, but not Harry. At some point after, a member of the order came to GH to retrieve Harry. The problem is this - as Harry is still alive and still under the Fidelius Charm, how exactly did anyone manage to find him? Could you find James & Lily now that they are dead? There has been lots of speculation that SS was there that night. My only theory is that SS contacted DD to tell him that LV had attacked GH but SS could find no trace of the Potters. Maybe this is the reason why GH is destroyed. If the Fidelius charm is placed on the house, rather than the people, then maybe DD instructed SS to destroy GH, and then he would be able to find Harry? Brothergib From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 14 14:31:54 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:31:54 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: <20060914130929.52886.qmail@web39514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, laurie goudge wrote: > I'd rather hear something eloquent like 'as he lay in > his coffin he was eerily pale but what most remember > about that last look at Harry was his blood red SCAR' Geoff: As a fully paid-up life member of the IWHTLC (I want Harry to live Club) I can think of a few more graphic descriptors of that sentence than "eloquent". :-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 14 14:37:52 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:37:52 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158300 > Brothergib again: > From the mouth of JKR herself > '..Thenceforth nobody else - not even the subjects of the secret > themselves - can divulge the secret. Even if one of the Potters had > been captured, force-fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius > Curse, they would not have been able to give away the whereabouts of > the other two. The only people who ever knew their precise location > were those whom Wormtail had told directly, but none of them would > have been able to pass on the information (JKR)." Potioncat: Where can that quote be found? BrotherGib: If we also take JKRs comments above as gospel, it would > also suggest that DD did not know where the Potter's were either. Potioncat: We know the SK can communicate via note. DD gave the location of 12 GP to Harry via a note deliverd by Moody. So Peter could have written a note for DD, delivered by someone else. DD would know it came from the SK, but he would still think the SK was Sirius. Peter could, as I said above, have delivered the note himself and DD would still think it had come from Sirius. Hagrid, who is at GH before Sirius, states that he didnt' know Sirius was the SK. So either he was given the location by note without knowing who wrote the note at all or he went after the charm was no longer in effect. I hope JKR is doing a better job of keeping this straight than I am! > Carol again: > > My own belief, based on Snape's statement about James Potter's > > arrogance in the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, is that Snape tried > to > > warn Potter *before* the Fidelius Charm was in place, that he > believed > > Sirius Black to be the spy and James refused to listen to him > > (rightly, as it turned out). > > Brothergib again: > The problem I have with this is that Lupin states at the end HBP that > they trusted Snape because DD trusted Snape. This statement suggests > that the OOTP did not personally witness the double agent role that > Snape played during the first war. It makes sense to me that DD would > not have let the others know that Snape was a double agent - all the > evidence of DD in these books shows a man who lets people let know as > little as possible of his furture plans. Therefore, the Potters would > still regard Snape as the enemy! > > Carol again: > > > > If someone who likes this Invisibility Cloak theory *and* believes > > that Snape is DDM can reconcile these conflicting elements for me, > > please do so. > > Brothergib again: > It seems likely that when James & Lily decided to go into hiding, it > is possible that DD may have asked for James cloak so that other > members of the order could use it if necessary. Since James would be > under the Fidelius charm, he would not need it. That seems the likely > reason why DD had the cloak. > I do not believe that PP could ever have revealed the location of the > Potters to SS. However, it is possible that LV may have boasted that > he was going to prevent the prophecy from occurring. SS may have told > DD that LV seemed to know where the Potters were and he was going to > finish them off. Maybe DD gave SS the cloak and asked him to try and > tail LV. > The huge problem here is that when LV gets to Godric's Hollow, he can > enter and attack the Potters, whereas even if Snape manages to follow > LV, he would not be able to find the Potters, even if he was in their > house! > From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 14 14:42:28 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:42:28 -0000 Subject: Is The Potter's Invisibility Cloak A Relic? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158301 A relic of Ravenclaw or Gryffindor that is. Weren't some of the memories that DD shows Harry in HBP collected well before the attack at Godric's Hollow? DD had concerns about Tom Riddle for a long time, almost from the beginning. Surely he would have suspected him of creating a horcrux, possibly he suspected him of creating multiple horcruxes even by the time of the GH attack. At that time he might been aware of Tom's fascination with relics of the Founders and might have suspected that Tom intended to make four horcruxes from four relics. Knowing that the Potters were targets he might have convinced James to give him the cloak, just in case. LV might have known of the cloak and might have been intending to make it into a horcrux with Harry's death that very night. When Harry gives DD Riddle's destroyed diary DD realizes with a shock that LV must have created more than four horcruxes, or intended to. But how many? This would have given DD a new quest to pursue before he could start the process of destroying all the horcruxes and eliminating LV for good. That quest lead him to Slughorn and the need to collect his memory of Riddle's horcrux question. Unfortunately I don't have the books with me and so parts of this might not wash with canon. But it is conceivable that even before the GH attack DD at a minimum had some vague suspicions about Tom's fascination with the Founder's relics and wanted to protect James's cloak from him even if DD didn't fully understand what Tom was doing with the relics. It would be like DD to tell Harry that the sword was the only "known" Gryffindor relic, "known" as in generally known, while knowing himself that there was another. This is a covert activity and DD has to keep his cards close to his chest. One of DD's failings is that he keeps his cards secret too long from people who need to know. If the cloak is a relic of either founder and DD knew it his failure to disclose that will probably cost Harry some kind of trouble in book 7. But that is exactly the kind of mistake that DD *would* make. Ken From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 14 15:25:19 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:25:19 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158302 > "potioncat" wrote: (snipped) > > Back to the IC. One of the older theories here has been that James > gave DD the IC for the Order's use. .. > > I don't know. That isn't very bangy unless whoever had the IC is > important. Hagrid? Snape? Lupin? > > Potioncat, who thinks the address was 12 Gryffin Place. Aussie: Two People needed to be protected because of the prophesy. One was Harry. The other was Neville. The Potters had GH and SK to hide behind. The Longbottoms? They may have wanted the IC to hide/protect Neville. After the attck on the Potters, the Longbottoms were Crucio-ed by DE trying to get information. When the DE turned up at the Longbottom's house, where was Neville? Maybe baby Neville was in the room, but like Harry on the Tower, was under a spell to not move or make noise. Neville wasn't seen because the IC was over him. (Neville's mother may also have made sure the IC wouldn't move off the baby. She stuck the corners down using ... YES, you guessed it ... that famous chewing gum!) aussie (Which of my theories do you like? 1. DD may have thought James was the spy and confiscated the IC to stop James sneaking around. GH may have been James house arrest. -or 2. Neville was the VIP that needed the IC.) From dk59us at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 18:04:21 2006 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:04:21 -0000 Subject: FILK: Bartemian Rhapsody Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158303 Well, it's been a long time since I've posted anything,let alone a filk, but I found this one lying around and finished it. I'm sure neither the first nor best filk of this song, but here it goes anyway... Bartemian Rhapsody Based upon Bohemian Rhapsody, Performed by Queen, Written by Freddie Mercury. (Barty Crouch Jr. is ushered into the courtroom at the MOM, together with Bellatrix, Rabastan and Rodolphus Lestrange) (Barty, Jr.) Is this for real, dad? Is this just fantasy? Caught by the aurors No escape from reality (Bellatrix) Open your eyes Look up at the crowd and see (Barty Jr.) I'm just a good boy, I need your sympathy Dad-please to Azkaban don't make me go Not to the Dementors, no! (Bellatrix) Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me (Crouch Sr.) These villains have cursed a man Put a wand against his head Crucio! he's good as dead (Barty, Jr.) Mama, tell him he is wrong Don't let him go and throw his son away Mama, ooo Didn't mean to make you cry Please let me come home again this time tomorrow Father please, father please, don't let your family shatter (Crouch Sr.) Too late, your time has come You are no son of mine Azkaban will be just fine (Bellatrix) Goodbye everybody - we've got to go Gonna leave you all behind and find the boss (Barty, Jr.) Mama, ooo - (Rodolphus & Rabastan)(anyway the wind blows) (Barty, Jr.) I don't want to go I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all (Bellatrix LeStrange) You're just a little silhouetto of a man Barty Crouch, Barty Crouch you won't stop the Dark Lord now We'll escape and find him--he'll arise and reward me Foul Herpo, Foul Herpo, Foul Herpo, Foul Herpo, Foul Herpo and QuangPo - magnifico (Barty Jr.) But I'm just a good boy and nobody loves me (Crowd and Mrs.Crouch) He's just a good boy from an old family Spare him his life from this monstrosity (Barty Jr.) Easy come easy go - will you let me go (Crouch Sr.) I have no son! No - I will not let you go - (Crowd) let him go (Crouch Sr.) I have no son! No - I will not let you go - (Mrs. Crouch) let him go (Crouch Sr.) I have no son! No - I will not let you go - (Barty Jr.) let me go (Crouch Sr.) Will not let you go - (Barty Jr.)let me go (Crouch Sr.)(never) (Crouch Sr.) Never let you go - (Barty Jr.) let me go (Crouch Sr.) Never let you go - ooo No, no, no, no, no, no, no - (Barty Jr.) Oh mama mia, mama mia, mama mia let me go (Bellatrix LeStrange) Lord Voldemort has a place of honor just for me for me for me [Bellatrix, Rodolphus and Rabastan] So you think you can stop us--let's just see you try So you think you'll condemn us and leave us to die Oh Voldy - we'll come find you Lord Voldy Just gotta get out - just gotta get right outta there [Rodolphus & Rabastan]Ooh yeah, ooh yeah [Bellatrix] Only Voldy matters Anyone can see Only Voldy matters - Only Voldy matters to me [Rodolphus & Rabastan] Anyway the wind blows... Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From juli17 at aol.com Thu Sep 14 18:07:23 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:07:23 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's trust in Snape (was re: Connections...again) In-Reply-To: <1158208295.3443.87566.m25@yahoogroups.com> References: <1158208295.3443.87566.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C8A63FC341E66E-474-1661@MBLK-M39.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158304 Snow wrote: (1) Harry's first true introduction to Fawkes was hearing his arrival by way of phoenix song in the Chamber immediately after saying "He's not as gone as you might think!" {COS pg. 315} Dumbledore confides to Harry that only true loyalty to him could have caused such a reaction from the phoenix. This is when and how the connection may have been created between the three of them. Julie: Sorry to take this off on a total tangent, but the comment above about true loyalty gave me a thought. We're still wondering what it is that makes Dumbledore trust Snape "completely." What if it is nothing more complicated than the fact that Snape elicited a similar reaction from Fawkes? If Fawkes is some sort of litmus test for true loyalty to Dumbledore, and Snape passed that test, then Dumbledore's trust in Snape is simply and elegantly explained! (And it isn't even necessary for Dumbledore to divine if Snape is telling the truth, genuinely contrite over James and Lily's deaths, etc. Fawkes says Snape is loyal, thus it is so.) I do find one small flaw in this theory, and that is Dumbledore's hesitation in revealing his true reason for trusting Snape (to Harry in HBP). If the reason is this straightforward, why would Dumbledore not just tell Harry so? Still, I think Fawkes will play some part in revealing Snape's true loyalties in the end. Which will be to Dumbledore, of course ;-) Julie, who apologizes if someone else has already suggested this theory ________________________________________________________________________ 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 klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 14 18:35:38 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:35:38 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles: Magic & Science in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158305 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > > > > > Quick_Silver: > > > > > I agree that Hogwart's focus on the pragmatic ... > > > unfortunate ...the joke that's called History of > > > Magic). The Sciences are an interesting topic however > > > especially since JK and Hermione stated that > > > technology specifically computers, radar, and ...) > > > electricity don't work around ... magic (like > > > Hogwarts). ... > > > > > > > Ken: > > > > JKR and Hermione may both say the electricty doesn't > > work at Hogwarts but the hard science fiction reader > > in me cannot accept this. Human beings like all the > > higher animals have nervous systems that run on > > electricity. .. > > > > bboyminn: > > Fair point but one doesn't necessarily eliminate the > other. The brain is a electical instrument that is > suprebly insulated. For example, when your TV reception > suddenly goes staticy, it is because of outside electical > interference; lightening strike or whatever. But when > that happens, you brain doesn't go all staticy. Ken: No, your brain doesn't. Neither does your computer, your wristwatch, your blender, your automobile, your (insert a multitude of electronic devices here). TV's and radios are specifically designed to be very sensitive to narrow bands of radio waves. TV's and AM radios both use amplitude modulation and cannot reject interference that appears on the channels they use from outside sources, including nearby lightning strikes. FM radios (which use frequency modulation) can reject quite a bit of this interference and are in fact quieter during thunderstorms than TV's and AM radios. If JKR had merely said that these magic spells disrupt radio transmissions in and out of Hogwarts I could buy that from a technical viewpoint but it creates other problems. It is fairly easy to jam radios by transmitting noise on the frequencies that they use. The WW would have to be quite a bit more cognizant of Muggle technology than they seem to be in order to do this. Furthermore jamming radio bands reveals the jammer to anyone with a radio receiver and that would defeat the purpose of making Hogwarts look like a pile of rubble to the Muggles. They'd want to bulldoze the rubble to silence the interference so that they could listen to the BBC! > bboyminn: > > On the subject of lightening strikes, most people do > survive them, but very very very few electical or > electronic devices do. Another indication that the > electical properties of the brain are far different > than that of electical or electronic devices. > Ken: Lightning is very powerful. I believe a single lightning bolt produces a few megawatts for a few microseconds. I doubt that very many humans survive a *direct* hit from a lightning strike. I think that most lightning survivors are victims of nearby strikes. Dangerous voltage levels and current flows extend for many meters from the point where the strike actually hits something eartbound. Someone in that danger zone will be injured but is far more likely to survive the hit than someone struck directly. Lightning victims often face long, painful recoveries and frequently are never the same. Most electronic equipment that is destroyed by lightning is connected to an antenna of some kind: an actual antenna, the AC power grid, or the wired telephone network. This antenna effect exposes them to dangers similar to a direct hit even though the actual strike occurred a considerable distance away. Isolated battery powered devices are seldom harmed by lightning unless struck directly. One key difference between our gadets and ourselves is that we have self repair mechanisms and they do not. > bboyminn: > > When you put your brain in an MRI (Magnetic Resonance > Imaging) it still functions, but any electronic device > put into the same MRI is going to go into 'overload'. > Ken: I'm not sure that is true. It may be true of some devices and not others. The MRI machine itself is one big electronic device with some very sophisticated signal processing equipment as well as one or more computers and *it* isn't disrupted by the large magnetic fields it generates. I knew MRI before he was a superstar. Back then he was called NMR for nuclear magnetic resonance. Shortly after he went into the medical practice he droped the N and added the I because patients are afraid of the N word. In this case it has nothing to do with radioactivity or nuclear energy but human nature is what it is and nuclear had to go. The NMR machine I saw was installed in a physics lab at the University of Wisconsin. The lab was full of all kinds of senstive electronic instruments and they all worked while the machine was running. In any event Hogwarts is not protected by NMR technology, we'd see all kinds of weird magnetic effects on metal objects at the school if it were. These are good, thoughtful counter examples that you came up with but in my engineering opinion they don't work out in the end. > bboyminn: > > I have always speculated that the aura of magic around > Hogwarts doesn't prevent the simple flow of basic > electrical current. For example, a simple flash light > (torch) would likely work. But any electronic devices > like calculators, radios, TVs, computers, printers, fax > machines, cell phones would be 'overloaded' by the > magical energy. > > So, the magical aura /can/ overload electical and > electronic devices and still /not/ overload the human > brain. > Ken: I prefer to think that the magic operates on the student's brains to make them think these devices don't work just as the Muggles see a rubble pile where Hogwarts is. The magic would also have to scramble the output of any microphones in Hogwarts to foil bugging devices but I find that believeable in the context of the WW that Rowling has created. I just can't find a blanket disruption of electrical signals consistent with life as we know it. The WW I see is imaginary, true, but it is also recognizably our own. We can plausibly believe that such a world could exist right beneath our noses, that is a big part of the fun of it all. I know I'm being a nerdy engineer but mucking around with electromagnetism is very dangerous business indeed for a work that hopes to remain plausible. I'd rather believe this particular type of magic works on the human brain which is known throughout the work to be sensitive to magical manipulation. > > Ken: > > > > ...edited... > > > > Hogwarts students need a science education as much as > > anyone else. Magic in the Potterverse has to be viewed > > as an extension of ordinary physics not a denial of it. > > ...edited... > > bboyminn: > > I've already said that Wizards do study science, they > study the science of magic, which in their world serves > that same purpose as technology in ours. I've also always > contended that magic is just science/physics that muggles > haven't discovered yet. Many items in fiction, even at > the time unbelievable items, eventually become reality. > Science has always been considered magic, until some > muggle comes up with an explanation, at which time it > is no longer 'magic' but science. > > ... Snip ... > > It is possible in 500 years, muggle will discover the > science of magic, and apply it to magical energy free > cars, to faster that warp-speed spacecraft, to magical > farming and food production, to powering our cities > without polution. > Ken: There is a proverb among science fiction writers that any technology which is sufficiently advanced is indistinguisable from magic. If we could transport someone from the year 1000 to our time he/she would be quite conviced that we are *all* wizards and witches. The things we take for granted would astound our ancestors. I agree that the magic in the WW functions as a technology and in fact *is* a technology. It is so easy to use that most wizards and witches have little understanding of how it works. This makes most of them physically and intellectually lazy. One could argue that as our technology level advances it is having the same effect on us. If the author did not seem so absolutely certain that her story is about other things I would say that it is one of the main purposes of the work to hold this mirror before the face of our technical society. A highly capable society that has little in the way of humanities and religion to align its moral compass is a dark and dangerous place to live. I agree that Muggle scientists in the Potterverse could tap into magical techniques if they knew magic existed. This may not be the reason the secrecy act was instituted but it is, I am certain, one of the prime reasons the WW continues to enforce it. If I lived in the WW I'd be quite frightened of the possibility of a Muggle magical technology. I would not want Muggles trying to invent one. If magic were revealed to Muggle scientists I don't think it would take 500 years. Maybe as much as 50. But that isn't the story Rowling means to tell so I can't fault her for not going there. It is the sort of story a lot of SF writers would choose to tell and I'd be surprised if no one takes up the challenge after Rowling moves on. Killing off Harry probably would not protect the Potterverse from pilferage so why not let Harry live? Sorry, just had to throw that in, sign me up for IWHTL or whatever Geoff calls it! Ken From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Sep 14 19:11:14 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:11:14 -0700 Subject: Potterverse timelines just don't fit the RW (was: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1996435498.20060914121114@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158306 Hickengruendler: h> In reality, yes. However, as the first chapter in PS informs us, the h> story begins on a Tuesday. It is Tuesday evening, when Hagrid and h> Baby Harry finally arrive at Privet Drive (after having done who h> knows what ;-) ), therefore it was on a Monday, when James and Lily h> died. But I don't think it matters much. JKR quite obviously doesn't h> care for dates. Dave: That's Why I have always asserted that it is pointless to try to assign definite RW dates to the events of the books, e.g. Harry was born in 1980. Things just don't work out -- full moons on the wrong dates, anachronistic Playstations, etc., etc. And now I think we can add this as a further example. I think the best we can do is talk in terms of a "BCWE" ("Before Current Wizarding Epoch") and "CWE" ("Common Wizarding Epoch"). One might debate what event to use for "Year 1", but for our purposes it would probably be Harry's birth. So then for example Book 6 would take place in the years 17 - 18 CWE, and Riddle first opened the CoS in, um -- 38 BCWE (Am I right?? -- Maybe to ease the arithmetic we could assume Wizards have a "Year 0" even though Muggles don't...) -- Dave P.S. I think the only reason Nick's cake said he died in 1492 is that's such a familiar date to people -- I think it's just as likely that Nick has lost track of the exact year he died, and perhaps has celebrated his "500th Deathday" for some years now... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 19:22:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:22:00 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158307 --- "esmith222002" wrote: > > Just to follow on from my previous post. > > It seems likely that the only person PP told about the > Potter's location was LV. ... > > At some point after, a member of the order came to GH > to retrieve Harry. The problem is this - as Harry is > still alive and still under the Fidelius Charm, how > exactly did anyone manage to find him? Could you find > James & Lily now that they are dead? > bboyminn: You are actually, directly and indirectly, posing several questions. The first, though very much implied, is how could that house be physically destroyed when the AK Curses doesn't physically destroy things. The bodies of it's victims remain unmarked. Again admitting that this question was very much implied, we see that curses that otherwise do not do physical damage do do physical damge when they miss their target. Wing of a stone angel is damaged in the graveyard, a hold is left in the floor near Nevilles hand, Dumbledore splinters a substantial door with a stunning curse, etc.... Further, a Killing Curse has never rebounded before, we can't really predict what will or won't happen under that circumstance. I suspect when the Kinetic enegy of the spell was redirected by Lily's love shield, it acted with the destructive power of a missed spell, but was magnified by the uniquenss of the stituation. Now on to more directly related matters. > Brothergib: > > There has been lots of speculation that SS was there > that night. My only theory is that SS contacted DD to > tell him that LV had attacked GH but SS could find no > trace of the Potters. bboyminn: Just one problems, if something, such as the house as you suspect, is under the Fedelius Charm, then no one but the Secret Keeper can speak it's name. JKR said that even if James or Lily were captured, they could not, even if they desired to, reveal the location of Godic's Hollow. I don't think they could even speak the name in an innocent context. Snape could only be there if he was brought there by Peter and LV. LV could bring Snape, but he couldn't tell Snape where he was bringing him. Though Peter could tell Snape. Neither could Snape tell Dumbledore, because the Charm would prevent Snape from speaking the name of the place. I also suspect that you can't reveal the name by indirect inference. For example, Snape couldn't say that Dumbledore needed to go to 'that small valley that has the same first name as Gryffindor' and hope that Dumbledore would put it together and come up with 'Godrics Hollow'. So, I can only see two possible ways for anyone to have been able to suddenly know about GH and to convey that information. One, the spell was broken. Two, directly or indirectly, Peter told a few people in the Order. Now many people seem to think that Peter would personally have to tell anyone the secret and that would give him away as the Secret Keeper, but we see from the books that this isn't true. Moody reveals the Secret of Headquarters to Harry, but he does it indirectly. He hands Harry a note which is written by Dumbledore, and the note says: "The Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." Harry reads it, and the note is immediately destroyed. For the moment, file that away, we'll come back to it later. I can only concluded that when the Charm was cast, a few key people were told the Secret. I suspect that Sirius delivered handwritten notes to Dumbledore and a very few others. The notes were written by Peter, but delivered by Sirius, which helped maintain the illusion that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. The notes were destroyed immediately after being read to prevent anyone from analysing the hand writing and discovering that it didn't look like Sirius's. I suspect that this is possible because I suspect that the Potters did need some level of support; food, news, etc.... To my way of thinking, only that and the possibility that the Charm was broken make sense. My personal opinion is that both are true. A few people did know the Secret, and the force of the rebounding AK or some other circumstance broke the Secret Keeper spell. I do have a theory on 'some other circumstance' that might have broken the spell. 'Fidelius' is related to 'fidelity' which in turn is related to 'faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances'. When Dumbledore reveals the Secret to Harry and members of the Order, he is maintaining his oath of 'fidelity'. He is honoring his oath of obligation and acting in the interest of that oath. When Peter reveals the secret to Voldemort he is breaching or breaking his oath of Fidelity in the most extreme and egregious way. In breaking and dishonoring his oath, he has in affect broken the Charm, thereby allowing the secret to be spoken and known by all. It is possible that Dumbledore sensed that the Charm had been broken, and immediately sent Hagrid. It is also possible that Sirius sense a shift in the oath of secrecy that alerted him to a problem, and lead him directly to Godrics Hollow. I know the book doesn't say that, but it could be a secondary aspect. > Brothergib: > > Maybe this is the reason why GH is destroyed. If the > Fidelius charm is placed on the house, rather than the > people, then maybe DD instructed SS to destroy GH, and > then he would be able to find Harry? > > Brothergib > bboyminn: I don't think that is how or why the house was destroyed, but it does bring up one the biggest unresolved mysteries in the series. Exactly what, in terms of phrasing, was the 'Secret'. Once again I point out the note Dumbledore gave Harry. I post it again to refresh your memory - "The Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." Is seems that the 'secret' is /not/ 12 Grimmauld Place, but 'Headquarters of the Order'. Twelve Grimmauld Place is only relevant because it is the /current/ location of 'headquarters'. I suspect, if 'headquarters' moves, as it did, the secret moves with it. If the Potter's Secret was - 'The location of the Potters is at Godrics Hollow'. Then 'the location of the Potters' is the secret, and 'Godrics Hollow' is the current incidental location. If the Potter's Secret was - 'A house at Godrics Hollow is the place were the Potters are hiding'. Then 'Godrics Hollow' is the secret, and it is incidental that it is the Potters who are hiding there. In the first case, Godrics Hollow could be found but the Potters could not. In the second case, no one could be found if they were in the house at Godrics Hollow because the house itself could not be found. Yet as others have pointed out in previous discussions, relative to the Charm, is the rubble of the house still the house? Logically, the location secret would not be as vague as I have made it above, it would be more like- 'The house at number six Killarney Street is the place where the Potters are hiding.' Since an address is mentioned, then is it the /house/ that is the true secret or the address? Independant of the existance of the house, the lot or address always exists. Further how did the muggles and the Ministry come running to a house that can't be found? Your idea that Snape destroyed the house, makes me ask, how could he find a house that couldn't be found, much less destroy it? How could the secret be reveal to him in such a way that he could destory the house, and would that really break the Charm? Lastly, there are endless complications with the Charm actually being on the Potters and not the location. First, the Secret Keeper is still alive, so the secret /should/ still be intact, which means that the Potter where ever they are, in the grave, home, school, the Burrow, is made secret by the Charm. That means we shouldn't be able to find Harry, and we shouldn't be able to find his parents graves because those locations are protected by the Secret Charm. That also means that the Keeper of the Secret no longer actually knows the Secret. Peter doesn't know where Harry is and he likely doesn't know where Lily and James' graves are. What does that do to the Secret Keeper Charm when the Keeper no longer knows the Secret? The only explanation of the Secret Keeper Charm that makes sense with what he already know, is that the Charm was broken by Peter's breach of fidelity, or by some yet unknown mechanism. Regardless, if the charm was not broken, and regardless of whether it was on the Potters or their location at Godrics Hollow, the plot becomes extremely and near irrevocably unresolvable. So, I conclude it must have been broken. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 19:46:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:46:40 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: <20060914130929.52886.qmail@web39514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158308 Kenneth asked: > > > > What would be the final sentence in book seven which > > would give the > > most hostages to fortune, 'answer' the most pressing > > questions and > > generally cause the most consternation amongst > > aficionados here? My > > suggestion would be: > > > > Harry looked at Dumbledore across the bodies of > > Voldemort and Hagrid > > and said: "So it was Neville's task after all. > > Well, at least I've got > > rid of my scar." > > > > Kenneth > > parisfan wrote: > > I'd rather hear something eloquent like 'as he lay in > his coffin he was eerily pale but what most remember > about that last look at Harry was his blood red SCAR' Carol responds: I think we're forgetting that the last chapter is an epilogue--what happened to the *survivors* of VW2. Since the last word in the book is "scar," it clearly refers to Harry, who must therefore be a survivor. I think the last sentence will be something like this (forgive me for making it two sentences): "Although Professor Trelawney's prediction that Harry would have twelve children and become Minister of Magic didn't come true, he and Ginny did have a long and happy life together as famous Aurors with seven children, all but one of them boys. The youngest son looked exactly like Harry except that he had his mother's eyes--and, Harry noted happily, no sign of a scar." Carol, realizing that those sentences aren't exactly eloquent but hoping that they're more or less accurate in terms of content From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 19:49:09 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:49:09 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158309 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, doug rogers wrote: > > Carol67: > > > September 1 is always a Monday, so > > October 31 should always be a Friday. > > doug: > > Uhm... September first was a Friday this year. > Carol responds: In RL, yes. But one of the peculiarities of the Potterverse is that September 1 always a Monday in the HP books. Sorry to be unclear. Carol, regretting that she's wasted a post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 20:22:27 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:22:27 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158310 Brothergib wrote: > > It seems likely that the only person PP told about the Potter's > location was LV. LV went to Godric's Hollow and killed the James & > Lily, but not Harry. > > At some point after, a member of the order came to GH to retrieve > Harry. The problem is this - as Harry is still alive and still under > the Fidelius Charm, how exactly did anyone manage to find him? Could > you find James & Lily now that they are dead? > > There has been lots of speculation that SS was there that night. My > only theory is that SS contacted DD to tell him that LV had attacked GH but SS could find no trace of the Potters. Maybe this is the reason why GH is destroyed. If the Fidelius charm is placed on the house, rather than the people, then maybe DD instructed SS to destroy GH, and then he would be able to find Harry? > > Brothergib > Carol responds: I agree that the only person that PP told about the Godric's Hollow location was LV. I think he led LV there himself and then hid in rat form, afterwards retrieving and hiding the wand. I think that the Fidelius charm ended once the Potters were killed or once the house was destroyed (blown up by the AK exploding out of Harry's head or by the explosion of Voldemort himself, AFWK, not by an Order member). "The Potters are hiding in Godric's Hollow" was simply no longer true, so the secret had ceased to exist. I think that Dumbledore woke up knowing where the Potters had been hiding (quite possibly he owned the house and had lent it to them in the first place) and realized that they must be dead or he wouldn't know the secret. And I think that Snape woke up with his Dark Mark burning and then watched in astonishment as it nearly vanished, then ran up eight flights of stairs to tell Dumbledore, who would have been consulting his mysterious instruments. Together they arrived at the conclusion that James and Lily were dead but Harry had somehow thwarted Voldemort. Possibly Dumbledore sent Snape to Hagrid's hut so Hagrid could rescue Baby!Harry, warning him not to give the baby to anyone else under any circumstances. That would account at least in part for Hagrid's long-standing faith in Snape. For reasons I've stated elsewhere, I don't think that Snape was at Godric's Hollow or that he knew the location. Had Pettigrew told him the secret, which is extremely unlikely, he would have told Dumbledore who the Secret Keeper was (which is what I meant to say in my earlier post--not that he would have told DD the secret, which, of course, he couldn't have done). I don't think that either of them knew. If Snape knew there was a Secret Keeper, and I'm not sure that he did at that point, he would have learned about it from Dumbledore, who thought that the SK was Black. I also think it's quite possible that Snape, despite being only twenty-two at the time, examined Harry and made sure that he wasn't possessed (or turned into an accidental Horcrux!). I find the idea that he helped to place additional protections on Harry (dragon's blood or something else), but I'm not placing any bets on it. something may have happened at that point to give both Dumbledore and Hagrid complete confidence in Snape, but I don't think it has anything to do with the Invisibility Cloak. Carol, still sure that the only person at GH besides the Potters and LV was a rat named Peter, hiding in the shrubbery (or whatever) and invisible to the Potters From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 14 20:40:25 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:40:25 -0000 Subject: Potterverse timelines just don't fit the RW (was: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER!) In-Reply-To: <1996435498.20060914121114@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158311 > Dave: > > That's Why I have always asserted that it is pointless to try to > assign definite RW dates to the events of the books, e.g. Harry was > born in 1980. Things just don't work out -- full moons on the wrong > dates, anachronistic Playstations, etc., etc. And now I think we can > add this as a further example. I think the best we can do is talk in > terms of a "BCWE" ("Before Current Wizarding Epoch") and "CWE" > ("Common Wizarding Epoch"). One might debate what event to use for > "Year 1", but for our purposes it would probably be Harry's birth. > So then for example Book 6 would take place in the years 17 - 18 CWE, > and Riddle first opened the CoS in, um -- 38 BCWE (Am I right?? -- > Maybe to ease the arithmetic we could assume Wizards have a "Year 0" > even though Muggles don't...) > > -- > Dave > > P.S. I think the only reason Nick's cake said he died in 1492 is > that's such a familiar date to people -- I think it's just as > likely that Nick has lost track of the exact year he died, and perhaps > has celebrated his "500th Deathday" for some years now... Hickengruendler: We do however have another definite date by now, even though it appears outside of the books. On the Black family tree, Draco's birthyear is given as 1980, meaning that's Harry's birthyear as well. Obviously it doesn't fit will several details, but no year fits. And what especially doesn't fit, is that both in GoF and OotP September 1st is on a Monday. Jo just doesn't pay attention to this. That's why I tend to see the year 1980 as Canon while overlooking the inconsistencies. > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 20:52:18 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:52:18 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles: Magic & Science in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158312 --- , "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > > Fair point but one doesn't necessarily eliminate the > > other. The brain is a electical instrument that is > > suprebly insulated. For example, when your TV > > reception suddenly goes staticy, ... your brain > > doesn't go all staticy. > > Ken: > > No, your brain doesn't. Neither does your computer, your > wristwatch, your blender, your automobile, your (insert > a multitude of electronic devices here). ... > bboyminn: I'm really trying to let this go since we are not that much out of sync with each other, but I can't. My point was simply that the brain is a much more resilient and more superbly insulated device that any common muggle electrical or electronic device, and that is true. Likely most electrical and electronic devices will be shut down by the EMF blast from a air-burst nuclear bomb. Yet, most humans in the zone of EMF blast will survive the electical interference, assuming they are not in the direct in the zone of direct heat and blast impact. Even if you can find a reason to shoot that illustration down, it does not change the fact that the human brain is immensely resistant to outside electical interference. Far more so than any common electrical device > Ken: > > ... The MRI machine itself is one big electronic device > with some very sophisticated signal processing equipment > as well as one or more computers and *it* isn't > disrupted by the large magnetic fields it generates. > bboyminn: Yes, but that equipment and those computers are not IN the MRI machine. The field of magnetism is concentrated with the center of the MRI scanning field. > Ken: > > In any event Hogwarts is not protected by NMR > technology, we'd see all kinds of weird magnetic > effects on metal objects at the school if it were. ... bboyminn: Note I said the simple flow of electrical current probably /would/ work. That should implis that simple forms of magnetism would also work. It's just sensitive electronic and electrical devices that would have a problem. Also note that while magic may effect electrical fields, as JKR has specifically said, it is not itself necessarily an electical field. We can't know the full nature and actions of magic, therefore we really can not predict it's action in the framework of modern science. We can only take what the author tells us and assume that there is some fiction-world scientific explanation for it that would be parallelled in our real world. If you have read the continuation of Ender's Game, then you know that friends of Ender concieve of a method of faster than lightspeed travel that makes sense within their framework and explanation, but outside that frame- work, in the real world, it is extremely unlikely, but again, in their world when they explain it, it makes perfect sense. Further, they are able to actually impliment it. For fans, two new books that continue the Ender and Bean storylines are planned. > Ken: > > I prefer to think that the magic operates on the > student's brains to make them think these devices don't > work just as the Muggles see a rubble pile where > Hogwarts is. ... > bboyminn: Sorry, but it seems as if you are saying it is just an illusion. While some aspects of magic are of an illusionary nature, this interference with electronic devices doesn't seem to fit the bill. IMHO. > > Ken: > > ... > > I agree that the magic in the WW functions as a > technology and in fact *is* a technology. It is so > easy to use that most wizards and witches have little > understanding of how it works. ... > bboyminn: Well, we are straying off topic now, but I certainly agree with you. It wasn't that long ago when backyard mechanics were literally building their own engines. I mean sand casting the blocks and everything. Yet, today most people know how to turn the key and make it go, but beyond that are completely lost. Many people drive a car, far fewer can fix a car, many many many fewer can build a car, and virtually no one can create one from scratch. But there very easily could come a time when your life depends on that very skill. I think how many city people I know who can't even conceive of how to change a flat tire, and think nothing of it. I don't see how people can live so blindly and vulnerably. > Ken: > >... If magic were revealed to Muggle scientists I don't > think it would take 500 years. Maybe as much as 50. > bboyminn: Again, I doubt 50 years. That could only happen if some scientist is able to conceive of the idea that magic is real and set out to prove it. As long as people continue to believe it is NOT real, just the stuff of fairytales, then they have no hope of discovering it. Just a few somewhat pointless thoughts. And for the record, I have a B.S. in Electronics Engineering Technology, so I'm not exactly a stranger to science. Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 14 21:02:05 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:02:05 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158313 > Carol responds: > I think we're forgetting that the last chapter is an epilogue--what > happened to the *survivors* of VW2. Since the last word in the book is > "scar," it clearly refers to Harry, who must therefore be a survivor. Hickengruendler: Are you sure? How about: "And they will always remember the boy with the scar". ;-) No, I just wanted to mention the possibility, I do think Harry survives. My guess for the last sentence is: "And all that reminded him of Voldemort and the terrible war, was his lightning-shaped scar". From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 21:09:02 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:09:02 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158314 > Carol responds: > > I agree that the only person that PP told about the Godric's Hollow > location was LV. I think he led LV there himself and then hid in rat > form, afterwards retrieving and hiding the wand. wynnleaf I've been following all these discussions since the NAQ appeared on JKR's website yesterday. This post of yours, Carol, made many excellent points. However, I do think there's a big problem to be dealt with regarding who was actually in the house at GH the night the Potters were killed. Somehow, Dumbledore *knew* that Lily was offered a choice to live and decided to attempt to protect Harry instead. Dumbledore knew this even in PS/SS when he makes it clear that he knew it was *Lily's* love that protected Harry, not just the general love of both his parents who both died protecting him. Therefore someone passed along to Dumbledore the events of that night. I think speculation that DD was informed via a portrait in the house or a mirror is far too mundane an explanation, and has no reason for being kept from readers for 6 books. So some person knew what happened and told Dumbledore. OR Another explanation would follow all of your suggestions below: > I think that Dumbledore woke up knowing where the Potters had been > hiding (quite possibly he owned the house and had lent it to them in > the first place) and realized that they must be dead or he wouldn't > know the secret. And I think that Snape woke up with his Dark Mark > burning and then watched in astonishment as it nearly vanished, then > ran up eight flights of stairs to tell Dumbledore, who would have been > consulting his mysterious instruments. Together they arrived at the > conclusion that James and Lily were dead but Harry had somehow > thwarted Voldemort. wynnleaf And so on with the rest of your theory. Except that suppose at this point Dumbledore really wanted to know what happened. Why was Harry alive? What happened to Voldemort? Supposed Dumbledore and someone else (perhaps Snape), used a timeturner (wild theory, I know), to go back into the night and watch what happened. Both would have to be invisible and would not interfere with the outcome. They could possibly circumvent the Fidelius Charm, since DD and companion (Snape?) would know the location of the house from their real time knowledge. Regarding the Fidelius Charm, what happened to 12 Grimmauld Place right after Sirius died? I know that the Order moved out temporarily, but as I recall, the issue was not one of the Fidelius Charm, but one of ownership. If the Fidelius Charm had needed to be re-done, wouldn't Harry (as the new owner) need to know? My point is that it seemed to me that the Fidelius Charm on Grimmauld Place did not fail at Sirius' death. If that's the case, then the one on Godrics Hollow should not have ended simply because the Potters died, when the Secret Keeper was still alive. Yet Hagrid at least got inside the house. > For reasons I've stated elsewhere, I don't think that Snape was at > Godric's Hollow or that he knew the location. Had Pettigrew told him > the secret, which is extremely unlikely, he would have told Dumbledore > who the Secret Keeper was wynnleaf I agree that Snape definitely thought Sirius was the Secret Keeper. If not, he was a magnificent impromptu actor in the Shrieking Shack in POA. However -- here's another wild theory -- suppose Sirius and Peter, in an attempt to make the ruse of the switched Secret Keeper seem real, polyjuiced Peter into Sirius to pass along the Secret to whoever needed to know? Just a wild theory, I know, except that it would help explain why even those closest to Sirius thought he was definitely the Secret Keeper. The other idea of course is the note theory. After all, if Harry could learn a Fidelius Charm secret through a note from Dumbledore, couldn't Peter pass along the secret through a note that could be shared around on a need-to-know basis? Do we know, after all, that he'd have to sign it for it to work? We may assume this, but it is not definite canon. > Carol, still sure that the only person at GH besides the Potters and > LV was a rat named Peter, hiding in the shrubbery (or whatever) and > invisible to the Potters wynnleaf So how do you think DD knew that Lily was given a choice to live? After all, he seems to have known this even in Harry's first year. From juli17 at aol.com Thu Sep 14 22:18:16 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:18:16 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158315 Carol wrote: > I think we're forgetting that the last chapter is an epilogue--what > happened to the *survivors* of VW2. Since the last word in the book is > "scar," it clearly refers to Harry, who must therefore be a survivor. > I think the last sentence will be something like this (forgive me for > making it two sentences): "Although Professor Trelawney's prediction > that Harry would have twelve children and become Minister of Magic > didn't come true, he and Ginny did have a long and happy life together > as famous Aurors with seven children, all but one of them boys. The > youngest son looked exactly like Harry except that he had his mother's > eyes--and, Harry noted happily, no sign of a scar." > > Carol, realizing that those sentences aren't exactly eloquent but > hoping that they're more or less accurate in terms of content > Julie: I firmly believe Harry will be alive at the end of Book 7, though the book could end with the word "scar" without Harry still being alive. But I am hoping Book 7 ends in "real time," i.e. the epiogue relating what Harry and friends have been doing up until the current moment of publication (July 2007?) and leaving the rest of their lives to be lived concurrent with ours, which will continue in the Muggle world even with no future HP books to joyously anticipate. Intead we'll be left to ponder "Wonder what Harry's up to today in that alternate world we can't see, the WW?" or "How are Ron and Hermione getting along with all those little red-headed kids of theirs?" or "I wonder if Snape has come up with any clever new medical potions lately?" (Okay, so I want Snape to live! Surprised? ;-) That would the best way to leave it--open-ended. IMO :-) Julie, not even attempting to guess JKR's certain-to-be- more-eloquent-than-I-could possibly-construct sentence! From mkk69 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 19:59:44 2006 From: mkk69 at hotmail.com (woollybear_99) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:59:44 -0000 Subject: Too Much Analyzing IMO Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158316 Sometimes I think we can analyze something to death. To the point where it isn't as enjoyable as it once was. I think it is fun to just set back and enjoy the ride and see where the book takes you. It is fiction after all and if we try to analyze every detail and find mistakes, for me it makes it less real. I want to pretend like it is real. I don't want to be reminded that it is not. Maybe I need therapy I don't know, but that's how I feel. woollybear_99 From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 22:19:49 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:19:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609141519j633aa92dk22612b21d500505b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158317 Nora: Maybe Susan is right, and we should focus on the "when DD could make himself invisible without a cloak" part. It is the first time (at least to my knowledge or memory) that it is actually stated that DD could make himself invisible without a cloak. We have guessed, suspected, etc, but never been positive about this fact. How could it be so crucial? Perhaps DD have been somewhere, sometime, invisible, without nobody knowing it? Lynda: Given the text in SS in which Dumbledore says that he can make himself invisible without using a cloak, I've always presumed that he does, in fact, do exactly that at times. There is no reason for that to be mentioned unless it is important to the story. Now, as for when and why, I have very few clues, but how about, to check on various people without them knowing it, to discover clues to various mysteries and puzzles and to keep an eye on rambuctious students at a school of which he is the headmaster? Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 22:40:39 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:40:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Too Much Analyzing IMO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609141540h1b9cd96fh3c2c1b514876d78c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158318 > > . > woollybear: > Sometimes I think we can analyze something to death. To the > point > where it isn't as enjoyable as it once was. I think it is fun to > just set back and enjoy the ride and see where the book takes you. > It is fiction after all and if we try to analyze every detail > and find mistakes, for me it makes it less real. I want to pretend > like it is real. I don't want to be reminded that it is not. Maybe > I need therapy I don't know, but that's how I feel. > Lynda: I don't mind analysing and discussing, but I do think that there are some subjects that can be done to death and there are some things that we can speculate on till Kingdom Come (or the last book comes out in this case) and then, if JKR happens to write it differently than the way we wanted it done it can cause disappointment. I'm remembering some of the conversations concerning romantic relationships in HBP that had some people up in arms. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 02:13:49 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:13:49 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158319 Carol > > For reasons I've stated elsewhere, I don't think that Snape was at > > Godric's Hollow or that he knew the location. Had Pettigrew told > him > > the secret, which is extremely unlikely, he would have told > Dumbledore > > who the Secret Keeper was > > wynnleaf > I agree that Snape definitely thought Sirius was the Secret Keeper. > If not, he was a magnificent impromptu actor in the Shrieking Shack > in POA. However -- here's another wild theory -- suppose Sirius and > Peter, in an attempt to make the ruse of the switched Secret Keeper > seem real, polyjuiced Peter into Sirius to pass along the Secret to > whoever needed to know? Just a wild theory, I know, except that it > would help explain why even those closest to Sirius thought he was > definitely the Secret Keeper. The other idea of course is the note > theory. After all, if Harry could learn a Fidelius Charm secret > through a note from Dumbledore, couldn't Peter pass along the secret > through a note that could be shared around on a need-to-know basis? > Do we know, after all, that he'd have to sign it for it to work? We > may assume this, but it is not definite canon. wynnleaf Now that I've had an opportunity to look it up, it becomes quite clear that Dumbledore did not sign the note that Order members handed Harry to read in order to get into 12 Grimmauld Place. So that's all the canon proof we need that the Secret Keeper can write a note giving away the secret location, without a signature, and not even be there when people read the note -- and the secret is still transferred to the reader of the note. wynnleaf -- who thinks any Order member or DE could potentially have read an unsigned note written by Pettigrew, even one that changed hands, and never know that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 03:43:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 03:43:24 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158320 Carol earlier: > > > For reasons I've stated elsewhere, I don't think that Snape was at Godric's Hollow or that he knew the location. Had Pettigrew told him the secret, which is extremely unlikely, he would have told Dumbledore who the Secret Keeper was > > wynnleaf > > I agree that Snape definitely thought Sirius was the Secret Keeper. If not, he was a magnificent impromptu actor in the Shrieking Shack in POA. However -- here's another wild theory -- suppose Sirius and Peter, in an attempt to make the ruse of the switched Secret Keeper seem real, polyjuiced Peter into Sirius to pass along the Secret to whoever needed to know? Just a wild theory, I know, except that it would help explain why even those closest to Sirius thought he was definitely the Secret Keeper. The other idea of course is the note theory. After all, if Harry could learn a Fidelius Charm secret through a note from Dumbledore, couldn't Peter pass along the secret through a note that could be shared around on a need-to-know basis? Do we know, after all, that he'd have to sign it for it to work? We may assume this, but it is not definite canon. > > wynnleaf > Now that I've had an opportunity to look it up, it becomes quite clear that Dumbledore did not sign the note that Order members handed Harry to read in order to get into 12 Grimmauld Place. So that's all the canon proof we need that the Secret Keeper can write a note giving > away the secret location, without a signature, and not even be there > when people read the note -- and the secret is still transferred to > the reader of the note. > > wynnleaf -- who thinks any Order member or DE could potentially have > read an unsigned note written by Pettigrew, even one that changed > hands, and never know that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper. > Carol responds: Okay, my primary objection (that Snape didn't know who the Secret Keeper was) is out of the way, so I accept the possibility that he and DD could *theoretically* have known the hiding place (the Secret) without knowing who the secret Keeper was. But where is the evidence that they knew or that James, Peter, and Sirius hatched some elaborate scheme to inform them of the Potters' whereabouts? It seems to me that the Potters would have wanted as few people as possible to know--possibly Dumbledore but certainly not Snape. AFAWK, not even Lupin knew the Secret. He certainly didn't know the Secret Keeper's identity, and if a polyjuiced Peter pretending to be Sirius had come to him, he'd have said something about it in the Shrieking Shack. ("But you told me about Godric's Hollow!" "No, I didn't. That was Peter, Polyjuiced as me!") And where's the evidence that anyone besides Peter (who must have retrieved and hidden Voldemort's wand) was at Godric's Hollow? Neither James nor Lily mentions Snape in Harry's Dementor-induced memories. James tells Lily that "he" (meaning Voldemort) is here. No one else is mentioned. Peter could have hidden as a rat. But why on earth would DDM!Snape be there? He says that he was at Hogwarts. Granted, he could be lying to Bella, but surely if he were there, she'd already know? And as I said before, Dumbledore's words indicate that *James* gave him the Invisibility Cloak *before* Godric's Hollow, and it's most unlikely that Snape would show up at GH wearing James's Invisibility Cloak. (Imagine James's reaction to that!) If Dumbledore can become invisible without a cloak and James trusts him enough to have Peter (disguised as Sirius) tell him the Secret, wouldn't he have gone there himself rather than sending Snape, whom James *wouldn't* trust? Maybe James's "arrogance," as Snape calls it, consisted of turning down Dumbledore's offer to become SK and choosing Black in his place, refusing to believe that he was a traitor and a spy (as Snape believed he really was)? Also, if Dumbledore wasn't awakened by the sudden realization that he knew the hiding place and therefore the Potters were dead (and/or snape woke him to show him his fading Dark Mark), how did he know that anything was wrong? Sirius Black didn't know. He just went to see Pettigrew as planned to make sure that he was all right and became suspicious when Pettigrew wasn't home and there was no sign of forced entry. He knew the Secret but he didn't know that the Potters were dead until he reached their hiding place, and he arrived after Hagrid (possibly because he used his motorcycle instead of Apparating). If he'd sensed the Fidelius charm breaking, he'd have Apparated there instantly. Dumbledore, IMO, *didn't* know the Secret until after the Potters were killed (even if he owned the property and lent it to them in the first place, the Charm would have wiped away that memory). Carol, who doesn't see either the evidence or the logic of the IC/Snape hypothesis but is at least convinced that it's consistent with DDM!Snape From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Sep 15 04:24:48 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:24:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's 'evidence' (Was Re: OoP clues?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158321 Abergoat writes: Secca, congratulations on you work being recognized! I'm not familiar with Potter's Key's. I'll have to look into it. Lexicon is of course very familiar...although I think they may have overreached on their Aberforth assumptions ;) Secca responds: > After OotP and Barty/Moody I'm a little polyjuiced out... So, for > that very subjective reason, I hope the plot doesn't turn that way... Understandable sentiment. How did you feel about polyjuice in HBP? I thought Crabbe and Goyle running around as little female firsties was pretty funny. As for Dumbledore's evidence - that's the kicker. He is the Wizarding World's equivalent of the United States Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And that hasn't played a role, and it does make Dumbledore mis-using the word highly unlikely. The only other alternative that I could think of that didn't involve polyjuice was James or Lily telling him that they had successfully cast Fidelius using Sirius as the Secret Keeper (this would be acceptable hearsay evidence because they are dead and therefore cannot be called in to confirm the hearsay). But that requires the Potters successfully lie to a man we've never seen accept a lie without suspicion. Beyond that, the theories would have to have the Potters thinking Sirius WAS the Secret Keeper (not supported by Sirius's statements in PoA) or Dumbledore casting the charm on Sirius or being given the secret by Sirius. Or JKR sloppy with legal terms, and I don't see much evidence (wink) of sloppiness in her series. If Peter did use polyjuice I don't think it will get much more than a passing mention. I suspect Peter used it because he didn't care to be known as the Secret Keeper for a couple that was about to die...JKR can spin it in a way that will be platable because it won't be big news...perhaps because Harry has already started wondering how Hagrid could claim Snape was at Godric's Hollow trying to get the Potters to leave...(*cackles*) Abergoat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 07:03:37 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:03:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's 'evidence' - Knowledge of the Plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158322 --- "abergoat" wrote: > AberGoat: > > ... > > As for Dumbledore's evidence - that's the kicker. He > is the Wizarding World's equivalent of the United > States Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And that > hasn't played a role, and it does make Dumbledore > mis-using the word highly unlikely. > > The only other alternative that I could think of that > didn't involve polyjuice was James or Lily telling him > that they had successfully cast Fidelius using Sirius > as the Secret Keeper (this would be acceptable hearsay > evidence because they are dead and therefore cannot be > called in to confirm the hearsay). > bboyminn: I think you are confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. Dumbledore gave testimony at what was likely a hearing, and he told the members of that hearing what he knew. To the best of his knowledge and based on conversations with the Potters, they planned was to use Sirius, their most trusted friend and a fierce, determined, and powerful wizard, as their Secret Keeper, sure that if captured Sirius would never break. That was the latest and truest information made available to Dumbledore by the Potters. That testimony was entered as evidence, from that point on, it was up to law enforcement or who ever conducted the hearing to determine if that testimony constituded evidence of anything. So, I think Dumbledore's testimony was regarding, not what the Potters did, but what they intended to do, what they said they were going to do. That would certainly be considered evidence in any court of law. As an example, if you overheard someone say with all sincerity that they were going to kill 'Mr. X' and the next day Mr.X was murdered. The police and the procecuting attorney would certainly have you give that evidence at trial. In Dumbledore's case, his knowledge actually went farther than an overheard comment. It seems that he discussed the matter in detail with the Potters and helped them reach their original plan. That knowledge would certainly carry weight in court. In that context, Dumbledore's statement is correct, he did give evidence at the hearing to determine Sirius's fate. I personally find no contradiction or confusion or inconsistency in that statement. > AberGoat: > > But that requires the Potters successfully lie to a man > we've never seen accept a lie without suspicion. ... > bboyminn: Well, if you accept my theory, the Potter were not lying, they were telling Dumbledore exactly what the intended to do. It was at the last minute, and after the fact, that Sirius came up with the brilliant idea to switch Secret Keepers and use himself as a decoy. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Sep 15 07:59:18 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:59:18 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158323 Didn't DD state that what happened at GH was the greatest REGRET of Snape's life. If Snape regrets what happened at GH, it can only be because he had a chance to prevent it i.e. he knew it was going to happen. It could be that Snape was with LV when the unsigned note arrived by owl from PP. LV may have invited SS along (bearing in mind SS hatred of James). Having seen the note SS can now find the Potter's but still does not know PP is SK. After the GH incident is finished, SS informs DD. Surely DD must have visited GH at this point. He is not so detached, that he would not come to see what had happened. He then needs to arrange further protection for Harry, but needs someone to physically collect Harry. It can't be Snape for obvious reasons. James' circle of friends seems to have been corrupted. DD decides on Hagrid. Gives Snape the invisibility cloak and asks him to watch over Harry until Hagrid arrives (I've never believed that DD would leave Harry sitting in a pile of rubble). Another problem concerns LV's AK from within GH. Firstly why would an AK rebound? Lily's protection has been described previously as a powerful countercurse. But a countercurse would block the AK. It would not rebound it. Secondly, if the AK did rebound and hit LV, surely it would 'kill' LV, but do no damage to the house. Is it possible that SS was there? And for those of us that believe that SS loved Lily, is it possible that SS, enraged at Lily's death, could have fired his own AK at LV? And finally, how does a baby survive a house that been blown to pieces? Is it because the house is destroyed after the fact? Brothergib From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Sep 14 22:44:50 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Jan) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:44:50 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158324 What a thought provoker, Kenneth. I like happy thoughts, how about just 2 words.. Mischief managed. and the old man just suggested: Alas, earwax. Tesha From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Sep 15 04:56:33 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:56:33 -0400 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158325 bboyminn: "In other words, legally the Dursley are Harry's defacto guardians by the mere fact that the are his CLOSE and only living relatives. " a_svirn: "One cannot be "legally defacto guardians". If you are guardian de facto it means you are guardian in all ways but legal. As for the Dursleys, they were Harry's guardians, because Dumbledore decided so, not because of any laws muggle or wizard. " BAW: Perhaps a better way of putting it is 'presumptive' or 'default' guardian. Normally, an orphan's guardianship falls to his/her nearest bloodkin unless there is good reason. > BAW: > Since when do Muggles attend Hogwarts? a_svirn: "I might be wrong, but I think Jordan meant that muggle *parents* aren't offered an option to refuse a place at Hogwarts for their children. The Dursleys certainly weren't." BAW: Which of the Dursleys' children were sent to Hogwarts against their will? Harry was NOT their child. If his parents had put him down for Hogwarts before they died, his guardians should honor that wish. For all we know, that was part of what Petunia agreed to when she took Harry in. In PS/SS, Hagrid seems to be shocked that Harry hasn't any idea what is going on; he assumed that the Dursleys would have told him. a_svirn: "We don't know about ministry officials. As for Hogwarts professors we've seen how they go about explaining things to muggles, haven't we? Hugrid hunted them to the end of the earth and intimidated them, to say nothing of inflicting bodily harm on their son. He did explain some things to Harry, but he certainly didn't explain anything to the Dursleys, much less offered them a choice. As for Dumbledore, he simply used magic on the orphanage's matron to confuse her. That hardly sounds like offering a choice, I'd say." BAW: On her website, JKR says that ministry officials sometimes do that. Hagrid was a special case; Harry's parents had put him down for Hogwarts, and Hagrid (and probably everyone in the WW who was involved) had assumed that the Dursleys had told him. I think that Tom Riddle's case was special, too, as the orphanage matron wasn't Tom's parent--and wanted to get rid of him in the first place, so DD was just easing matters. We know that Harry's Evans grandparents were delighted to send Lily to Hogwarts. We don't know what was said to Hermione's parents because it hasn't been relevant to the story, but they went along with her to Diagon Alley to get her supplies, so it seems that they are OK with her going to Hogwarts. As I've said before, we know that mageborn children have magical 'breakouts.' How many python or Aunt Marge incidents would it take for most parents to be glad to know that it was possible to bring things under control, and think that sending their little witch or wizard to a special boarding school--and remember, boarding school is much more a 'mainstream' option in the UK than in the US--is a small price to pay? I'm sure there is some sort of provision for muggle parents who throw a magesport but are against sending the child to boarding school; JKR hasn't told us because it is not relevant to the plot. Perhaps that is what Lupin did before coming to Hogwarts--giving in-home magical instruction to wizardling children--muggleborn or others--whose parents for whatever reason prefered not to send them away. Ken: "Hogwarts students need a science education as much as anyone else. Magic in the Potterverse has to be viewed as an extension of ordinary physics not a denial of it. A science program that only teaches astronomy can hardly give students the breadth that they need and if you divorce it from other disciplines you can do at best a poor job of teaching astronomy. " BAW: Is there ever a real explanation about what goes on in Arithmancy? The name of the teacher (Professor Vector) seems to indicate that it probably includes more than simple arithmatic and geometry; it probably includes at least algebra/trig, and perhaps (at least at NEWT level) a little calculus. Hickengruendler: "In reality, yes. However, as the first chapter in PS informs us, the story begins on a Tuesday. It is Tuesday evening, when Hagrid and Baby Harry finally arrive at Privet Drive (after having done who knows what ;-) ), therefore it was on a Monday, when James and Lily died. But I don't think it matters much. JKR quite obviously doesn't care for dates." Dave: "That's Why I have always asserted that it is pointless to try to assign definite RW dates to the events of the books, e.g. Harry was born in 1980. Things just don't work out -- full moons on the wrong dates, anachronistic Playstations, etc., etc. And now I think we can add this as a further example. " BAW: In Dorothy L. Sayer's preface to GAUDY NIGHT, she says that the internal chronology of her books will reveal what year it was supposed to have occurred, but that she didn't mention several important events of that year and made the phases of the moon conform to the needs of the narrative; she reminds us that all novels are really set in Cloudcookoland. B.A. Wilson From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 10:51:34 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:51:34 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158326 Carol: > But where is the evidence that they knew or that James, Peter, and Sirius hatched some elaborate scheme to inform them of the Potters' whereabouts? It seems to me that the Potters would have wanted as few people as possible to know--possibly Dumbledore but certainly not Snape. AFAWK, not even Lupin knew the Secret. Ceridwen: Evidence? Probably scattered all through the books, we just don't see it because we don't know what to look for yet. And what we're looking for is evidence of the significance of DD having James's Invisibility Cloak at the time of his death. Hence, speculation. We could have speculated that Dumbledore wanted it to cloak his body so he could be a Disembodied Floating Head at a fancy- dress ball. Dumbledore can make himself wholly invisible without a cloak, but can he do *that*? ;) I'm not so much into elaborate schemes to give the secret to the Good Guys. I'm with whoever it was (Ken?) who suggested that the Fidelius is broken once the faith is broken - once the SK tells an enemy the secret (and that enemy acts on it). If there was anything elaborate going on, it would have been on LV's side, to conceal the identity of his informant from the other DEs. If Snape was there under the IC, then he saw a note from the SK at DE HQ, either overtly as someone allowed to be in on the secret (doubtful), or secretly as he spied on some things he was not invited to be in on. You objected much earlier (I think it was you!) that LV would have sensed Snape under a cloak. But, I suggest that this was where Occlumency came in handy. *IF* it blocks the thoughts, then it can be used to block all evidence of thought, IMO. We may see Occlumency differently. LV not suspecting that someone would be spying, plus Snape occluding his thoughts, could allow this scenario. Carol: > And where's the evidence that anyone besides Peter (who must have retrieved and hidden Voldemort's wand) was at Godric's Hollow? Neither James nor Lily mentions Snape in Harry's Dementor-induced memories. James tells Lily that "he" (meaning Voldemort) is here. No one else is mentioned. Peter could have hidden as a rat. But why on earth would DDM!Snape be there? He says that he was at Hogwarts. Granted, he could be lying to Bella, but surely if he were there, she'd already know? Ceridwen: Why would Bellatrix know if Snape was at GH, hidden in an IC, if he was there on DD's orders and not for LV's? I agree that Peter was there in one form or another, probably rat. Anyone else who was there under an IC would not have been noticed by the Potters, or by LV or Wormtail. Why would DDM!Snape be there? Following Dumbledore's orders; following LV (not seeing PP since he would be a rat); keeping a lookout on the property and Potters for DD - Apparating immediately when LV arrived and was seen to be able to see the house - this would be a scenario where a note was sent from the SK to DD instead of the SK telling him in person. He would share the note with whoever he wished, then destroy it. Does not necessitate Polyjuiced!Peter, which does seem too elaborate IMO. But then, why so much emphasis on Polyjuice? Carol: > And as I said before, Dumbledore's words indicate that *James* gave him the Invisibility Cloak *before* Godric's Hollow, and it's most unlikely that Snape would show up at GH wearing James's Invisibility Cloak. (Imagine James's reaction to that!) If Dumbledore can become invisible without a cloak and James trusts him enough to have Peter (disguised as Sirius) tell him the Secret, wouldn't he have gone there himself rather than sending Snape, whom James *wouldn't* trust? Ceridwen: First, a note could be sent, not a Polyjuiced!Peter. Second, this is exactly what we're trying to figure out. Why would DD, who can become invisible, need the cloak, in either his or James's estimation? The only reason I can think of personally would be to use it, as part of the arsenal of ICs people have already mentioned, for spies and lookouts. There may be more than one spy, so more than one cloak is needed; there may be more than one lookout, so more than one cloak is needed. We do know that DD uses lookouts. He used Mundungus Fletcher to watch out for Harry (MD did a poor job of it, too) for an example. Someone, by virtue of the SK's note (and DD could have asked for a note from the SK so he could show the lookout), would be watching the Potters, and someone could be watching the Longbottoms, too. Moody's extra cloak, James's cloak, all accounted for right there. Carol: > Also, if Dumbledore wasn't awakened by the sudden realization that he knew the hiding place and therefore the Potters were dead (and/or snape woke him to show him his fading Dark Mark), how did he know that anything was wrong? Ceridwen: Snipping heavily here. A lookout informing him would wake him just as well; and, how does DD know even half the stuff he does? Snape's mark fading would be one clue, though, I agree with that. If the lookout (whoever it was) Apparated back before the confrontation between James and LV, then the outcome would not have been known *at that time*. The lookout would be sent back, and if that lookout wasn't Snape, his Mark fading would have been one indication while they waited to hear back from the lookout. Oh, on lookouts, there would be more than one. Unless we're talking about a House Elf here, and even then, they need their sleep. Another reason to reasonably ask for a note from the SK - to show anyone in the Order who would act as one lookout in a rotation. Ceridwen, who is not wholly convinced of anything except that JKR thinks that DD having James's cloak is something we should ask, and by extension, think about. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 12:48:26 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:48:26 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158328 > BAW: > Perhaps a better way of putting it is 'presumptive' or 'default' > guardian. Normally, an orphan's guardianship falls to his/her > nearest bloodkin unless there is good reason. a_svirn: For one thing it does not "fall" to them. It's offered to them and may be refused. More importantly, there *was* a very good reason not to involve the Durlseys ? the Potters' Will where they appointed Sirius their son's guardian. > BAW: > Which of the Dursleys' children were sent to Hogwarts against > their will? Harry was NOT their child. a_svirn: A guardian has the same rights as a parent. > BAW: If his parents had put > him down for Hogwarts before they died, his guardians should > honor that wish. a_svirn: And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his guardian, yet nobody bothered to honour their wish, least of all Dumbledore. Which only goes to show that he observes the law only if it suits him. > a_svirn: > "We don't know about ministry officials. As for Hogwarts professors > we've seen how they go about explaining things to muggles, haven't > we? Hugrid hunted them to the end of the earth and intimidated > them, to say nothing of inflicting bodily harm on their son. He > did explain some things to Harry, but he certainly didn't explain > anything to the Dursleys, much less offered them a choice. As for > Dumbledore, he simply used magic on the orphanage's matron to > confuse her. That hardly sounds like offering a choice, I'd say." > > BAW: > On her website, JKR says that ministry officials sometimes do that. a_svirn: OK then. Let's hope that they do their job better than members Hogwarts faculty. > BAW: > Hagrid was a special case; Harry's parents had put him down for > Hogwarts, and Hagrid (and probably everyone in the WW who was > involved) had assumed that the Dursleys had told him. a_svirn: But I didn't say that Hagrid neglected to explain things to Harry. I said that he didn't treat the Dursleys with common courtesy, much less explained them about Hogwarts and such. > BAW: I think that > Tom Riddle's case was special, too, as the orphanage matron wasn't > Tom's parent--and wanted to get rid of him in the first place, so > DD was just easing matters. a_svirn: Yes, there is something to be said about magic when it comes to easing matters. But what is easy is not necessarily what is right, isn't it? Or what is legal as the case may be. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Sep 15 13:51:52 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:51:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's 'evidence' - Knowledge of the Plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158329 boyminn wrote: > I think you are confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. > Dumbledore gave testimony at what was likely a hearing, > and he told the members of that hearing what he knew. But if he testified that had heard that James PLANNED to use Sirius then he mis-spoke when he said he gave evidence that Sirius HAD BEEN the Potters Secret Keeper. He could only say that Sirius WAS TO BE the Secret Keeper but he cannot give evidence that Sirius was actually used. Dumbledore is careful with words. I doubt JKR will have him use 'had been' when he meant to use 'was to be'. But I'll agree JKR has her work cut out for her, very few people seem to see the inconsistancy in Dumbledore's words. Legally, it is there (any of you can look up "law dictionary evidence hearsay" and will see that evidence has to survive objections to hearsay. Not to mention it is wrong to convict someone of a crime just because one heard of a plan - plans change. Dumbledore knows that. A young man's freedom (as possibly life) was at stake. I firmly believe Dumbledore had evidence that Sirius HAD BEEN used, just has he told Harry and Hermione. bboyminn wrote: > Well, if you accept my theory, the Potter were not lying, > they were telling Dumbledore exactly what the intended > to do. It was at the last minute, and after the fact, > that Sirius came up with the brilliant idea to switch > Secret Keepers and use himself as a decoy. Abergoat responds: What you say is perfectly plausible, if Dumbledore had said Sirius 'was to be' the Secret Keeper. But alas, he didn't. He said Sirius had been the SK. Which states he knows the charm was successfully cast and the Sirius was used. Or JKR made a verb tense mistake. Or the Potters lied. Perhaps another way to look at it is Hagrid tells us Dumbledore is VERY close to the Potters in PS/SS. Do all of you think he wasn't given the Secret? A week had past. And if he hadn't been given the Secret and visited the Potters how does he know that the Fidelius Charm worked? Abergoat, who admits this is a lost cause until book 7 comes out > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn > From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 14:02:26 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:02:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying with Muggles: Magic & Science in the World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609150702i2c7e2736jd96d48f89c099bc1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158330 > Ken: > If JKR had merely said that these magic spells disrupt radio > transmissions in and out of Hogwarts I could buy that from a technical > viewpoint but it creates other problems. It is fairly easy to jam > radios by transmitting noise on the frequencies that they use. The WW > would have to be quite a bit more cognizant of Muggle technology than > they seem to be in order to do this. Furthermore jamming radio bands > reveals the jammer to anyone with a radio receiver and that would > defeat the purpose of making Hogwarts look like a pile of rubble to > the Muggles. They'd want to bulldoze the rubble to silence the > interference so that they could listen to the BBC! A theory - the interference caused by magic could be substantially different than normal radio interference in that it "hangs" in the air rather than radiating from a specific source. That means A) it would not effect anywhere outside the hogwarts grounds B) it would be inside any shielding that a computer/etc may have. Before you say interference doesn't work that way, remember - it's magic. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 14:25:38 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:25:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potterverse timelines just don't fit the RW (was: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER!) In-Reply-To: References: <1996435498.20060914121114@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609150725v45b26277l21168977419d5d13@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158331 On 9/14/06, hickengruendler wrote: > > > Dave: > > > > That's Why I have always asserted that it is pointless to try to > > assign definite RW dates to the events of the books, e.g. Harry was > > born in 1980. Things just don't work out -- full moons on the wrong > > dates, anachronistic Playstations, etc., etc. And now I think we > can > > add this as a further example. I think the best we can do is talk > in > > terms of a "BCWE" ("Before Current Wizarding Epoch") and "CWE" > > ("Common Wizarding Epoch"). One might debate what event to use for > > "Year 1", but for our purposes it would probably be Harry's birth. > > So then for example Book 6 would take place in the years 17 - 18 > CWE, > > and Riddle first opened the CoS in, um -- 38 BCWE (Am I right?? -- > > Maybe to ease the arithmetic we could assume Wizards have a "Year 0" > > even though Muggles don't...) > > > > -- > > Dave > > > > P.S. I think the only reason Nick's cake said he died in 1492 is > > that's such a familiar date to people -- I think it's just as > > likely that Nick has lost track of the exact year he died, and > perhaps > > has celebrated his "500th Deathday" for some years now... > > Hickengruendler: > > We do however have another definite date by now, even though it > appears outside of the books. On the Black family tree, Draco's > birthyear is given as 1980, meaning that's Harry's birthyear as well. > Obviously it doesn't fit will several details, but no year fits. And > what especially doesn't fit, is that both in GoF and OotP September > 1st is on a Monday. Jo just doesn't pay attention to this. That's why > I tend to see the year 1980 as Canon while overlooking the > inconsistencies. 1980/1991, though, is apparently a very poor fit for the data. About the only thing going for it is authorial intent, and it's even more clear that the author's _real_ intent was to leave it ambiguous so that the story would be timeless. There is evidence that she was working from a 1991 timeline, but there's also evidence that she was using "as she writes" dates (Flamel's age) or just not caring (weekdays, full moons) See http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/essays/timeline-mapping-tf.html for a detailed treatment of this issue -- Random832 From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Sep 15 14:48:35 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:48:35 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158332 Carol first: > > But where is the evidence that they knew or that James, Peter, and > Sirius hatched some elaborate scheme to inform them of the Potters' > whereabouts? Ceridwen wrote: > Evidence? Probably scattered all through the books, we just don't > see it because we don't know what to look for yet. Abergoat writes: A possible clue is here: Snape PoA, Ch 19 Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee!You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black- Abergoat continues: That is highly suggestive that Snape tried to save James and he was un appreciate at some point. I good possibility is Snape went to Godric's Hollow to try to warn the Potters Voldemort was coming but James refused to believe him. Perhaps knocking Snape unconscious for a crass remark about Sirius, the man Snape thought was the Secret Keeper. Is it so hard to believe the Potters would insist on DD being told the Secret? And that Peter wouldn't want DD to know he was the SK because he knew the Potters were going to die? And is it so difficult to believe that DD wanted Snape to be given the Secret so he could warn the Potters if he heard anything as a spy? Its even possible it was a trap, DD had become suspicious and thought by exposing that Snape as a spy for DD would cause Sirius (Polyjuiced!Peter) expose Snape and Voldemort's fury would redirect to Snape for a bit. I imagine Snape would agree since we know his 'greatest regret' was giving the prophecy to Voldemort once he learned the Potters were the target of it. But Peter was never loyal to Voldemort. He is just saving his own skin. Nothing to be gained by exposing Snape...and could be useful information later. Peter would have kept his mouthshut. Ceridwen wrote: > And what we're looking for is evidence of the significance of DD > having James's Invisibility Cloak at the time of his death. Abergoat writes: I'm sure it has been offered before but I think Snape is a good bet. It is hard to spy for DD when LV expects him to be spying on DD in the little free time that new Professor Snape has. And Hogwarts is hard to enter and leave without detection...yes, I think an Invisibility Cloak would be absolutely necessary for Snape to spy at 'great personal risk' as DD says he did in GoF's pensieve scene of the trial. And if the Potters thought they were giving up the cloak to IMPROVE their security (by giving a spy access to LV's activities) they would do it. Ceridwen wrote: > I'm not so much into elaborate schemes to give the secret to the > Good Guys. Abergoat writes: Yes, but JKR isn't known for simple plots, is she? I mean, a wizard that has been living as a rat for 12 years? A professor running around with a smelly inhuman thing in his turban? An (elaborate) scheme to use Harry's blood to regain a body? Ceridwen wrote: > If there was anything elaborate going on, it would have been on > LV's side, to conceal the identity of his informant from the other > DEs. Abergoat writes: Ah, but Peter isn't unknown for elaborate plots (rat form, explosion framing Sirius). An elaborate plot to hide his identity as the Secret Keeper for some people LV is about to kill doesn't seem just feasible, it seems to be a necessity from his standpoint. And access to the Polyjuice? (a common complaint) HBP makes it clear from its 'purple leaflet' that Voldemort is known for employing Polyjuice. Peter would have no trouble getting access, Voldemort might have even encouraged it to keep his informant 'useful' after the Potters died. The whole thing could have been Voldemort's idea. Ceridwen wrote: > You objected much earlier (I think it was you!) that LV would have > sensed Snape under a cloak. But, I suggest that this was where > Occlumency came in handy. *IF* it blocks the thoughts, then it can > be used to block all evidence of thought, IMO. Abergoat writes: Good point. And if Snape was unconscious because James flattened him for suggesting that a friend was a traitor there isn't any need for Occlumency at all...but I do think Lily put a freezing charm on Snape so he wouldn't attract attention when he regained consciousness. I think Lily was aware of how important Snape was to DD's war. Snape's presence at Godric's Hollow as the added benefit of explaining the strangeness of Fidelius and JKR having Harry go there in the last book. If Fidelius wasn't still in effect there would be nothing to find. But if Snape was released when Lily died (just like Harry on the tower) but was in shock until Voldemort died (like Harry on the tower), then Snape could have moved baby Harry from the part of the house that was still standing to the room LV and James destroyed so that Hagrid could see him. And I wouldn't be surprised if rat Peter saw Harry moved too (and Hagrid speaking to empty air?)...Peter definitely would have come running to beg for mercy from his victorious friends and claim his role was important. But he found they weren't victorious and there would be no mercy from them... Abergoat, that thinks it all would make a compelling story From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 15 14:45:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:45:55 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158333 > a_svirn: > And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his guardian, yet nobody > bothered to honour their wish, least of all Dumbledore. Which only > goes to show that he observes the law only if it suits him. Pippin: Sirius, or possibly someone impersonating him, relinquished Harry to Hagrid at Godric's Hollow. The fact that Sirius (or whoever) gave up the child so reluctantly but didn't insist on protesting to Dumbledore in person would be one of the things that made Sirius look guilty at the time. Once Sirius's innocence was established, Dumbledore seems to have regarded him as a co-guardian, since he was allowed to sign Harry's Hogsmeade permission form. > > BAW: > I think that > > Tom Riddle's case was special, too, as the orphanage matron wasn't > > Tom's parent--and wanted to get rid of him in the first place, so > > DD was just easing matters. > > a_svirn: > Yes, there is something to be said about magic when it comes to > easing matters. But what is easy is not necessarily what is right, > isn't it? Or what is legal as the case may be. > Pippin: Perhaps in that era it would have violated the Statutes of Secrecy to tell any Muggle, whether parent or guardian, about the nature of Hogwarts. In any case, a child has the right to an appropriate education, and in my country, at least, the state will enforce that right against the wishes of the parents or guardians if need be. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 15:34:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:34:46 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158334 > > a_svirn: > > And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his guardian, yet nobody > > bothered to honour their wish, least of all Dumbledore. Which only > > goes to show that he observes the law only if it suits him. > > Pippin: > Sirius, or possibly someone impersonating him, relinquished Harry to > Hagrid at Godric's Hollow. The fact that Sirius (or whoever) gave > up the child so reluctantly but didn't insist on protesting to > Dumbledore in person would be one of the things that made Sirius > look guilty at the time. > > Once Sirius's innocence was established, Dumbledore seems to > have regarded him as a co-guardian, since he was allowed to sign > Harry's Hogsmeade permission form. > Alla: The question I have and sorry for the repetition a_svirn ( I cannot check my e-mail from work, but I can read the list :)) is whether Godfather automatically equals guardian in RL. I mean I know in many fanfics it does, but is it in RL? I know it is a clueless and somehow naive question and I remember we discussed it in the past, but don't remember the answer . Nobody in my family had godparents and I never dealt with it. If something happens with the parents, is it automatically assumed that child goes to godparents? Because if it **does** assumed so in RL, then I would guess that as much as it is possible, that should also apply to the story, I absolutely agree with a_svirn that Dumbledore had no right whatsoever to bring the child to Dursleys when it went against the direct wishes of his parents. Then it would means that Sirius was indeed the guardian and **not** Dursleys, but I am not sure about that. And Dumbledore, unless he has psychic powers could **not** have known that Sirius would be arrested, so he had no right to direct Hagrid to take Harry from Sirius IMO. Now, if Dumbledore indeed had those powers of prediction or if he is moving backwards in time as Merlin did, hehe, or something like that - if he **knew** that Sirius would be arrested, then yes, then he had a right to bring Harry to Dursleys even if Sirius is a lawfully appointed guardian. And was **allowed**? Um, I don't remember Dumbledore giving Sirius permission, unless you mean they exchanged letters? I don't think Sirius needed any such permission, frankly, if he IS Harry's guardian. IMO, Alla. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 16:19:04 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:19:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609150919l2af01a1fy14d7c1e2385f9385@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158335 > Pippin: > Perhaps in that era it would have violated the Statutes of Secrecy > to tell any Muggle, whether parent or guardian, about the nature of > Hogwarts. In any case, a child has the right to an appropriate > education, and in my country, at least, the state will enforce that > right against the wishes of the parents or guardians if need be. The only state (specifically, the UK) that has any _moral_ right to say considers Stonewall a perfectly appropriate education. Muggles, and even muggleborn witches/wizards before accepting Hogwarts attendance, are not a party to the Wizarding World's social contract, and thus should not be considered to be bound by its laws. -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 16:22:26 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:22:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609150922q77fc07bbp88749c2aa3f147ab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158336 > Alla: > The question I have and sorry for the repetition a_svirn ( I cannot > check my e-mail from work, but I can read the list :)) is whether > Godfather automatically equals guardian in RL. I mean I know in many > fanfics it does, but is it in RL? It does in canon; it's certainly good enough for Hogsmeade permission. If he's not his guardian _because_ he's his godfather, then he is _in addition to_ that, which doesn't make a whole lot of difference for purposes of this discussion. Now, whether they could have decided Remus would be called his godfather but Sirius would have been designated guardian or not, is perhaps an interesting question, but the fact is even if they could have, they didn't. -- Random832 From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 15 16:42:52 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:42:52 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles: Magic & Science in the World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158337 > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > Fair point but one doesn't necessarily eliminate the > > > other. The brain is a electical instrument that is > > > suprebly insulated. For example, when your TV > > > reception suddenly goes staticy, ... your brain > > > doesn't go all staticy. > > > > Ken: > > > > No, your brain doesn't. Neither does your computer, your > > wristwatch, your blender, your automobile, your (insert > > a multitude of electronic devices here). ... > > > > bboyminn: > > I'm really trying to let this go since we are not that > much out of sync with each other, but I can't. > > My point was simply that the brain is a much more > resilient and more superbly insulated device that any > common muggle electrical or electronic device, and that > is true. > Ken: Someone else has asked recently if we aren't overanalyzing things here. Well of course we are! We don't have anything else to do while waiting for book 7. We've all read the first 6 several times by now. Once in a while a massive cloud deck blankets North America for several days and suddenly all my astronomy groups get very busy and sometimes very cranky. We are like an astronomy group that is facing months of cloudy weather. We've got to occupy ourselves some way. No, I don't think we are that far apart and we have similar educational backgrounds so your opinion is as good as mine. At this point I did list some counter-arguments that I have just snipped before posting them because I realized that there is internal evidence to consider. There is a canonical reason to question the true nature of this supposed ban on electronics at Hogwarts. Remember Harry's watch? Ron has one too but he undoubtedly has a wizard's watch which would certainly be mechanical if not a sundial or hourglass! Isn't Harry's watch likely to be a Dudley castoff? Would Dudley have been wearing a *mechanical* watch in the 1990's? Could you still get a mechanical watch in the 1990's that wasn't a $10k Rolex? I can't imagine that Vern and Petunia would buy Dudders a Rolex but they certainly would buy him the latest and best normal folk's watch electronic watch. Harry is probably lucky that Dudley wanted a new watch before he broke the old one, otherwise I doubt that Harry would have a watch. Yet Harry's watch worked at Hogwarts. Electronic watches have little computer chips in them (yes even the analog ones). If Harry's watch worked at Hogwarts so would a pocket calculator, not that a Hogwarts student would need one. As I recall Harry's watch worked right up until he took it for a dive in the lake. It would be ironic if Harry got Dudley's old watch when Dudley decided he wanted one of those cool *diver's* watches instead. So, I don't think that the Hogwarts electronic privacy spells really disrupt electronic devices. I think they have to act specifically on information transmission and reception devices and then only to scramble the content. The devices themselves remain functional. Come to think of it doesn't Hermione say that if you turn on a radio you hear only static? If you hear static the radio is functional, it has to be. Electrons are flowing from the battery, through the transistors, and into the speaker coil causing the speaker cone to vibrate. Everything is functional, only the information coming out is scrambled. If you can see the stars at night and the Sun by day electromagnetic energy and the information it coveys is getting into Hogwarts and the fact that you can see Hogwarts from the outside says that electromagnetic energy in the form of reflected light can leave Hogwarts. Members of the WW see the information that reflected light conveys correctly, Muggles see a scrambled version: a rubble pile. So what we really have here is a Muffilato spell for loudspeakers and microphones. It's all a bit silly really. If Rita Skeeter's Quick Quotes Quill works why bother to disrupt a tape recorder? Wasn't this all just a plot device so that SURPRISE! Rita could be revealed as a beetle Animagus? Poor Sluggy is doomed to listen to those scratchy old vinyl records on his wind-up gramaphone for no real reason. Why use an electronic bug at Hogwarts when a flick of the wand could turn Bellatrix into a real one?? I wonder if Fang enjoys snapping up flies as much as our dog Luke "Flyswatter"? Ken From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 16:11:30 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:11:30 -0400 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609150911x65ba70d2w1f2806acebf96091@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158338 > bboyminn: > > I don't think that is how or why the house was destroyed, > but it does bring up one the biggest unresolved mysteries > in the series. Exactly what, in terms of phrasing, was > the 'Secret'. Once again I point out the note Dumbledore > gave Harry. I post it again to refresh your memory - > > "The Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be > found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." > > Is seems that the 'secret' is /not/ 12 Grimmauld Place, > but 'Headquarters of the Order'. Twelve Grimmauld Place > is only relevant because it is the /current/ location of > 'headquarters'. I suspect, if 'headquarters' moves, as it > did, the secret moves with it. Random832: I disagree. I think the whole sentence is the secret. If the HQ moves, the Fidelius will have to be recast. The point here, I believe, and the reason that the house is "disappeared", is because of the exact wording - the headquarters _may not be found_ at that location by anyone who has not been told the secret - if they're standing in front of it, their eyes slide over it, and just as you cannot perceive your own optic-nerve blind spot, it's impossible to notice anything amiss about that area of your field of vision. I think the problem is that because this is the only demonstration we have of the Fidelius, fanon has latched on the most "obvious" interpretation - that fidelius _necessarily_ applies to a piece of land and everything on it. Fanfics have detailed descriptions of runes or circles to be drawn on the foundation / at the corners of the property bounds / etc, none of which is at all evident in the books themselves, because that's how people "want" magic to work. It's a simple space-time distortion, straight out of SF except you substitute "magic" for "science". Except, none of that's in the books, and none of it is _at all_ consistent with the description that we are given. It conceals a secret, not a piece of property. Also, given that the description says that it "takes a secret", i.e. it's a secret in some sense before the casting of the charm, I think something generally known like "the earth is round" cannot be the subject. I'd speculate that perhaps the charm requires everyone who knows the secret beforehand has to be gathered for the casting of the charm, and to voluntarily give up their knowledge of it. Perhaps even (though this is unlikely given the description) those who already know before do indeed still know, they simply can no longer tell anyone, and the only value added by the charm is that the secret can now only be discovered by new individuals in one way - by being told by the Secret Keeper. bboyminn: > Logically, the location secret would not be as vague as > I have made it above, it would be more like- > > 'The house at number six Killarney Street is the place > where the Potters are hiding.' I thought of another question - a bit silly, but. What if the town decides to rename the street? bboyminn: > Your idea that Snape destroyed the house, makes me ask, > how could he find a house that couldn't be found, much > less destroy it? Nuke GH from orbit? (I thought the "house destroyed" theory revolved around _Peter_ destroying the house) bboyminn: > Lastly, there are endless complications with the Charm > actually being on the Potters and not the location. > First, the Secret Keeper is still alive, so the secret > /should/ still be intact, Random832: But the Potters are no longer in hiding. The idea that there must be a person/place/thing that is the "subject" of the fidelius charm strikes me as being nearly as wrongheaded as the idea that it must be a place. bboyminn: > Peter doesn't know where Harry is Sure he does. Everyone knows where Harry is (whenever he's at either 4PD or Hogwarts, anyway, and I assume 4PD is what you meant). > and he likely > doesn't know where Lily and James' graves are. Who's to say he didn't attend their funeral as Percy's rat? But all this is irrelevant, so anyway. In conclusion, _my_ opinion is that the secret ceased to be relevant after the attack, and the secret of 12GP will cease to be relevant if and when the Order moves or disbands. I think the secret specifically protected Lily and James, and only Harry because since he was being raised by them, his location would be unimpeachable evidence of their location (which, I suspect, any such evidence would also be protected by the Fidelius. There's a reason Voldemort can't just observe the known Order members' comings and goings and then burn down the block.) -- Random832 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 15 16:49:14 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:49:14 -0000 Subject: Potterverse timelines just don't fit the RW (was: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER!) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609150725v45b26277l21168977419d5d13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > On 9/14/06, hickengruendler wrote: > > > > > Dave: > > > > > > That's Why I have always asserted that it is pointless to try to > > > assign definite RW dates to the events of the books, e.g. Harry was > > > born in 1980. Things just don't work out -- full moons on the wrong > > > dates, anachronistic Playstations, etc., etc. > > > -- > > > P.S. I think the only reason Nick's cake said he died in 1492 is > > > that's such a familiar date to people -- I think it's just as > > > likely that Nick has lost track of the exact year he died, and > > perhaps > > > has celebrated his "500th Deathday" for some years now... > > Hickengruendler: > > We do however have another definite date by now, even though it > > appears outside of the books. On the Black family tree, Draco's > > birthyear is given as 1980, meaning that's Harry's birthyear as well. > > Obviously it doesn't fit will several details, but no year fits. And > > what especially doesn't fit, is that both in GoF and OotP September > > 1st is on a Monday. Jo just doesn't pay attention to this. That's why > > I tend to see the year 1980 as Canon while overlooking the > > inconsistencies. Random832; > 1980/1991, though, is apparently a very poor fit for the data. About > the only thing going for it is authorial intent, and it's even more > clear that the author's _real_ intent was to leave it ambiguous so > that the story would be timeless. There is evidence that she was > working from a 1991 timeline, but there's also evidence that she was > using "as she writes" dates (Flamel's age) or just not caring > (weekdays, full moons) Geoff: My feeling is that the suggestion that JKR had "authorial intent" is the correct one. If it was her intent to make the story timeless, she could just as well left any date year date references out. I see the Deathday reference as intended to set a benchmark date to satisfy perhaps herself and readers where the events fit into the present day - which I personally like. Authors can take varying views about their handling of dates, Let me give two diametrically opposed examples. One of my favourite books is "To serve them all my days" by R.F.Delderfield. It tells the story of a young officer invalided out of the First World War in 1918 who goes to a small public school on Exmoor to teach. We follow him from 1918 up to 1940 when, as Headmaster, he is dealing with similar wartime problems to the Head who first employed him. Delderfield's timelines are, in places hopeless. People age at the wrong rate, events are juggled around in retrospect and so on. Compare this with J.R.R.Tolkien and "The Lord of the Rings". He sometimes spent days and even weeks battling with phases of the moon and such information in an attempt to get his created world absolutely flawless. I like both books immensely regardless of whether the timelines fit or not. Quite frankly, are we creating a great deal of unnecessary fluster over JKR's dates? Is this going to be of vital imporance in Book 7? We know that parallels have been drawn between Grindelwald and Hitler because of the 1945 date. But will the exact date of Tom Riddle's time at Hogwarts affect the story? I read for pleasure. I enjoy the Harry Potter books far more than many others I have read. But I do not read them with the intent of nitpicking over which day of the week an event falls on or whether two people were contemporaries at Hogwarts unless I feel that it is of paramount importance to the plot. I read them to lose myself in their world and to meet with my "friends" who lives I like to share away from the hassle and pressure of the real world. Willing suspension of disbelief rules. OK? From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 17:06:40 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:06:40 -0400 Subject: On Dumbledore's extralegal actions. WAS Re: Who is Harry's guardian? Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609151006s71486c6auded36a44d9060a9f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158340 Sorry for another reply; I thought of this while I was eating lunch. > Alla: > If something happens with the parents, is it automatically assumed > that child goes to godparents? As I said before, regardless of whether 'godparent' is synonymous with 'guardian-designee' in the WW, Sirius was both. > Because if it **does** assumed so in RL, then I would guess that as > much as it is possible, that should also apply to the story, I > absolutely agree with a_svirn that Dumbledore had no right whatsoever > to bring the child to Dursleys when it went against the direct wishes > of his parents. I believe what happened was that Dumbledore had already convicted Sirius in his mind, and chose what was (in his estimation) right over what was legal. It is a choice we have seen him make numerous times in the books. I think that he at this point came up with the blood ward idea and used that to justify to himself the placement of Harry with the Dursleys, who I suspect weren't anywhere near the top of the list of potential guardians. I'd actually bet the second choice was Wormtail (Remus being ineligible, and at that point IIRC also a suspected spy). Though that depends on if they rewrote their will after going into hiding, as it's doubtful that they'd have included the secret-keeper in their will at all if they gave it even a moment's thought, since, if they were found and killed, _clearly_ they were betrayed. Possibly another choice might have been the Longbottoms. > Then it would means that Sirius was indeed the guardian and **not** > Dursleys, but I am not sure about that. > > And Dumbledore, unless he has psychic powers could **not** have known > that Sirius would be arrested, so he had no right to direct Hagrid to > take Harry from Sirius IMO. Dumbledore has a history of doing what is "right" over what is legal. The fact that he runs a vigilante organization is one example. Also, giving Harry and Hermione the time turners is a part of this. Having Aurors on the OOP payroll (assuming there's actual money involved - if not it wouldn't be bribery) could be considered bribery or corruption. The idea that he can do no wrong, and the idea that he does everything as part of some evil plot, seem equally wrongheaded to me. I think that it's clear that he's very human. He "knows" that Sirius was secret-keeper, therefore Sirius _must_ be guilty of betraying the Potters and CANNOT be allowed to take baby Harry. He "knows" that if he lets Sirius take Harry, he'll either take him on the run or give him to his fellow death eaters. Then he comes up with the blood ward idea and since Harry _must_ be protected at all costs, clearly he has to go to Petunia, even though the will didn't mention her at all. Or even if it said he was not to go to her, clearly the will was written without the knowledge that it would be _necessary_ for his protection and _obviously_ they would have made her guardian if only they'd known. It seems apparent throughout the books that, first, Dumbledore doesn't have a lot of respect for the law. This may even be justified, from what we've seen of how the ministry operates. And, second, he has a "protecting people thing" in the same sense that Harry can be said to have a "saving people thing". This is evident not only with Harry but also with his decision to imprision Sirius in his own home "for his own good". -- Random832 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 17:17:27 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:17:27 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158341 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > a_svirn: > > > And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his > > > guardian, yet nobody bothered to honour their wish, > > > least of all Dumbledore. ... > > > > Pippin: > > Sirius, or possibly someone impersonating him, > > relinquished Harry to Hagrid at Godric's Hollow. The > > fact that Sirius (or whoever) gave up the child so > > reluctantly but didn't insist on protesting to > > Dumbledore in person ... > > > > Once Sirius's innocence was established, Dumbledore > > seems to have regarded him as a co-guardian, ... > > > > Alla: > > The question ... is whether Godfather automatically > equals guardian in RL. I mean I know in many fanfics > it does, but is it in RL? > bboyminn: Being a Godparent does not necessarily make you a guardian but it can. In the context of a newborn, Godparent usually means a sponsor at baptism. But being a sponsor does come with some implied commitment. When a 'godparent' is assigned outside the context of baptism, it usually implies they are accepting the responsibility of taking care of the kids if something happens to the parents. So, I suspect in common language, even if not techincally in law, godparent and guardian /can be/ one and the same. > Alla: > > If something happens with the parents, is it > automatically assumed that child goes to godparents? > > Because if it **does** assumed so in RL, then ...that > should also apply to the story, I absolutely agree > with a_svirn that Dumbledore had no right whatsoever to > bring the child to Dursleys when it went against the > direct wishes of his parents. > bboyminn: On the first point, I don't think it means that the kid /automatically/ goes to the Godparent. I think it means that the Godparent is automatically available to take on the role of guardian. None the less, that wouldn't eliminate or override the rights of close blood relatives. If there was a dispute, or the parties couldn't resolve it on their own, the court would probably hear both sides and make a ruling. But /I think/ in court, preference is probably given to blood relatives. On the second point, as a high officer of the court, Dumbledore certainly does have some right to make a determination as to the disposition of Harry. > Alla: > > Then it would means that Sirius was indeed the guardian > and **not** Dursleys, but I am not sure about that. > > And Dumbledore, unless he has psychic powers could > **not** have known that Sirius would be arrested, so he > had no right to direct Hagrid to take Harry from Sirius > IMO. > bboyminn: It means Sirius was assigned the intent to be guardian if something happened to the Potters. But formal guardianship can and usually is determined by the court. Even if Harry were turned over to Sirius immediately, at some point Sirius's guardianship would have to be made legally formal. It doesn't matter whether Dumbledore foresaw Sirius's action, I think as an officer of the court, Dumbledore was within his rights to take short term custody of Harry until official and formal guardianship could be assigned. Further, any reasonable person would have suspected that Harry was in danger at the moment, and an additional level of protection would be required. We don't know where Hagrid took Harry, but it is safe to say where ever he took him it was very likely to be very safe. Also, note that while Sirius asked to take custody of Harry, he didn't argue when Hagrid insisted on keeping him. If fact, he very much cooperated by giving Hagrid his motorcycle. That implies short term consent. Shortly after, Sirius got arrested, and took himself out of the picture. Also, assuming for a moment that Sirius did not get arrested, once Dumbledore explained the intense level of protection that was available to Harry at the Dursley's, it is possible Sirius would have agreed with Dumbledore, and allowed the Durselys custody. Though I suspect, if Sirius had been around and out of prison, regardless of what Dumbledore thought, Sirius would have made sure the Dursleys treated Harry better. Sirius can be very intimidating when he wants to. You seem determined to find fault with Dumbledore, but Harry's cicumstance was not a simple common everyday custody dispute. Harry was seriously at risk, and very serious action needed to be taken to protect him. Dumbledore, in that moment, seemed to be the person most able to arrange a safe situation for Harry, a situation that, though reluctantly, it is possible that Sirius would have agreed with. Just a thought Steve/bboyminn From dsueiro at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 13:43:26 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:43:26 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8de2fdd80609150643rb3e4f38t5f5709489cdb3cfc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158342 Jan: > > What a thought provoker, Kenneth. > > I like happy thoughts, how about just 2 words.. > Mischief managed. > > and the old man just suggested: > Alas, earwax. > Diego: The problem is that JKR has already stated quite clearly that the last word of book 7 would be "scar". Diego From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 15 17:31:39 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:31:39 -0000 Subject: What do we KNOW about Crucio Longbottom! Was: JKR has updated her site In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158343 > > "potioncat" wrote: (snipped) > > > > One of the older theories here has been that James > > gave DD the IC for the Order's use. .. > > > > I don't know. That isn't very bangy unless whoever had the IC is > > important. Hagrid? Snape? Lupin? > > > > Aussie: > Two People needed to be protected because of the prophesy. One was > Harry. The other was Neville. > > After the attck on the Potters, the Longbottoms were Crucio-ed by DE > trying to get information. When the DE turned up at the Longbottom's > house, where was Neville? Maybe baby Neville was in the room, but > like Harry on the Tower, was under a spell to not move or make > noise. Neville wasn't seen because the IC was over him. > aussie (again) 'Steve' emailed me and asked how Neville having the IC would be a "significant - even crucial" answer. If baby Neville may have witnessed the DE torturing his parents, then he may have flashbacks, just as Harry remembered bits of when Lily was killed. Neville has some intuitive feelings at times. Could any of them be attributed to what he witnessed? - What do we KNOW of the Longbottom's attack? - What are "Opinions" that may just try to distract us? - If Neville was there, would threat of harming the baby made the Longbottoms talk? - Was he discovered by a DE, but not exposed to the others? - Some suggest Neville's scatter-brain style is similar to Gilderoy Lockhart after the memory charm backfired. Did a DE use one on Neville then? - We know the names of the DE that were sent to Azkaban for that attack, but were more there? (I would love to accuse Snape of being there and that is why Neville doesn't like him, but Bellatrix should have said something about it in Spinner's End.- or was that one of the times she almost said something?) JKR gave us the IC clue - now what do we do with it? aussie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 17:30:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:30:52 -0000 Subject: On Dumbledore's extralegal actions. WAS Re: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609151006s71486c6auded36a44d9060a9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158344 > > Alla: > > If something happens with the parents, is it automatically assumed > > that child goes to godparents? Random832: > As I said before, regardless of whether 'godparent' is synonymous with > 'guardian-designee' in the WW, Sirius was both. Alla: That is entirely possible, I am just not completely sure yet, that's all. Random832: > I believe what happened was that Dumbledore had already convicted > Sirius in his mind, and chose what was (in his estimation) right over > what was legal. It is a choice we have seen him make numerous times in > the books. Alla: Well, yeah, but is it **right** over legal then? Innocent till proven guilty is to me ( who is a lawyer :)) is not only legal but also a moral thing too? And conviction in Dumbledore's mind if that is what happened does not look to me as **proven guilty**. IMHO of course. That is why I hope that this is not what happened. Although it is a very plausible scenario. random832: > Dumbledore has a history of doing what is "right" over what is legal. > The fact that he runs a vigilante organization is one example. Also, > giving Harry and Hermione the time turners is a part of this. Having > Aurors on the OOP payroll (assuming there's actual money involved - if > not it wouldn't be bribery) could be considered bribery or corruption. Alla: Absolutely, I agree, it is just we disagree on whether example of disqualifying Sirius as a guardian because he **felt** like it qualifies as the same type of the examples as you gave. Those examples to me are undoubtedly qualify as right over legal,because if fight against evil cannot be accomplished through ministry, it should be IMO accomplished by vigilante organisation. Convicting an innocent man in his mind, just because he felt that this is what happened without looking for additional proof, dooming Harry to the life of misery because of that. ( To be clear, as I said, if Dumbledore somehow someway knew that Sirius would be arrested and if **godfather** does not equal guardian in a full sense, that means a different story to me) random832: > The idea that he can do no wrong, and the idea that he does everything > as part of some evil plot, seem equally wrongheaded to me. I think > that it's clear that he's very human. Alla: Erm... Yes, of course. random832: He "knows" that Sirius was > secret-keeper, therefore Sirius _must_ be guilty of betraying the > Potters and CANNOT be allowed to take baby Harry. He "knows" that if > he lets Sirius take Harry, he'll either take him on the run or give > him to his fellow death eaters. Then he comes up with the blood ward > idea and since Harry _must_ be protected at all costs, clearly he has > to go to Petunia, even though the will didn't mention her at all. Or > even if it said he was not to go to her, clearly the will was written > without the knowledge that it would be _necessary_ for his protection > and _obviously_ they would have made her guardian if only they'd > known. Alla: Yes, see above - convicting Sirius because it looks that he must be guilty does not qualify to me as something **human**. It is just wrong IMO. Does not make him evil of course, but certainly to me makes it another huge mistake he committed. Sorry! Random832: > It seems apparent throughout the books that, first, Dumbledore doesn't > have a lot of respect for the law. This may even be justified, from > what we've seen of how the ministry operates. Alla: Absolutely and it **is** justified in many instances, I agree. JMO, Alla From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 15 17:42:49 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:42:49 -0000 Subject: Potterverse timelines just don't fit the RW (was: JKR has updated her site t In-Reply-To: <1996435498.20060914121114@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158345 > > Hickengruendler: > > h> In reality, yes. However, as the first chapter in PS informs us, the > h> story begins on a Tuesday. It is Tuesday evening, when Hagrid and > h> Baby Harry finally arrive at Privet Drive (after having done who > h> knows what ;-) ), therefore it was on a Monday, when James and Lily > h> died. But I don't think it matters much. JKR quite obviously doesn't > h> care for dates. > > Dave: > > That's Why I have always asserted that it is pointless to try to > assign definite RW dates to the events of the books, e.g. Harry was > born in 1980. Things just don't work out -- full moons on the wrong > dates, anachronistic Playstations, etc., etc. And now I think we can > add this as a further example. I think the best we can do is talk in > terms of a "BCWE" ("Before Current Wizarding Epoch") and "CWE" > ("Common Wizarding Epoch"). One might debate what event to use for > "Year 1", but for our purposes it would probably be Harry's birth. > So then for example Book 6 would take place in the years 17 - 18 CWE, > and Riddle first opened the CoS in, um -- 38 BCWE (Am I right?? -- > Maybe to ease the arithmetic we could assume Wizards have a "Year 0" > even though Muggles don't...) > Ken: The problem is more basic than that. Dates in HP cannot be related at all to either the Gregorian calendar that we use or to the Solar system we live in. Some of Rowling's weeks have too many or too few days, the length of the lunar cycle varies, constellations rise and set at the wrong time of year, Mars' orbit is driven by plot instead of orbital dynamics, and on and on and on. Our dear writer does not have a firm grasp on the principles that drive these details and she apparently thought none of her readers would either. It would have been easy as could be to just buy calendars for the years the story covers that would have the lunar phases indicated on them and very cheap too. Basic astronomical data can be obtained for free at any library. There is no excuse for not doing this. In only a very few cases would the plot be affected significantly since the intervals between major events are usually vague. Shifting a day or two the match a real calendar would affect nothing. I believe that PoA presents one of the worst problems, the moon should have been full when Lupin was riding the Express with the students! She just has a mind that doesn't work that way and evidently no editor or advisor that is qualified to recognize these sorts of mistakes for her. Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 17:48:14 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:48:14 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158346 > bboyminn: >> So, I suspect in common language, even if not techincally > in law, godparent and guardian /can be/ one and the same. Alla: Thanks :) > > > Alla: > > > > If something happens with the parents, is it > > automatically assumed that child goes to godparents? > > > > Because if it **does** assumed so in RL, then ...that > > should also apply to the story, I absolutely agree > > with a_svirn that Dumbledore had no right whatsoever to > > bring the child to Dursleys when it went against the > > direct wishes of his parents. > > > > bboyminn: > > On the first point, I don't think it means that the kid > /automatically/ goes to the Godparent. I think it means > that the Godparent is automatically available to take > on the role of guardian. > On the second point, as a high officer of the court, > Dumbledore certainly does have some right to make a > determination as to the disposition of Harry. Alla: I snipped about the possible dispute over custody, but do you see Dursleys **disputing** Harry going to Sirius? I think that they took Harry in willingly, but I certainly think that if anybody else would have done so, they would love it. Speculation obviously. But does Dumbledore has a right to disregard the express wishes of the parents, IF godparent and guardian are one and the same, which as far as I understood is not necessary true? > bboyminn: > It doesn't matter whether Dumbledore foresaw Sirius's > action, I think as an officer of the court, Dumbledore > was within his rights to take short term custody of Harry > until official and formal guardianship could be assigned. Alla: Short term is the key though, no? bboyminn: >> You seem determined to find fault with Dumbledore, but > Harry's cicumstance was not a simple common everyday > custody dispute. Harry was seriously at risk, and very > serious action needed to be taken to protect him. > Dumbledore, in that moment, seemed to be the person most > able to arrange a safe situation for Harry, a situation > that, though reluctantly, it is possible that Sirius > would have agreed with. Alla: Actually I really don't ( I mean I have my usual problems with him not checking on Harry, but not necessarily with his initial decision) **unless** Dumbledore decided that he will automatically override Potters wishes because he is **sure** that Sirius is guilty **before** he even talked to Sirius, which I am not sure about. I mean, sure it is possible that Sirius would have agreed to blood protection, yeah, but shouldn't Dumbledore **talked** to him first? In that line of speculation I wonder why Dumbledore did not go himself to pick Harry from ruines of GH, if Fidelius was already broken? And as to Sirius not arguing to Hagrid, um, not that many people argue with Dumbledore's decisions in the books IMO. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 18:03:17 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:03:17 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? Dumbledore's Statement In-Reply-To: <700201d40609120827o7249bdeeq17cbd49151c7d2fa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158347 --- Kemper wrote: > > > Abergoat writes: > > > > ... it continues to baffle me that so many readers > > aren't bothered by the fact that Dumbledore, head of > > the highest wizarding court of law, gave 'evidence' > > that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. Dumbledore > > wouldn't use hearsay, wouldn't say "Sirius had been > > their Secret Keeper" ... > > Kemper now: > I don't recall that Dumbledore gave 'evidence' to the > Wizengamot that condemned Sirius. I do recall that he > gave 'evidence' that to pardon Snape. > > Will you site passages for me, so that I can look it > up? I would like to re-read those sections. > bboyminn: I think we need to keep Dumbledore's comment in context. When Dumbledore made his statement that he gave evident that Sirius /had been/ the Potter Secret Keeper, it is during the scene in the Hospital Wing just before Harry and Hermione time turn. That is the time for quick summaries, not elaborate and precise explanations of secondary matters. - - - Quote PoA - - - "It is your turn to listen, and I beg you will not interrupt me, because there is very little time," he (Dumbledore) said quietly. "There is not a shred of proof to support Black's story, except your word -- and the word of two thirteen-year-old wizards will not convince anybody. A street full of eyewitnesses swore they saw Sirius murder Pettigrew. I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been the Potters' Secret- Keeper." - - - end quote - - - Dumbledore is not giving testimony at a hearing, he is given a quick explanation long after the fact for the purpose of getting Harry and Hermione to shut-up and listen both to reason and to his suggestion. One again, I feel that people are taking a generalization as an absolute all-defining statement, when it is not. When Dumbledore says 'had been' is he indicating the conclusion that was reached based on his testimony or is he reflecting what he literally said in that testimony? I say his statement reflects his the conclusions reached by all. To the best of Dumbledore's considerable knowledge on the matter, every stated and implied intent to make Sirius the Secret Keeper was given by the Potters. Dumbledore only needs to state with certainty that the Potters /planned/ to use Sirius for the Ministry to reach the conclusion that the Potters /had/ used Sirius. Also note this earlier conversation in PoA - - - - Quote PoA - - - "So Black was the Potters' Secret-Keeper?" whispered Madam Rosmerta. "Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself... and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper himself." - - - end quote - - - 'James Potter told Dumbledore that Black' would be their Secret Keeper. How many times to you have to hear it before you believe it? And that's what Dumbledore did, he told the Ministry what he believed, what he had personally been told by the Potters themselves. The Ministry reached the conclusion that he was right. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 17:59:43 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:59:43 -0400 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609151059y43d80e00q780cd23db38d2564@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158348 I will try to summarize the various theories on why electronic devices don't work at hogwarts. There are several aspects to this First, the reason itself: A. One theory i've heard is that it is a deliberate effort to block them from working (a privacy charm or anti-electricity ward of some kind) - I don't think that wizards are competent enough in muggle technology to manage this, and even if they were, why not also block the magical equivalent (Rita's quills, Colin's cameras, etc)? B. It is an inevitable consequence of there being so much "magic in the air", such as the wards, etc. C. It is a result of magic, but only because the spells used have not been "tuned" to limit their interference to specific frequency bands, therefore spewing all over the spectrum. Or perhaps certain types of wards _have_ to in effect jam certain frequencies in order to, say, block apparation. Second: what it works on. A. It acts as electromagnetic interference. If you have a walkman, you can't listen to the radio, but you can listen to a tape. B. It interferes with the passage of electrons through wire. Nothing will work. Third: how it affects things A. It "radiates" from open air within Hogwarts and its grounds - a shielded device like a computer would work, but radio receivers of any kind are beyond hope. Or perhaps a special (but nonmagical) shielding design other than a faraday cage would be necessary B. It radiates from whatever point or object a spell is anchored to - shielding will work and moving or reorienting a receiver may help. C. It permeates space. Any device will be affected as if it is not shielded. It may or may not be possible to use magic to block the interference. D. It does not interfere with anything, but somehow otherwise prevents reception. For example, perhaps being unplottable (is Hogwarts unplottable?) causes radio waves to "bend" around the grounds. Transmitter/receiver systems (like walkie-talkies, a wi-fi system, a pirate radio station) would work within hogwarts, but not across the borders of the grounds. electronic devices are not in any way affected. Does anyone have canon evidence for or against any of these hypotheses? Anyone have any other theories? How much do you want to bet that Hermione simply tried a radio once, found it didn't work, and drew an elaborate conclusion with no other evidence? Hmm. Maybe there just aren't any transmitting towers near Hogwarts. How common are "gaps" in radio coverage (i.e. places you could go, turn on an ordinary AM or FM radio, and only hear static no matter what you set the dial to) in britain, anyone know? -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 19:13:44 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:13:44 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158349 Brothergib wrote: > > Didn't DD state that what happened at GH was the greatest REGRET of > Snape's life. If Snape regrets what happened at GH, it can only be > because he had a chance to prevent it i.e. he knew it was going to > happen. Carol responds: Problem: Snape was teaching at Hogwarts at this point. Not only does he state exactly that to Bellatrix in 'Sponner's end" (and inform Umbridge that he's been teaching at Hogwarts for fourteen years with no qualifying "almost"), he would have been hired in August as the post of DADA teacher, for which he originally applied, would have been vacant as usual and so would the Potions post if Slughorn, the previous Potions Master, had recently retired. There's no way that Snape, who IMO was being protected by DD from Voldemort and who was supposed by Voldemort to be spying on Dumbledore, would have been with Voldemort when he found out the secret. Also, why would Wormtail communicate such an important message by owl? almost certainly he told Voldemort in person and they went together to Godric's Hollow immediately. Remember, when Sirius Black went to check on Peter Pettigrew, Pettigrew wasn't home and there was no sign of forced entry. Also, Pettigrew knew where Voldemort's wand was and returned it to him. I can see the possibility of Pettigrew informing *Dumbledore* by owl and DD showing the note to Snape, though I don't think that happened, either, but this version just doesn't work, IMO. Brothergib: > Another problem concerns LV's AK from within GH. Firstly why would an AK rebound? Lily's protection has been described previously as a > powerful countercurse. But a countercurse would block the AK. It > would not rebound it. Secondly, if the AK did rebound and hit LV, > surely it would 'kill' LV, but do no damage to the house. Is it > possible that SS was there? And for those of us that believe that SS > loved Lily, is it possible that SS, enraged at Lily's death, could > have fired his own AK at LV? > > And finally, how does a baby survive a house that been blown to > pieces? Is it because the house is destroyed after the fact? Carol responds: I think that the AK exploded out of Harry's forehead, creating the scar, which is described in the first chapter of SS/PS as a *cut.* Ak's don't cut or even leave a mark; the cut could only have been caused, as far as I can see, by the AK bursting outward with such force that both Voldemort and the house exploded. As for how a baby would survive having a house fall on him, he's a wizard baby, so he survives the explosion in the same way that little Neville survived being dropped several stories out a window. (Note that Hagrid scoffs at the idea of Lily and James being killed in a car crash. Incidents that would kill a Muggle don't harm a wizard--or at least, the injuries are relatively minor. Think of splinching. Would you survive leaving your legs behind? Most Muggles would bleed to death, but for a wizard, all that's required is reattaching the separated parts.) Carol, noting that RW physics don't apply in the WW and the only solution is a willing suspension of disbelief From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 19:23:47 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:23:47 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609150911x65ba70d2w1f2806acebf96091@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > ... it does bring up one the biggest unresolved > > mysteries in the series. Exactly what, in terms of > > phrasing, was the 'Secret'. Once again I point out > > the note Dumbledore gave Harry. I post it again to > > refresh your memory - > > > > "The Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be > > found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." > > > > Is seems that the 'secret' is /not/ 12 Grimmauld > > Place, but 'Headquarters of the Order'. Twelve > > Grimmauld Place is only relevant because it is the > > /current/ location of 'headquarters'. I suspect, if > > 'headquarters' moves, as it did, the secret moves > > with it. > > Random832: > I disagree. I think the whole sentence is the secret. > If the HQ moves, the Fidelius will have to be recast. > The point here, I believe, and the reason that the > house is "disappeared", is because of the exact wording > - the headquarters _may not be found_ at that location > by anyone who has not been told the secret... > bboyminn: I can't believe I'm going to pick nits to such a degree, but none the less, here I go. In the verbal equation - "The Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." Headquarters is a constant. Grimmauld Place, unlikely as it seems, is a variable. All the following statements could be valid - 'The Headquarters...may be found at The Burrow.' 'The Headquarters...may be found at Moody's house.' 'The Headquarters...may be found at Mrs. Figgs house.' It is clear, that 'headquarters' is what is being hidden, it is incidental that it's current location at 12 Grimmauld Place is also hidden in the process. Twelve Grimmauld Place is a by-product of hiding the 'headquarters'. The point of analysing this is because how the Potters Secret is verbally constructed affects how the story, on page and off page, plays out. > Random832: > > I think the problem is that because this is the only > demonstration we have of the Fidelius, fanon has > latched on the most "obvious" interpretation - that > fidelius _necessarily_ applies to a piece of land and > everything on it. Fanfics have detailed descriptions > ..., none of which is at all evident in the books > themselves, because that's how people "want" magic to > work. ... > bboyminn: Oh no denying that fanfiction can get pretty far out there. But, in fanfiction, you do have to speculate a likely scenario. We don't know the details of the Fidelius Charm, so we have to make them up, but we have to make them up reasonable within the likelihood and consistent with the world they occur in. > ...edited... > > bboyminn: > > Lastly, there are endless complications with the > > Charm actually being on the Potters and not the > > location. First, the Secret Keeper is still alive, > > so the secret /should/ still be intact, > > Random832: > But the Potters are no longer in hiding. The idea that > there must be a person/place/thing that is the > "subject" of the fidelius charm strikes me as being > nearly as wrongheaded as the idea that it must be a > place. > bboyminn: Just out of curiousity, can you give us an example of an abstract, not person/place/thing, secret? I think you will find it harder that you might have guessed. The point I was intending to make is the very point you make later in this post, and I will address it there. > bboyminn: > > Peter doesn't know where Harry is and he likely > > doesn't know where Lily and James' graves are. > Random832: > > Sure he does. Everyone knows where Harry is (whenever > he's at either 4PD or Hogwarts, anyway, and I assume > 4PD is what you meant). > > Who's to say he didn't attend their funeral as Percy's > rat? But all this is irrelevant, so anyway. > bboyminn: He knows generally where Harry might be, but he doesn't know specifically where Harry is at any given minute. He may suspect that since it is summer holiday, that Harry is probably at 4 Privet Drive, but he can't know if Harry is walking around the neighborhood, visiting Mrs. Figg, off to the corner store, off on an adventure with Dumbledore, or he may have been spirited away to Grimmauld Place, or he may be off at the Burrow or visiting Diagon Alley. Given the Danger that Peter apparently preceived, it is unlikely he is hanging around the Potter funeral. For that matter, if the Potter were the secret, how could they even find them to bury them. Of course, you and I have the perfect solution to that. The central point is that if the secret was the Potters (or if it was there house) and the Fidelius Charm is still in effect, then things are impossibly complicated. > Random832: > > In conclusion, _my_ opinion is that the secret ceased > to be relevant after the attack, and the secret of 12GP > will cease to be relevant if and when the Order moves > or disbands. ... bboyminn: Exactly! And that is the very point I was trying to make. If the Secret is not broken and was placed on the Potters then the plot remains nearly unresolvable. If the Secret was on the house and remains unbroken then the plot is still nearly unresolvable and unexplainable. However, if for whatever reason, the Secret has /ceased to be relevant/. Whether by breach of fidelity, or dissolution of the secret, or by whatever means, then things are much simpler and the existing plot as we know it can easily be explain and any inconsistencies resolved. So, we are pretty much in agreement. I know I generally agree with all the parts I snipped from your post. Steve/bboyminn From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Sep 15 19:38:47 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:38:47 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? Dumbledore's Statement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158351 bboyminn wrote: > One again, I feel that people are taking a generalization > as an absolute all-defining statement, when it is not. > > When Dumbledore says 'had been' is he indicating the > conclusion that was reached based on his testimony or is > he reflecting what he literally said in that testimony? > I say his statement reflects his the conclusions reached > by all. Abergoat writes: I understand your position and I respect that Dumbledore could have implied something he hadn't meant to imply. Believe me, I had a thread about the Polyjuice theory on Mugglenet's CoS and I got an earful about how I was being too literal. But a good lawyer/judge is literal and is careful about a statement that makes a conclusion. Dumbledore stated a fact: He gave evidence that Sirius HAD BEEN the Secret Keeper. From the prospective of law that is a very simple and straightforward statement. Dumbledore gave evidence that Fidelius had been cast and Sirus was used. A plan doesn't qualify. A plan doesn't say whether the charm was cast or whether the expected secret keeper was used. A plan involves the future and things change fast in a world with a serial killer and henchmen running around Imperiusing anyone they can (per Fake Moody GoF). I only bring it up because IF (and that is a big if) JKR does place Snape at Godric's Hollow with the secret having been given to him by a polyjuiced Peter then the readers cannot cry foul. JKR gave the clues: Dumbledore, a legal man at the top level, having given at statement that he gave evidence that Sirius had been used as the Secret Keeper. Snape, a man careful with words himself, refusing to believe Sirius wasn't the Secret Keeper - implying he too had been given the secret. Snape also uses the term 'evidence' in the same PoA when he says he did not see Peter in the shack. I believe JKR was stressing the word and its use. The scenario you use to circumvent DD's strange statement is a scenario that has is a legal man mis-speaking. Which is possible, but I'm not buying it. I don't think DD or JKR makes those types of mistakes. But each to his/her own, I'm accepting of the fact the polyjuiced Peter idea is very unpopular. Abergoat From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 19:57:45 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:57:45 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158352 > > a_svirn: > > And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his guardian, yet nobody > > bothered to honour their wish, least of all Dumbledore. Which only > > goes to show that he observes the law only if it suits him. > > Pippin: > Sirius, or possibly someone impersonating him, relinquished Harry to > Hagrid at Godric's Hollow. The fact that Sirius (or whoever) gave > up the child so reluctantly but didn't insist on protesting to > Dumbledore in person would be one of the things that made Sirius > look guilty at the time. > > Once Sirius's innocence was established, Dumbledore seems to > have regarded him as a co-guardian, since he was allowed to sign > Harry's Hogsmeade permission form. a_svirn: And none of that has anything to do with the law, doesn't it? I mean who died and made Dumbledore god? We have it on an excellent authority that he's no Jesus Christ at least. Yet *he* was the one who decided to give Harry to the Dursleys ? against both the law and his parents wishes. He was the one who regarded Sirius as co- guardian, without bothering even apprising the Dursleys of this change of pace, I might add. It's true that Sirius, who was Harry's appointed guardian, shouldn't have agreed to the request Dumbledore shouldn't have made in the first place. The ties of kinship shouldn't have mattered more than the ties of love, and Dumbledore should have known it better than anyone. Only he didn't. > > Pippin: > Perhaps in that era it would have violated the Statutes of Secrecy > to tell any Muggle, whether parent or guardian, about the nature of > Hogwarts. In any case, a child has the right to an appropriate > education, and in my country, at least, the state will enforce that > right against the wishes of the parents or guardians if need be. > a_svirn: I guess it all comes down to the concept of the appropriate. Would the state in your country force a parent or a guardian to send their child, say, to Phillips Academy instead of a public school? Or to Harrow instead of a grammar school? The Dursleys were completely within their rights ? as guardians ? to send Harry to the local comprehensive. If ? as you seem to imply ? the wizarding law leaves them without a choice of the matter, it shouldn't allow muggle relatives to assume the custody of wizarding children at all. This would be much fairer. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 20:02:41 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:02:41 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609150922q77fc07bbp88749c2aa3f147ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Alla: > > The question I have and sorry for the repetition a_svirn ( I cannot > > check my e-mail from work, but I can read the list :)) is whether > > Godfather automatically equals guardian in RL. I mean I know in many > > fanfics it does, but is it in RL? > > It does in canon; it's certainly good enough for Hogsmeade permission. > If he's not his guardian _because_ he's his godfather, then he is _in > addition to_ that, which doesn't make a whole lot of difference for > purposes of this discussion. Now, whether they could have decided > Remus would be called his godfather but Sirius would have been > designated guardian or not, is perhaps an interesting question, but > the fact is even if they could have, they didn't. > > -- > Random832 > a_svirn: It is stated quite clearly in canon that Sirius is Harry's appointed guardian. "Yes...," said Black. "But I'm also -- I don't know if anyone ever told you -- I'm your godfather." "Yeah, I knew that," said Harry. "Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black stiffly. "If anything happened to them..." From ornawn at 013.net Fri Sep 15 20:04:24 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:04:24 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158354 >Alla: >And Dumbledore, unless he has psychic powers could **not** have >known that Sirius would be arrested, so he had no right to direct >Hagrid to take Harry from Sirius IMO. >But does Dumbledore has a right to disregard the express wishes of >the parents, IF godparent and guardian are one and the same, which >as far as I understood is not necessary true? Orna: As far as DD knew at the time - Sirius was the secret keeper for the fidelius charm on the Potters house, and therefore could be the traitor. So even if he could not know Sirius would be arrested, and even if the Potters had named Sirius the guardian, godparent or whatever - he had the duty IMO to secure Harry ? away from Sirius. And see later what the exact position is. Since later it seemed proved that Sirius was a mass-killer ? it seemed settled. When in PoA things changed ? Sirius wasn't an option for Harry to live with ? he was on the run, in the OotP Sirius died. Perhaps I missed something - did you think DD knew by then that PP was the traitor? Orna From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 20:07:09 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:07:09 -0000 Subject: Ogg the gamekeeper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158355 I realize that I've just been talking about the willing suspension of disbelief (Coleridge on the brain for some reason), but the inconsistency with Ogg the gamekeeper really bothers me. Hagrid implies in GoF that he was made gamekeeper *immediately* after his expulsion in 1943: "Dumbledore was the one who stuck up for me after Dad went [i.e., did in Hagrid's second year]. Got me the gamekeeper job. . . . Trusts people, he does. . . . Gives 'em second chances" (GoF Am. ed. 455, italics in original). The juxtaposition suggests that the parentless boy was made gamekeeper (as a "second chance" after bringing Aragog into the school) so that he wouldn't have to leave Hogwarts. I think we can take that idea with a grain of salt--gamekeeper at thirteen? Maybe assistant gamekeeper under "a man called Ogg," who, according to Molly Weasley, was gamekeeper when she was at Hogwarts. Also, as we know, Dumbledore wasn't headmaster at that time: Armando Dippet was. So possibly Hagrid became gamekeeper, as opposed to assistant gamekeeper, when Dumbledore became headmaster. Certainly Hagrid was gamekeeper by the time Snape/MWPP were in school (ca. 1970-1977) since Dumbledore mentions receiving letters notes from "countless" parents who remember Hagrid as gamekeeper from their own Hogwarts days (453). But the dates for Dumbledore's headmastership are problematic as well, as are the dates for the Weasley parents' attendance at Hogwarts. We learn in HBP that Molly and Arthur got married immediately after they left school when Voldemort was taking over, which would mean that they married at seventeen or eighteen in about 1970, so they would have started school in about 1963. Let's suppose that Hagrid was assistant gamekeeper until about 1947, when he would have come of age, and definitely gamekeeper from 1970 onward (about the same time that Dumbledore became headmaster, according to Lupin). Alternatively, he might have been gamekeeper from ca. 1956 onward (the other possible date for DD becoming headmaster, if we follow the dates for McGonagall becoming Transfiguration teacher in December 1956, IIRC, and Riddle/Voldemort's failed application for the DADA position, which must have happened ca. 1957-59). If Molly and Arthur attended school any time between, say, 1944 and 1956, I can see them being somehow being oblivious to the existence of the gigantic young assistant gamekeeper, but if they started school in 1963, when Hagrid was about forty, surely he would already have been gamekeeper and Ogg would be long gone, in which case, Molly would have no memories of Ogg to reminisce about. Maybe JKR should just write Ogg out of the book (he's only mentioned in GoF, the same book in which Hagrid implies that he's been gamekeeper since his expulsion (although that implication could just be a misleading juxtaposition). Still, though, I can't account for Ogg being the gamekeeper before Hagrid and Molly Weasley remembering him if she's about seven years older than Snape/MWPP and Hagrid is only a few years younger than Riddle/Voldemort (about 64-65 in GoF, compared with 35-36 for Snape, making Molly about 42-43 at that time). Carol, thinking that JKR can't be *that* bad at math and must simply have forgotten to do a basic consistency check before submitting the manuscript From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 20:23:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:23:54 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158356 BAW wrote: > Which of the Dursleys' children were sent to Hogwarts against > their will? Harry was NOT their child. If his parents had put > him down for Hogwarts before they died, his guardians should > honor that wish. For all we know, that was part of what Petunia > agreed to when she took Harry in. > On her website, JKR says that ministry officials sometimes do that. > Hagrid was a special case; Harry's parents had put him down for > Hogwarts, and Hagrid (and probably everyone in the WW who was > involved) had assumed that the Dursleys had told him. Carol responds: Forgive me for responding to a single point rather than the whole post, but I believe that you're operating on a false assumption here. Harry's *parents* didn't "put his name down for Hogwarts," the magical quill did. If children were sent to Hogwarts only because of their parents' wishes, only pureblood and perhaps some half-blood children would attend. Muggle parents wouldn't sign up their children because they wouldn't know about Hogwarts. And parents of Squibs would perhaps sign up their children at birth, not knowing that they weren't magical. As I understand it, McGonagall sends out Hogwarts letters to the parents of magical children who will turn eleven on or before August 31 of any given year, and she gets those names from the book or roll of parchment on which the magical quill has recorded them. I don't have time to check the actual reference, but according to the Lexicon, "A magical quill at Hogwarts detects the birth of each magical child, then writes his or her name down in a large parchment book. Every year Professor McGonagall checks the book, then uses this information to send out owls to these children as they approach their eleventh birthdays"(Sch1)." Carol, not sure whether this information invalidates your argument but thinking that it ought to be considered From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Sep 15 20:06:00 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Jan) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:06:00 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: <8de2fdd80609150643rb3e4f38t5f5709489cdb3cfc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158357 > Diego: > The problem is that JKR has already stated quite clearly that the last > word of book 7 would be "scar". Jan: oh, pardon my ignorance, I'm sorry.. how about "And now, just like Harry, we each have a scar." Jan From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 20:37:53 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:37:53 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158358 > bboyminn: > > On the second point, as a high officer of the court, > Dumbledore certainly does have some right to make a > determination as to the disposition of Harry. a_svirn: I wonder where you got that idea. I'd say nothing in the books points in that direction. For one thing the court in the WW is a *jury* and not even a minister for magic can decide anything without the rest of the panel of adjudicators. For another thing Sirius states that the Potters APPOINTED him Harry's guardian. Which means that legally he was Harry's guardian as of October 31 1981. It has nothing to do with his being Harry's godparent. > bboyminn: > > It means Sirius was assigned the intent to be guardian > if something happened to the Potters. But formal > guardianship can and usually is determined by the court. > Even if Harry were turned over to Sirius immediately, at > some point Sirius's guardianship would have to be made > legally formal. a_svirn: It is only determined by the court if there is some ground for doubts. If there is a Will where a guardian is clearly designated or a formal appointment under the Children Act terms there is no reason even to go to the court. Unless, of course, someone else tries to contest the legality of the appointment. And in any case, until any such appointment is formally overturned ? by the court ?no one has any right to appoint other guardians as they see fit. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 15 21:19:00 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:19:00 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609151059y43d80e00q780cd23db38d2564@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > I will try to summarize the various theories on why electronic devices > don't work at hogwarts. There are several aspects to this > I think we have to give it up, Jordan. I just re-read the bit on JKR's website FAQ where she answers the questions about Colin's camera. She says the battery doesn't work at Hogwarts therefore the camera must run on magical energy the way a wizard's radio does, apparently acknowledging that his camera does have some internal electronics. Hermione, I think, says radios emit static at Hogwarts. Harry probably has an electronic watch but JKR will say it runs on magical energy at Hogwarts. So the batteries don't work, some devices do work but run on magical energy, but radios don't work .... Does anyone happen to know what day of the week it is or what the phase of the moon is? Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 22:00:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:00:46 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158360 > a_svirn: > It is stated quite clearly in canon that Sirius is Harry's appointed > guardian. > > "Yes...," said Black. "But I'm also -- I don't know if anyone ever > told you -- I'm your godfather." > "Yeah, I knew that," said Harry. > "Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black > stiffly. "If anything happened to them..." > Alla: Oh,my. I am pretty shocked actually. You just shattered my perception of Dumbledore's character very nicely with this quote I completely forgot. Yes, this is a canon fact which I cannot argue with and Sirius **is** the guardian not the Dursleys, so the only thing that can excuse Dumbledore in my book is if he somehow knew that Sirius will be arrested or if as I say below he had some additional knowledge we are not aware of, otherwise the word manipulative would be waaaay too kind for him. As I said I never perceived Dumbledore as fairy grandfather and was quite angry at him sometimes, but I was of rather firm opinion that he makes mistakes out of different motivations than just use people as chess. And that his love for Harry is true and that he is not a weapon for him, but person whom Dumbledore wants to see alive, etc, etc. I do think that the main reason for DD to give Harry to Dursleys is plot related and JKR did not intend for him to come up as manipulative bastard if he had no other motivations to override Potters expressed wishes, but oy oy he does come out as one to me at the moment. > Orna: > As far as DD knew at the time - Sirius was the secret keeper for the > fidelius charm on the Potters house, and therefore could be the > traitor. So even if he could not know Sirius would be arrested, and > even if the Potters had named Sirius the guardian, godparent or > whatever - he had the duty IMO to secure Harry ? away from Sirius. > And see later what the exact position is. Since later it seemed > proved that Sirius was a mass-killer ? it seemed settled. When in > PoA things changed ? Sirius wasn't an option for Harry to live with ? > he was on the run, in the OotP Sirius died. > > Perhaps I missed something - did you think DD knew by then that PP > was the traitor? Alla: That's the thing for me - we don't know IMO how much Dumbledore knew at the time of the tragedy and especially in light of invisibility cloak what he was aware of. The bottom line is that for me Sirius is secret keeper does not equal Dumbledore has a duty to secure Harry away from him. Dumbledore having some additional knowledge which I am not aware of, well maybe, but not just this piece of information. Dumbledore being misinformed by somebody who was sure that Sirius was there with voldemort or something like that - maybe ( speculating here ;)) What I am saying is that IMO Dumbledore had no right to take Harry away based **only** on the fact that Sirius was secret keeper. At the very least he had to investigate more IMO as I mentioned before maybe go there himself and not just rely on hearsay. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 22:22:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:22:08 -0000 Subject: On Dumbledore's extralegal actions. WAS Re: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158361 Random832 wrote: > > As I said before, regardless of whether 'godparent' is synonymous > with 'guardian-designee' in the WW, Sirius was both. > Alla responded: > > That is entirely possible, I am just not completely sure yet, that's > all. > > ( To be clear, as I said, if Dumbledore somehow someway knew that > Sirius would be arrested and if **godfather** does not equal guardian in a full sense, that means a different story to me) > Carol notes: Just to ease your mind on this one point, in the RW (I don't know about the WW), being a godparent does *not* mean being a "guardian-designee" (I like the term!). Here's a quotation from http://www.egodparent.com/Godparenting.htm that explains the concept: "Christian Responsibilities of a Godparent 1. Pray for your godchild regularly 2. Set an example of Christian living 3. Help him/her to grow in the faith of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in which he was baptized 4. Give every encouragement to follow Christ and fight against evil 5. Help your godchild to look forward to confirmation." You can click on the "Role of Godparents" link on that page to find out a bit more. That short essay (from which it's not possible to cut and paste) states specifically that a godparent is not a legal guardian. Here is part of the Anglican baptismal service (I'm not familiar with the Church of Scotland's service, but it's probably similar): "When all have been presented the Celebrant [priest or minister] asks the parents and godparents Will you be responsible for seeing that the child you present is brought up in the Christian faith and life? Parents and Godparents I will, with God's help. Celebrant Will you by your prayers and witness help this child to grow into the full stature of Christ? Parents and Godparents I will, with God's help. The the Celebrant asks the following questions of the candidates who can speak for themselves, and of the parents and godparents who speak on behalf of the infants and younger children Question: Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? Answer: I renounce them. Question: Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God? Answer: I renounce them. Question: Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God? Answer: I renounce them. Question: Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior? Answer: I do. Question: Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love? Answer: I do. Question: Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord? Answer: I do. Of course, these websites are talking about Christian godparents in the RW. I don't know how godparenting works in the WW. Possibly a godfather is supposed to set a good moral example (no Dark magic?) and encourage the child to fight evil(?). I have trouble even understanding the concept outside a Christian (or at least a religious) context, myself. I think, however, that regardless of the Potters' wishes in the matter, making Sirius Black Harry's godfather would not automatically have made him Harry's guardian. They'd have needed to state that wish in their will or have him appointed by the Wizengamot, wouldn't they? And I don't recall any reference to the Potters' will in the HP books. Maybe they didn't make one. All I know is that a godparent is *not* a legal guardian, and his duties are very different from those of a guardian. In the RW, they're strictly religious (and moral). Question for any estate lawyers on the list: In the RW, if parents unwittingly appoint a criminal as a guardian for their child, or the appointed guardian commits a crime after the appointment, wouldn't the appointment be voided? Surely, the child's best interests would be upheld over the rights and interests of the guardian, especially if that guardian were sent to prison? And, as others have pointed out, Sirius Black seems to have consented to give up whatever rights he had to Harry (assuming that he had any) when he left both Harry and the motorcycle in Hagrid's keeping. Granted, Dumbledore made this decision prematurely, but his question to Hagrid ("No trouble, was there?") when Hagrid tells him where he got the motorcycle indicates that he suspected Black of being the traitor and that keeping Harry from him was essential (in his view) for Harry's safety, as was the blood magic, which would not work if Harry were in Black's keeping even if Sirius Black were in all other respects a suitable guardian. IMO, Dumbledore, as head of the Wizengamot, was within his rights to place Harry's welfare above the wishes of his parents, who could not have anticipated the exact circumstances of Harry's situation. At any rate, even if you don't agree with my arguments, I hope that the information on baptism is helpful. Godparenting and legal guardianship are entirely unrelated concepts, even when the biological parents anticipate a short lifespan. You can read the rest of the baptismal service at this link if you're interested: http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/bocp3.htm Carol, noting that the State requires a marriage license for a church marriage to be considered binding and thinking that a similar document would be required for (prospective) legal guardianship even if the role of godparent normally included that obligation From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 23:40:21 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:40:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609151059y43d80e00q780cd23db38d2564@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609151640k7fd15c1ajcb9b5d082baf4d90@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158362 On 9/15/06, Ken Hutchinson wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > > I will try to summarize the various theories on why electronic devices > > don't work at hogwarts. There are several aspects to this > > > > I think we have to give it up, Jordan. You're dismissing quite a lot of my post that _doesn't_ need to be "given up" in light of this answer, like the speculation that either spells could be developed that did not cause interference, spells could be cast on devices to make them work normally, or devices can be shielded against this interference. (and let's not forget that what JKR says isn't actually canon - she's changed her mind on things like population size, etc, before.) > I just re-read the bit on JKR's > website FAQ where she answers the questions about Colin's camera. She > says the battery doesn't work at Hogwarts therefore the camera must > run on magical energy the way a wizard's radio does, apparently > acknowledging that his camera does have some internal electronics. > Hermione, I think, says radios emit static at Hogwarts. Harry probably > has an electronic watch but JKR will say it runs on magical energy at > Hogwarts. Which leads, inevitably, to the conclusion that all battery-operated devices automatically run on magical energy while at Hogwarts without any intervention by the user. Even in the existing answer, "his camera is running off the magical atmosphere" rather than "he modified his camera so that the flash is done magically" seems to imply he didn't have to do anything special to make it work. Everything in her answer seems to lead to "batteries don't work, but aren't needed". > So the batteries don't work, some devices do work but run on > magical energy, but radios don't work .... Except they do - static is evidence that it is working in all other aspects except receiving a signal. I think the simplest explanation is that JKR wanted a way to preserve the "atmosphere" of the books against all the little muggleborn kids wanting to bring cd players and cell-phones, and didn't feel the need to describe in detail why they don't work or what if anything could be done in the future (by an enterprising muggleborn, muggle-raised, or arthur-weasley-ish researcher) to make them work. It's not important to the story for it to be impossible, or even more than moderately difficult, to get electronics to work in an environment like Hogwarts, only that it be inaccessible to 11-year-olds at the present time. The spark plugs, headlights, etc, on the Anglia seem to work well enough - sure, it breaks down when they get to hogwarts, but shouldn't the charms on the car itself interfere with those? -- Random832 From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 00:26:12 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:26:12 -0000 Subject: On Dumbledore's extralegal actions. WAS Re: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158363 > Carol: > Granted, Dumbledore made this decision prematurely, but his question > to Hagrid ("No trouble, was there?") when Hagrid tells him where he > got the motorcycle indicates that he suspected Black of being the > traitor and that keeping Harry from him was essential (in his view) > for Harry's safety, as was the blood magic, which would not work if > Harry were in Black's keeping even if Sirius Black were in all other > respects a suitable guardian. IMO, Dumbledore, as head of the > Wizengamot, was within his rights to place Harry's welfare above the > wishes of his parents, who could not have anticipated the exact > circumstances of Harry's situation. > > a_svirn: First, the Wizengamot is not the executive branch of the government. The Ministry for Magic is the institution which is concerned with carrying out the laws and judicial sentences. The Wizengamot works as convocation of the wizarding community's most influential members, and it combines both legislative and judicial functions. In its capacity of the high court it works as a board of judges. Which means that Dumbledore couldn't render a verdict overturning the terms of the Potters' Will all by himself. He would have to summon the whole jury for that. Second, if any such verdict were rendered it would be the Ministry, possibly, the Law Reinforcement Department's officials who would be charged with carrying out this decision. The fact that Dumbledore sent Hagrid to do it means that he acted in his capacity of the head of the Order of the Phoenix. In other words, quite outside the province of law. From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 01:23:16 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:23:16 -0000 Subject: Is The Potter's Invisibility Cloak A Relic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158364 Ken snipped: A relic of Ravenclaw or Gryffindor that is. Weren't some of the memories that DD shows Harry in HBP collected well before the attack at Godric's Hollow? DD had concerns about Tom Riddle for a long time, almost from the beginning. Surely he would have suspected him of creating a horcrux, possibly he suspected him of creating multiple horcruxes even by the time of the GH attack. At that time he might been aware of Tom's fascination with relics of the Founders and might have suspected that Tom intended to make four horcruxes from four relics. Knowing that the Potters were targets he might have convinced James to give him the cloak, just in case. LV might have known of the cloak and might have been intending to make it into a horcrux with Harry's death that very night. Snow: Nice one! Then the Cloak was Godric's? Well of course it is! It was an inherited Cloak, and as I had stated previously, mom and dad weren't dead when James used it at Hogwarts so from whom did James `inherit' it from? Even Dumbledore might not have been aware of the connection though. Some may say well we have been told that James and Harry are not, via JKR's website, related to Godric Gryffindore so the Cloak wouldn't have been inherited by James and what I would say in rebuttal would be that Sirius is not a blood relative of Harry either and yet Harry inherited Grimmald Place, didn't he? You don't have to be related to inherit, right? So there could be a connection between James Cloak and Godric Gryffindore and also the Voldemort factor. I really think I like this one. Snow From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 16 01:48:26 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:48:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609150922q77fc07bbp88749c2aa3f147ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158365 > Alla: > The question I have and sorry for the repetition a_svirn ( I cannot > check my e-mail from work, but I can read the list :)) is whether > Godfather automatically equals guardian in RL. I mean I know in many > fanfics it does, but is it in RL? Sherry now: In the real world, it doesn't necessarily mean a god parent will be a guardian, yet it is often so. The thing is, however, Sirius himself tells Harry, as they are going through the tunnel from the shrieking shack in POA, Your parents made me your guardian ... Guardian is a legal relationship and god parent is a spiritual one, sort of. My parents made an aunt and uncle my god parents and my guardian, though they never needed to fulfill that obligation. So, if the Potters made Sirius Harry's guardian, Dumbledore was possibly in violation of a real world law by taking Harry to the Dursleys. Yet, by the mere fact of the Potters' deaths and his belief that Sirius was the secret keeper, I guess he would never have allowed Harry to go to Sirius. Sigh. Sherry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 02:40:21 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 02:40:21 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? or: On Dumbledore's extralegal actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158366 Alla: > Oh,my. I am pretty shocked actually. You just shattered my perception of Dumbledore's character very nicely with this quote I completely forgot. Yes, this is a canon fact which I cannot argue with and Sirius **is** the guardian not the Dursleys, so the only thing that can excuse Dumbledore in my book is if he somehow knew that Sirius will be arrested or if as I say below he had some additional knowledge we are not aware of, otherwise the word manipulative would be waaaay too kind for him. Ceridwen: Harry came to the Dursleys a day after the death of his parents. At some point durign that time, Sirius confronted Peter, if I recall the timeline right, twelve Muggles were killed, a street was blown up, Peter's finger was found at the scene so he was presumed dead, and Sirius was sent straight to Azkaban (do not pass 'go'...). So by the time Dumbledore left baby Harry on the Dursleys' step, Sirius was already incarcerated. He was convicted without due process, this was the culmination of VWI. Sirius gave his motorcycle to Hagrid. He knew he would be hunting Rat. He may have expected to die (he states that he was willing to die for his friends in PoA), or possibly he expected to really kill Peter and end up in Azkaban for that (how would he be able to prove that Peter was the SK and brought LV to the Potters'?). Maybe the 'Lost Day' was spent partially in finding out what would happen with Sirius. Carol: > I don't know how godparenting works in the WW. Possibly a godfather is supposed to set a good moral example (no Dark magic?) and encourage the child to fight evil(?). I have trouble even understanding the concept outside a Christian (or at least a religious) context, myself. Ceridwen: Maybe if we look at fairy-tale godparents it could help? The fairy godmothers in Sleeping Beauty bestow gifts on the child, they protect her and enhance her chances in life. The fairy godmother in Cinderella bestows gifts and enhances her chances in life. Sirius played the part of the fairy-tale godparent when he bestowed a new broom on Harry. It's been a while since I've read fairy tales, so I am probably missing things here. But since JKR's world is literary, and since it was originally conceived as a children's series, it wouldn't hurt to look at children's literature examples of sterling godparents, I think. Ceridwen, trying to explain some slightly unformed ideas. From allanscudder at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 21:06:17 2006 From: allanscudder at yahoo.com (allan p shulstad) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:06:17 -0000 Subject: fearless (or should I say fearful) prediction Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158367 Fang is in reality Regulus Black. Sirius's animagus form was a dog, so many his brother's is too. =============================== Madam Pince is Snape's mother. allanscudder From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 16 04:38:22 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:38:22 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158368 > > > Alla: > > That's the thing for me - we don't know IMO how much Dumbledore knew > at the time of the tragedy and especially in light of invisibility > cloak what he was aware of. > > The bottom line is that for me Sirius is secret keeper does not equal > Dumbledore has a duty to secure Harry away from him. > > Dumbledore having some additional knowledge which I am not aware of, > well maybe, but not just this piece of information. > > Dumbledore being misinformed by somebody who was sure that Sirius was > there with voldemort or something like that - maybe ( speculating > here ;)) > > What I am saying is that IMO Dumbledore had no right to take Harry > away based **only** on the fact that Sirius was secret keeper. > > At the very least he had to investigate more IMO as I mentioned > before maybe go there himself and not just rely on hearsay. > Julie: So, even though Dumbledore was told directly by James that Sirius was the secret-keeper, and he knows that nobody BUT the secret-keeper can give away the location of the Potters, thus it HAD to be the secret-keeper who betrayed the Potters, (and it WAS--only that secret-keeper had been changed to Peter unbeknownst to DD), that Dumbledore should have thought, "Hmm, while there seems to be very damning evidence against Sirius already, and if the evidence is true Harry's life will likely be forfeit, still I can't be 100% *absolutely, postively certain* so given that very small chance something totally unexpected has happened, hey, why don't I just hand over baby Harry to Sirius anyway, and if the most likely thing indicated by all the evidence I now possess occurs--poor baby Harry bites it for good--ah, well, at least I can say I didn't overstep my bounds as a top Wizard, headmaster, war general, close friend, all-around decent person concerned for the welfare of a helpless child. And my defense for not acting on the obvious can always be 'Who do you think I am anyway, God???'" And remember, we're not talking of convicting a man in court (which is what "innocent until proven guilty" references) but of protecting a child to the best of one's ability. It is the latter that is DD's concern immediately after GH. Julie, who thinks the only way Dumbledore should have handed Harry over to Sirius is if he HAD additional knowledge we are not aware of (i.e., something that pointed strongly to Sirius's innocence). From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 05:39:03 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:39:03 -0000 Subject: Is The Potter's Invisibility Cloak A Relic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158369 I am not sure if the cloak is a relic of the founders. But what if it has some special power of its own. And James did not want it to fall into LV hands if he found the Potters. I think the line of speculation need to go in the direction of keeping it out of LV hands for some reason rather then the use of the cloak for invisiability. I think we need to search the history of the human race for some epic story or ?? that involves a cloak and its meaning. I don't know where that will lead us, but I just think that is the direction to go. Does the cloak give DD some special power that he does not have and he turns it over to Harry when Harry comes to Hogwarts for that reason, to transfer this power to Harry? If it were just protection I think James would have kept it. We do see the cloak a lot. So this can be a big clue to something right under our noses, as usual. Tonks_op totally confused. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 06:49:17 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 06:49:17 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158370 --- "julie" wrote: > > Julie: > > So, even though Dumbledore was told directly by James > that Sirius was the secret-keeper, and he knows that > nobody BUT the secret-keeper can give away the > location of the Potters, ...Dumbledore should have > thought,"Hmm, while there seems to be very damning > evidence against Sirius already, and if the evidence > is true Harry's life will likely be forfeit, ... hey, > why don't I just hand over baby Harry to Sirius anyway, > ... > > And remember, we're not talking of convicting a man in > court ... but of protecting a child to the best of > one's ability. It is the latter that is DD's concern > immediately after GH. > > Julie, bboyminn: Finally, someone who seems to /get it/. Dumbledore was well within his social/moral/legal rights as an officer of the court, a friend of the Potters, and a leader in the Voldemort resistance to take Harry into custody until such time as a /suitable/ guardian could be found. Let's take a real muggle life example. The police find the muggle parents murdered and only a infant surviving. Are they going to hand over the baby to the first person who comes along? Definitely not; Social Services is going to take the infant into protective custody until a **suitable** guardian can be found. In Harry's case, his parents had been murdered under very suspicious circumstances and reasonably a certain amount of that suspicion was cast on Sirius. Dumbledore is not giving Harry to anyone until he undestands the situation and can find the best possible place to put Harry. In the real life example, Social Services would consider someone who came forward and said they were the child's godparent/guardian. But they would also weigh nearest living relative. They would look at both parties and decide who was in the best position to care for the child. In that case, the (apparently) stable, employed, middle class family would probably have the upper hand over a questionably employed bachelor friend of the family, even if that friend was selected by the parents as guardian. Though as I've said before, both parties are free to assert their rights or refuse their rights a potential guardians. When presented with the details, the Dursleys, begrudingly, accepted that duty. Again, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, all the circumstances, Dumbledore was not going to hand Harry over to anyone until he determined the best location to place Harry. As an officer of the court, a friend of the family, and a fighter against Voldemort, Dumbledore had a duty to find a ***suitable*** guardian for Harry. I don't think under the apparent circumstances, Sirius equaled a suitable guardian, regardless of Lily and James wishes. When Sirius had the chance at Godrics Hollow, he did not strongly object to Dumbledore taking control of Harry. That, I would say, is implied permission to let Dumbledore take control of the situation. So, I can only conclude what I have said before, Dumbledore's actions were completely consistent with what any society would have done to protect a child in danger. Steve/bboyminn From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 04:58:16 2006 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:58:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's 'evidence' - Knowledge of the Plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158371 > boyminn wrote: > > > I think you are confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. > > Dumbledore gave testimony at what was likely a hearing, > > and he told the members of that hearing what he knew. Just a comment that I hope will help this discussion-- As Sirius told it, there was no trial. There may never have any formal hearing at all. It may just have been Crouch and Dumbledore passing in a hall--Crouch telling Dumbledore that they caught Sirius at the scene of a crime--witnesses say Peter was crying and accusing Sirius of killing the Potters. Know anything about that? And Dumbledore replying, "They were under a Fidelius Charm and Sirius was the secret keeper. That must be what Peter was talking about." Crouch: Thanks, well, he's in Azkaban now. Dumbledore: Good. When's the trial? Crouch: Eh? Didn't hear that. Gotta run. Montavilla From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 09:57:00 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:57:00 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? or: On Dumbledore's extralegal actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158372 > Ceridwen: > Harry came to the Dursleys a day after the death of his parents. At > some point durign that time, Sirius confronted Peter, if I recall the > timeline right, twelve Muggles were killed, a street was blown up, > Peter's finger was found at the scene so he was presumed dead, and > Sirius was sent straight to Azkaban (do not pass 'go'...). So by the > time Dumbledore left baby Harry on the Dursleys' step, Sirius was > already incarcerated. He was convicted without due process, this was > the culmination of VWI. > > Sirius gave his motorcycle to Hagrid. He knew he would be hunting > Rat. He may have expected to die (he states that he was willing to > die for his friends in PoA), or possibly he expected to really kill > Peter and end up in Azkaban for that (how would he be able to prove > that Peter was the SK and brought LV to the Potters'?). Maybe > the 'Lost Day' was spent partially in finding out what would happen > with Sirius. Ginger stands and applauds Ceridwen: Yes, yes, exactly. I hope you don't mind me expanding on this and adding the canon references. All are from the US paperback editions. Let's look at the timeline. Sometime between Harry's birth and his parents' death, Sirius is named as Godfather and guardian. (this was pointed out upthread, I believe credit goes to a_svirn) (PoA, ch 20, p. 379) The night of 31 Oct- LV attacks GH and kills J&L. Harry gets his scar and LV is disembodied. That same night- DD sends Hagrid to the GH. Sirius also shows up. Hagrid takes Harry. Sirius gives Hagrid the bike. (PoA ch 10, p. 206) The next day- MM sits outside Privet Drive waiting for DD. She tells him later that Hagrid had told her that DD would be there that night. The same day- Vernon sees Wizards out chatting excitedly in the streets. MM is still there when he comes home. (PS ch 1) Also that same day- Peter and Sirius have their tussle. Sirius is framed for the murders of L&J, Peter, and 12 Muggles and sent to Azkaban. (PoA ch 10, p. 207) That night- DD shows up, chats with MM, Hagrid arrives, and Harry is left with the Dursleys. These are the infamous missing 24 hours. Where was Harry during that time? What was DD doing? How much did DD know about Sirius' activities and when did he find out? When Hagrid shows up, DD asks where he got the bike. Hagrid states in ch 10 of PoA that he had no idea when he took Harry that Sirius was the secret keeper. We, of course, know that Sirius never was. I believe that it is possible that none of them had heard of the Peter/Sirius incident that night, but more likely that DD had. When Hagrid told DD that he borrowed the bike from Sirius, he said that he needed to get it back to him. No anger about Sirius' betrayal or anything that might lead us to believe that he had heard. The lack of response from DD and MM would make it seem that they had heard nothing at the time either. DD is, of course, known for playing his cards close to his chest. So DD took Harry to the Dursleys and placed his protections around the house. It has been discussed whether or not these protections are the same blood protection that came from Lily's sacrifice. I personally think that they are two different things, but that they act together, with the whole being stronger than each on its own. I think that during the lost 24, DD was putting everything in place. Sirius didn't stop and visit with DD that day- he went right out after Peter. Had he stopped to see DD, he would have told him the whole story. DD knew that Sirius knew that DD was in temporary custody or Harry. DD had told Hagrid quite early in the day that he would be at the Dursleys that night. Hagrid told MM, who was there before Vernon left for work. So DD's plans to place Harry at the Dursleys were prior to the Sirius/Peter episode. Is DD thinking here that something went wrong with the charm itself? Or does he think Sirius is the traitor? If he thought that Sirius was innocent, he may have been planning the Dursley stay knowing that Sirius would agree to whatever was needed to keep Harry as safe as possible. Knowing that Sirius knew that he had Harry, he may have expected Sirius to turn up that day, at which point he would have shared his plan with Harry's legal guardian. Sirius' seeming attack on Peter would have convinced DD that Sirius was the traitor, even if he had given him the benefit of the doubt previously. Given DD's lack of response to Hagrid returning the bike to Sirius, I think this is a valid option. If he was convinced of Sirius' guilt, he may well have taken temporary custody of Harry with a mind to appeal J&L's will before the WW courts. He would have been able to convince the courts that (a) Sirius was a danger to Harry, (b) that Harry's relatives were his only living next-of-kin, and (c) that Harry would be safer nowhere else due to the protections, which he would, of course, have refused to elabourate upon at that time for fear of spies. None of this was necessary, of course, because the Sirius ended up in Azkaban. It is entirely possible that the WW courts did review the case and end up in agreement with DD that Harry was safest there, or that his next-of-kin, Muggles though they be, had the next right of guardianship. It is also possible that DD was settling this matter legally during the lost 24. Whether the news came in about Sirius/Peter before or after this is neither here nor there- DD knew at that time that Sirius had been the secret keeper. The Sirius/Peter incident would just have reinforced DD's claim. Perhaps this is where he "gave evidence" since Sirius didn't have a trial. If this was the case, then he just didn't say anything to Hagrid when he went to return the bike. Perhaps he thought that this was a chat for another time, and that settling Harry in with his relatives was of more importance. In summary, either DD knew about Sirius' supposed guilt or he found out sometime that day, or he found out after that day. If he didn't know, he may have been awaiting Sirius' input, but when he didn't come to collect Harry, DD felt that he had to act immediately, hoping that Sirius would agree. If he found out later that day or had guessed it all along, he may have continued his plan to place Harry at the Dursley's, and let the WW authorities know, whilst providing evidence against Sirius in the process. All of this is, of course, speculation. It could be any combination of the above, or none of it. Just giving my input, Ginger, yup. I've been quiet, but I'm still here. From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sat Sep 16 12:41:33 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:41:33 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Who is Harry's Guardian Message-ID: <450BF0FD.00000D.01444@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 158373 Steve/bboyminn wrote: Though as I've said before, both parties are free to Assert their rights or refuse their rights a potential Guardians. When presented with the details, the Dursleys, Begrudingly, accepted that duty. Donna asks: The way I understand it, Harry was left on the Dursley's door step with a letter to the Dursleys. My concern is, unless the letter contained instructions for the Dursleys on how to do so, how were they to contact Dumbledore if they did not want Harry? Telephones don't work in the WW. I don't recall reading where theDursleys had an owl. They knew of no wizards/witches in the area they could ask to contact Dumbledore for them. And, I don't think they could yell loud enough to be heard all the way to Hogwarts. Again, how were the Dursleys suppose to refuse caring for Harry? I've always been under the impression they had no choice in the matter other than turning Harry over to the RL authorities and, considering their fear of the WW, they didn't want to cause too much trouble. Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 13:24:05 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:24:05 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158374 Julie: And remember, we're not talking of convicting a man in court (which is what "innocent until proven guilty" references) but of protecting a child to the best of one's ability. It is the latter that is DD's concern immediately after GH. a_svirn: Actually we've been discussing the legality of Dumbledore's actions concerning the matter of Harry's guardianship. Let me tell you that the same "innocent until proven guilty" principle applies here too. Sirius was Harry's legal guardian since Halloween 1981. Until this appointment was overturned legally Dumbledore had no right to conjure for Harry any other guardians. It is one thing to secure Harry's person until Sirius's guilt or innocence is proven, but giving him away to the Dursleys without so much as by your leave is something else entirely. bboyminn: Finally, someone who seems to /get it/. Dumbledore was well within his social/moral/legal rights as an officer of the court, a friend of the Potters, and a leader in the Voldemort resistance to take Harry into custody until such time as a /suitable/ guardian could be found. a_svirn: No, he did not have any legal right as an officer of the court. Dumbledore was no magistrate; he was a member of the legislative body that acts occasionally as the high court jury. And a jury can only act collectively. And even if he did have the authority to administer and enforce the law ? which he didn't ? he still would need solid legal grounds to overturn the Potters' appointment. Otherwise it would be abuse of power. His moral rights were dubious at best. And what on earth does "social right" mean in this context? bboyminn: Let's take a real muggle life example. The police find the muggle parents murdered and only a infant surviving. Are they going to hand over the baby to the first person who comes along? Definitely not; Social Services is going to take the infant into protective custody until a **suitable** guardian can be found. a_svirn: You are totally wrong, you know. In real life Social Services would only get involved if a child's parents died intestate, without appointing a guardian and thus leaving their kid in the lurch. If they were prudent enough to take care of the matter and appoint a legal guardian (as the Potters did) the said guardian steps in their shoes right away. They can appoint a guardian in their Will (which is better since they can made financial arrangement as well) or they can follow the Children Act guidelines. Either way the Social Services will be satisfied unless they will have a very good *legal* reason not to. Believe me it's the law. Or look it up if you don't believe me. bboyminn: Again, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, all the circumstances, Dumbledore was not going to hand Harry over to anyone until he determined the best location to place Harry a_svirn: Best possible location, huh? Could have fooled me. From CliffVDY at juno.com Sat Sep 16 13:21:41 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:21:41 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Forgive me for responding to a single point rather than the whole > post, but I believe that you're operating on a false assumption here. > Harry's *parents* didn't "put his name down for Hogwarts," the magical > quill did. > As I understand it, McGonagall sends out Hogwarts letters to the > parents of magical children who will turn eleven on or before August > 31 of any given year, and she gets those names from the book or roll > of parchment on which the magical quill has recorded them. > > I don't have time to check the actual reference, but according to the > Lexicon, "A magical quill at Hogwarts detects the birth of each > magical child, then writes his or her name down in a large parchment > book. Every year Professor McGonagall checks the book, then uses this > information to send out owls to these children as they approach their > eleventh birthdays"(Sch1)." > > Carol, not sure whether this information invalidates your argument but > thinking that it ought to be considered Cliff: As there is room for just five boys and five girls in each House, a total of twenty each per year, are magical children born too late turned away? Is that how Argus Filch became a squib, born too late in the year? Or is the list kept open in case a magical child dies? Cliff, just kidding. But magic must play a part here. From CliffVDY at juno.com Sat Sep 16 13:26:30 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:26:30 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158376 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jan" wrote: > > > Diego: > > The problem is that JKR has already stated quite clearly that the last > > word of book 7 would be "scar". > > Jan: > oh, pardon my ignorance, I'm sorry.. > how about > > "And now, just like Harry, we each have a scar." > > Jan > Cliff: Is that Ginny saying that after banging her head on her new kitchen cabinet (US cupboard) door? Actually, Harry's scar should heal and disappear after the death of LV. Cliff, LOL. From ornawn at 013.net Sat Sep 16 14:11:04 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:11:04 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > ... it does bring up one the biggest unresolved > > > mysteries in the series. Exactly what, in terms of > > > phrasing, was the 'Secret'. > snip> It is clear, that 'headquarters' is what is being hidden, > it is incidental that it's current location at 12 > Grimmauld Place is also hidden in the process. Twelve > Grimmauld Place is a by-product of hiding the > 'headquarters'. Orna: As I understood it , the place was hidden by Black's family dark magic ,making the house unplottable, because they weren't too friendly people. IIRC it was mentioned in PoA that the fidelius charm operates so that you could place your face against the house - and not see the Poterr's there - so the house doesn't vanish just because their inhabitants are fideliusized. >> bboyminn: > > If the Secret is not broken and was placed on the Potters > then the plot remains nearly unresolvable. If the Secret > was on the house and remains unbroken then the plot is > still nearly unresolvable and unexplainable. > > However, if for whatever reason, the Secret has /ceased > to be relevant/. Whether by breach of fidelity, or > dissolution of the secret, or by whatever means, then > things are much simpler and the existing plot as we know > it can easily be explain and any inconsistencies resolved. Orna: I find myself a bit dizzy on this issue. I would only like to point out, that the fidelius charm seems to be a bit of an unknown, when things start to get complicated. Dumbledore states in HBP that they have moved the order from GP12 because they are afraid Bella might arrive there any minute. So it seems that the Sirius' death, might affect the charm in a way. If it had been so that the charm is the strongest thing ? DD needn't be afraid- Bella could have turned on GP12, and wouldn't see anything (in and out) of the Order there. So it seems the fidelius charm might be lifted when the house's owner is dead, or doesn't approve of the charm, or whatever. It seems that the charm works tightly when the basic facts are valid. Once critical persons die - the charm is no longer a certainty, and works like magic works - with some uncertainty about it. This way or the other way ? DD himself isn't too sure, about how it works, so we are in good company. By the way - how come Kreacher was able to reveal to Narcissa Sirius whereabouts? If the DEs told Kreacher to tell Harry his lie, once he had seen the vision, it seems they knew where Sirius was, and that Harry was in contact with sirius, and kreacher. It seems a thing Sirius would have to forbid Kreacher from revealing. If the DEs know Kreacher is in contact with Harry, and with Sirius...well you have to be quite dumb not to guess that perhaps the Order's headquarters are in Sirius' old house...not to mention that Sirius himself is a target. Perhaps this has been discussed already. Orna From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 16 14:34:09 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:34:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158378 Julie: So, even though Dumbledore was told directly by James that Sirius was the secret-keeper, and he knows that nobody BUT the secret-keeper can give away the location of the Potters, thus it HAD to be the secret-keeper who betrayed the Potters, (and it WAS--only that secret-keeper had been changed to Peter unbeknownst to DD), that Dumbledore should have thought, "Hmm, while there seems to be very damning evidence against Sirius already, and if the evidence is true Harry's life will likely be forfeit, still I can't be 100% *absolutely, postively certain* so given that very small chance something totally unexpected has happened, hey, why don't I just hand over baby Harry to Sirius anyway, and if the most likely thing indicated by all the evidence I now possess occurs--poor baby Harry bites it for good--ah, well, at least I can say I didn't overstep my bounds as a top Wizard, headmaster, war general, close friend, all-around decent person concerned for the welfare of a helpless child. And my defense for not acting on the obvious can always be 'Who do you think I am anyway, God???'" And remember, we're not talking of convicting a man in court (which is what "innocent until proven guilty" references) but of protecting a child to the best of one's ability. It is the latter that is DD's concern immediately after GH. Sherry now: Is there anywhere in canon where it says definitely that James told Dumbledore that Sirius was the secret keeper? I've always thought it was an assumption, a good assumption, based on the fact that James and Sirius were such good friends. But even based on that assumption, couldn't Dumbledore have taken the baby to Hogwarts or somewhere else safe and actually tried to investigate if Sirius was really the traitor or not? Even after Sirius was caught he did nothing but help to send an innocent man to a terrible fate. He certainly gave Snape a lot more slack than he gave Sirius. Dumbledore's hands are not clean for me in the matter of the imprisonment of Sirius Black, a completely innocent man who suffered a horrible fate because nobody bothered to even try to find out the truth. and Harry suffered years of abuse as a direct result of that. Sherry, who still loves Dumbledore, but does not believe every move and judgment he made was right or justifiable. From ornawn at 013.net Sat Sep 16 16:11:36 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:11:36 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158379 >Sherry >Dumbledore's >hands are not clean for me in the matter of the imprisonment of >Sirius Black, a completely innocent man who suffered a horrible >fate because nobody bothered to even try to find out the truth. and >Harry suffered years of abuse as a direct result of that. >Sherry, who still loves Dumbledore, but does not believe every move >and judgment he made was right or justifiable. Orna: Sirius felt guilty as hell, and acted guilty as hell. It seems that he didn't mind what was going on with him any more ? once the Potters were dead So it seems he didn't put much of a fight to connect DD and tell his side of the story. (Come to think of it ? he knew he was Harry's godfather, and that Harry's parents were dead. Why didn't he try to reach DD, if only for Harry's sake? He acted only when he found PP was endangering Harry. And perhaps it might added, that he wanted to revenge. Because that's the way he acts in PoA ? not a man trying to seek justice, but to commit the murder for which he was sentenced). In PoA when Harry accuses him of killing his parents ? he admits it. He doesn't seek DD out to tell him his story, but prefers bursting into Hogwarts, with a knife and trying to kill PP by himself. DD didn't know of PP being an animagus, so he had no way of figuring out, that PP stayed alive. Sirius didn't try to seek him out then ? not before he tried to kill PP, and not after. He changed secret-keeping without consulting in anybody ? not even DD. Still - DD might have wanted to meet him ? to hear his side of the story ? which he didn't. it's true that Snape and even Morphin were treated better in this respect. But Snape ? seems to have initiated some step towards DD and the "good side". Sirius ? didn't. In poA DD went and talked with him ? and immediately believed him. So it stands right there ? why he didn't seek him out in the first place. But it seems also that Sirius was a very lone player ? all along.He seeked more help from Crookshanks than from DD, Lupin. It doesn't help much under circumstances like that. Orna From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sat Sep 16 17:09:26 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:09:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's 'evidence' - Knowledge of the Plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158380 Montavilla wrote: > As Sirius told it, there was no trial. There may never have > any formal hearing at all. It may just have been Crouch > and Dumbledore passing in a hall--Crouch telling > Dumbledore that they caught Sirius at the scene of a > crime--witnesses say Peter was crying and accusing Sirius > of killing the Potters. Abergoat writes: Very possible (and I thought it was quite funny! thanks!) but to a man of the law the word evidence is laden with meaning whether in a trial or not. Evidence is submitted in pre-trial proceedings, which sounds like what they did - and determined that, as there was no doubt of guilt, a trial wasn't necessary (ouch, I hope Dumbledore at least objected to that!). Dumbledore held the highest law position that the Wizarding World offers. I think this may be significant, but I am certainly willing to admit I may be wrong!!! Since JKR has been very clear that she 'laid clues' I think it is a mistake to ignore this one...because if JKR is the one that made the mistake (having a man of the law use the term evidence without meaning) I will be very surprised. I suspect she is VERY careful with Dumbledore's words. Abergoat, stubbornly butting her head against a wall... From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 16 17:14:53 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:14:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - References: Message-ID: <006401c6d9b3$a23d2f50$d072400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158381 Orna: Sirius felt guilty as hell, and acted guilty as hell. It seems that he didn't mind what was going on with him any more - once the Potters were dead So it seems he didn't put much of a fight to connect DD and tell his side of the story. (Come to think of it - he knew he was Harry's godfather, and that Harry's parents were dead. Why didn't he try to reach DD, if only for Harry's sake? He acted only when he found PP was endangering Harry. And perhaps it might added, that he wanted to revenge. Because that's the way he acts in PoA - not a man trying to seek justice, but to commit the murder for which he was sentenced). In PoA when Harry accuses him of killing his parents - he admits it. He doesn't seek DD out to tell him his story, but prefers bursting into Hogwarts, with a knife and trying to kill PP by himself. DD didn't know of PP being an animagus, so he had no way of figuring out, that PP stayed alive. Magpie: All true, but I don't think that changes what Sherry is saying. However Sirius acted it, it was still just as important for people to objectively find out the truth--"he was acting guilty as hell" is a really dangerous thing to base a justice system on. It's not unheard of for people to confess to crimes they did not commit, and in Sirius' case he was actually wasn't so much acting guilty but acting as exactly what he really was--James' best friend who was shocked and grieving over what happened to his friend, particularly because of his decision about being SK. I'm pretty surprised DD didn't seek Sirius out and find out exactly what happened and why--even if he thought he was guilty I think he'd need to know why. DD is somebody who seems known for understanding why people do things, even if it's after the fact, and there honestly never seemed to be any understanding with Sirius, even a fake one. What did people think about why he was the traitor? With Peter, once the truth was out, people could see how he would have gone to LV. As for his sneaking around with a knife, the man had been in prison for years at that point with iirc no trial. I can see why he'd work as a free agent rather than go to the authorities. -m From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sat Sep 16 17:21:30 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:21:30 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm - Godric's Hollow Destroyed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158382 Carol signed off: > Carol, noting that RW physics don't apply in the WW and the only > solution is a willing suspension of disbelief Abergoat writes: An interesting solution, and even the probable solution. But it isn't the ONLY solution. JKR won't answer whether there was someone else at Godric's Hollow, has implied there is something in Godric's Hollow for Harry to see and has said the Invisibility Cloak is important. It is perfectly feasible that Harry was moved from the room where his mother died into the part of the house that James and Voldemort destroyed so Hagrid could see him. So Harry may find a treasure-trove of information in the rooms still standing at Godric's Hollow. Abergoat From djklaugh at comcast.net Sat Sep 16 19:36:16 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:36:16 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158383 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jan" wrote: > > > > > Diego: > > > The problem is that JKR has already stated quite clearly that the last > > > word of book 7 would be "scar". (snip) Cliff: > Is that Ginny saying that after banging her head on her new kitchen > cabinet (US cupboard) door? > Actually, Harry's scar should heal and disappear after the death of LV. > Cliff, LOL. If as Carol mentioned up thread the last chapter is an epilogue, perhaps the final sentence will be "Grandpa please tell us the story about your scar!" From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sat Sep 16 20:00:08 2006 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:00:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Harry's guardian? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158384 In a message dated 9/16/2006 7:31:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, a_svirn at yahoo.com writes: bboyminn: Again, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, all the circumstances, Dumbledore was not going to hand Harry over to anyone until he determined the best location to place Harry a_svirn: Best possible location, huh? Could have fooled me. Really? Even if Sirius could have been proved innocent, he couldn't protect himself from Bellatrix and her bunch, much less an infant with a permanent target on his back. He is impulsive, irrational, immature, and flies off the handle at the slightest provocation. He has no business taking charge of Harry. As far as DD knows, the magical world's existence depends on the life of this infant. The priority is to keep him alive. James and Lily are dead and their chosen guardian is the prime suspect. How do you expect him to do anything else? Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 16 20:06:12 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:06:12 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: Diego: > > > The problem is that JKR has already stated quite clearly that the last > > > word of book 7 would be "scar". Jan: > > oh, pardon my ignorance, I'm sorry.. > > how about > > "And now, just like Harry, we each have a scar." Cliff: > Is that Ginny saying that after banging her head on her new kitchen > cabinet (US cupboard) door? > Actually, Harry's scar should heal and disappear after the death of LV. > Cliff, LOL. Geoff: Should it? Canon suggests otherwise. 'Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall. bent forward over the bundle of blankets. Inside, just visible, was a baby boy, fast asleep. Under a tuft of jet-black hair over his forehead they could see a c uriously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightning. "Is that where - ?" whispered Professor McGonagall. "Yes," said Dumbledore. 'He'll have that scar for ever." "Couldn't you do something about it, Dumbledore?" "Even if I could, I wouldn't..."' (PS "The Boy Who LIved" p.17 UK edition) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 20:30:48 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:30:48 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158386 >Amber: > Even if Sirius could have been proved innocent, he couldn't protect > himself from Bellatrix and her bunch, much less an infant with a permanent > target on his back. He is impulsive, irrational, immature, and flies off the > handle at the slightest provocation. He has no business taking charge of > Harry. a_svirn: Oh yeah? I guess Harry's parents had no business to appoint him a guardian then. Probably had no business to get married and conceive a child unless it was with Dumbledore's explicit permission. >Amber: As far as DD knows, the magical world's existence depends on the life > of this infant. The priority is to keep him alive. a_svirn: And this infant's survival depends in turn on Dumbledore's extraordinary brainpower. Which is known to be infallible. Got it. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 16 20:30:28 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:30:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158387 Amber Really? Even if Sirius could have been proved innocent, he couldn't protect himself from Bellatrix and her bunch, much less an infant with a permanent target on his back. He is impulsive, irrational, immature, and flies off the handle at the slightest provocation. He has no business taking charge of Harry. As far as DD knows, the magical world's existence depends on the life of this infant. The priority is to keep him alive. James and Lily are dead and their chosen guardian is the prime suspect. How do you expect him to do anything else? Sherry now: Well, of course Sirius is impulsive and irrational. He's been in prison with dementors for 12 years! He never had the chance to grow up the normal way and to mature in the natural course of time and life. He's damaged emotionally by the time we meet him. That doesn't mean he would have been that way if Dumbledore had ever bothered to try to determine the truth, and if he hadn't been sent to Azkaban without a trial. He would have grown up as we all do, and I expect that the responsibility of caring for Harry would have done a lot to make that happen. It seems to me that it would certainly have been preferable to the misery and abuse heaped upon Harry by the Dursleys. I find the story of the young Sirius one of the most tragic in the series. Sherry From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 17 02:17:51 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:17:51 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158388 > > Julie: > > So, even though Dumbledore was told directly by James that Sirius was the > secret-keeper, and he knows that nobody BUT the secret-keeper can give away > the location of the Potters, thus it HAD to be the secret-keeper who > betrayed the Potters, (and it WAS--only that secret-keeper had been changed > to Peter unbeknownst to DD), that Dumbledore should have thought, "Hmm, > while there seems to be very damning evidence against Sirius already, and if > the evidence is true Harry's life will likely be forfeit, still I can't be > 100% *absolutely, postively certain* so given that very small chance > something totally unexpected has happened, hey, why don't I just hand over > baby Harry to Sirius anyway, and if the most likely thing indicated by all > the evidence I now possess occurs--poor baby Harry bites it for good--ah, > well, at least I can say I didn't overstep my bounds as a top Wizard, > headmaster, war general, close friend, all-around decent person concerned > for the welfare of a helpless child. And my defense for not acting on the > obvious can always be 'Who do you think I am anyway, God???'" > > And remember, we're not talking of convicting a man in court (which is what > "innocent until proven guilty" references) but of protecting a child to the > best of one's ability. It is the latter that is DD's concern immediately > after GH. > > > > > Sherry now: > > Is there anywhere in canon where it says definitely that James told > Dumbledore that Sirius was the secret keeper? I've always thought it was an > assumption, a good assumption, based on the fact that James and Sirius were > such good friends. Julie: Dumbledore says James told him Sirius was the secret-keeper. I suppose the validity of that statement depends on whether you as the reader take Dumbledore at his word or not. Sherry: But even based on that assumption, couldn't Dumbledore > have taken the baby to Hogwarts or somewhere else safe and actually tried to > investigate if Sirius was really the traitor or not? Even after Sirius was > caught he did nothing but help to send an innocent man to a terrible fate. > He certainly gave Snape a lot more slack than he gave Sirius. Dumbledore's > hands are not clean for me in the matter of the imprisonment of Sirius > Black, a completely innocent man who suffered a horrible fate because nobody > bothered to even try to find out the truth. and Harry suffered years of > abuse as a direct result of that. Julie: On the subject of Sirius's fate, I do think Dumbledore and everyone else is proven humanly fallible in accepting the available evidence--that Sirius was the secret-keeper and killed Peter as well as 12 Muggles--at face value. Certainly Dumbledore, if he knew Sirius well enough to consider such a traitorous act very out of character, should have gone to see Sirius in Azkaban to get his side of the story. I don't know though that we have certain evidence Dumbledore knew Sirius that well. James he knew quite well, but Sirius? I'm not sure. (McGonagall apparently did though, as she was his head of house, so one must wonder why *she* didn't go see Sirius to get his side of the story.) So I'm not prepared to consider Dumbledore's hands "not clean" in this matter, though I will consider him quite humanly fallible in retrospect. On the subject of where to take Harry, I'm thinking one's opinion on that is also tied to one's opinion of Dumbledore. Dumbledore has said more than once that the Dursleys' home was the safest place--in fact, the only *completely* secure place--for Harry to be. Some fans have expressed doubt about this, believing Dumbledore is exaggerating perhaps, or outright lying, or that there could have been some place "safe enough" if not quite so ironclad safe as the Dursleys to place Harry. Hogwarts, for example, or with another Wizarding family, or with Sirius (if he'd been able to avoid Azkaban, and one wonders what would have happened to him if he'd done as some believe was his right and grabbed Harry, placing his focus on protecting his godson rather than on chasing the Rat to avenge the Potter's deaths). Really, I guess it boils down to two choices-- Either Dumbledore took it upon himself to place Harry where *he* wanted the boy, because he wanted an ironclad safehouse to keep his future weapon against Voldemort even though there were other almost as safe (i.e. "safe enough") places Harry could have been raised where he would have been happier and subject to less abuse, or... Dumbledore took it upon himself to place Harry where he believed was in the *best interests of the child* (i.e., he believed it was better for Harry to grow up completely safe under his mother's protective charm than to grow up in a happier yet potentially less secure environment). In this case it wasn't because Harry was destined to defeat Voldemort as much as it was so Harry would reach adulthood alive, if with memories of an unhappy childhood, that made the choice for Dumbledore. There is no doubt the second argument means taking Dumbledore's words at face value as well as JKR's writing, and ignoring the urge to pick apart the logic of Dumbledore or others not being able to find *some* way to protect Harry at Hogwarts or another wizard home (like the unplottable Grimmauld Place), etc. But applying absolute logic to events in HP (or almost any novel) is a slippery slope, and pretty soon the whole construct starts to fall apart! Since I don't have any expectation that Dumbledore will be revealed ESE or a completely Manipulative!DD, and I accept JKR's assertion that he is her "epitome of goodness" in intent if not always in action (given his self-admitted human flaws), I take Dumbledore's words at face value and accept that he placed Harry at the Dursley's for Harry's sake and Harry's sake alone. And I think Sirius knew that to be the case (part of the reason he allowed Hagrid to take Harry, and turned his own focus to chasing the Rat). Which speaks well of Sirius in a sense, that he so quickly put Harry's welfare ahead of his own (presumably) wishes. As for the legality of it all--and leaving out the oft-ignored fact that legality in the RW and the WW are *very* different on most matters--I don't really care if Dumbledore had a legal right to take Harry or not, as long as he acted FOR Harry. And I believe he did :-) Julie From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Sat Sep 16 11:54:20 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:54:20 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158389 Just a quick question, I'm not sure whether it has been discussed before or not. If it has, I'm sorry. In the 6th book, why does Dumbledore seemingly relent and make Snape the DADA teacher? I've come up with a few reasons. I would like to hear what anyone else thinks. a) the position Snape would vacate (potions) would be more difficult to fill than DADA, so Dumbledore had to wait until he could find someone willing/trained enough to fill it. (Another question - what had Slughorn been doing with his life up until HBP, and why did he leave Hogwarts in the first place?) b) Lucius Malfoy had finally been arrested. Perhaps Lucius would have exerted some sort of pressure on Snape to modify the curricula? (I can't remember, but was Lucius on the Board of Governors until the events in the Department of Mysteries, or did he lose that position after the coercion tactics in CoS?) c) Dumbledore had some reason to finally trust Snape with the position/reward him with it. (healing his hand after the ring horcrux? Warning the Order about what Harry was doing at the Department of Mysteries?) d) Dumbledore was trying to sweeten the deal with Snape over the spying business (or, if you go with this theory, payment for 'fufilling Draco Malfoy's task by killing me' by giving Snape what he apparently always wanted.) e) Dumbledore knew that Snape would have to leave at the end of the year anyway, so there were no worries about the curse. f) The way I see it, Dumbledore and the Board of Governors grappled together over who they hired or didn't hire. In this case, members of the Board of Governors may have finally stopped blocking Dumbledore's attempts to hire Snape for the position. There's no evidence for this, but think about it logically. Would they really want a known former death eater teaching their kids DADA? If Lucius Malfoy was trying to distance himself from association with Death Eaters (as he seems to do when he tells Draco not to badmouth Harry so much in CoS), he wouldn't want to promote a former one to a teaching position. Though one also wonders if this were the case, why the Board would promote Snape after Voldemort's return was verified. However, considering the spectacular mistake of hiring the Ministry appointed teacher, Umbridge, they may have felt more lenient. Another question, did Snape actually want the DADA job? I know some characters said he did, but did Snape ever say so? Snape did treat the other DADA teachers with disdain, but he seemingly had reason to (and there is evidence he treated most people in that manner), rather than merely because he wanted their jobs. Quirell, he suspected, was trying to kill Harry and steal the stone. (Why didn't he tell Dumbledore? Did Dumbledore just not believe him, or was Snape out to prove it himself?) Lockhart was an idiot. Lupin was part of a group of kids who bullied him, and nearly ate him when he was a teenager. Moody, or Barty Crouch Jnr, was playing a former auror and also suspected Snape of being a traitor to the Death Eaters. He probably treated Snape with suspicion. Umbridge was a megalomaniac. Any thoughts, Nate who thinks too much and has a compulsion to list her ideas. From jsfigiel at aol.com Sat Sep 16 15:13:03 2006 From: jsfigiel at aol.com (Jamie Figiel) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:13:03 -0000 Subject: Eye Damage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158390 Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at my daughter's school and I can't find it anywhere. The question is: Who suffered eye damage from opening a cursed chest? I figured if anyone would know it would be you guys. Thanks in advance. Jamie F. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 17 03:15:01 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:15:01 -0000 Subject: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mobiliarbus/GH/Lupin=Tutor?/Magic Quill/ Baby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158391 Tonks_op wrote in : << Imagine the pure shock of discovering that the `neighbors' are part of the WW too! When Petunia sees Mrs. Figg doing magic, Petunia will not know that this is Figgy's first successfully attempt. Petunia will say to herself "my God, they are everywhere!!" "They are my NEIGHBORS!!" And a great change will come over Petunia because of this. >> I don't think 'discovering' that Mrs Figg is a witch will change Petunia's mind, because I think Petunia already thinks that Mrs Figg is a 'mad old woman' whom she might well attempt to run out of the neighborhood, or at least snub and ignore, if she didn't need her to babysit Harry. zgirnius wrote in : << Personally, I am happy with the idea that young Lupin misunderstood, and Dumbledore had been Headmaster for years when he started. Lupin's folks just had no idea until Lupin got his Hogwarts letter, that any such thing would be happening, and had prepared Lupin for the knowledge that he would not be going to school like the other little wizards and witches. When he did get the letter, they attributed it to the new Headmaster (meaning, new to them, not brand spanking new). >> This is a forbidden 'I agree' post. bboyminn wrote in : << Everything Voldemort is ultimately seeking could have been his, if he had only followed a different path. >> Except immortality. (I don't know why Voldie wants immortality -- he doesn't appear to find this life so enjoyable that he can't stand for the fun to end. And I am sure that even his life will be even less enjoyable after he has achieved his other goal of killing all the people and destroying all the nice things.) Snow wrote in : << thinking about it now, when would Voldemort have had the chance to place the curse if it wasn't then? >> The 'Vanishing Cabinet' at Hogwarts was probably already there. If the one at Borgin and Burkes's was also already there, he could have learned that they were connected and thus had free run of Hogwarts. zanooda wrote in : << Next, Hermione used "mobiliarbus" spell in PoA. Maybe she read about it somewhere, but it seems like she created it right there on the spot from two parts, "mobili" being part of many similar spells (Lupin used Mobilicorpus later). >> I want to know why Tonks used 'Locomotor trunk!' instead of 'Mobilicista!' (IIRC it was 'cista' we decided when wondering what is Latin for 'trunk'.) << If indeed she created it herself, she had to know that "arbus " means "tree". >> Someone has pointed out that Mobiliarbus is a very famous spell from history, being the one that moved Birnham Wood to Dunsinane, so Hermione would surely have read about it. Which reminds me, did Shakespeare give any names of the three witches in Macbeth? Abergoat wrote in : << perhaps because Harry has already started wondering how Hagrid could claim Snape was at Godric's Hollow trying to get the Potters to leave... >> Refresh my memory -- when did Hagrid say that? BAW wrote in : << Perhaps that is what Lupin did before coming to Hogwarts -- giving in-home magical instruction to wizardling children -- muggleborn or others -- whose parents for whatever reason prefered not to send them away. >> While that would explain the 'Professor' on his name-tag on his beat-up old suitcase, it seems to me that if wizards 'shunned [Lupin] all [his] adult life, unable to find paid work because of' being a werewolf, they would refuse to give him a child-care job even more than an office job. Because they'd be more afraid of tender, juicy children being harmed by the werewolf than adults. Cliff wrote in : << As there is room for just five boys and five girls in each House, a total of twenty each per year, are magical children born too late turned away? Is that how Argus Filch became a squib, born too late in the year? Or is the list kept open in case a magical child dies? >> Hogwarts is a castle where doors are sometimes there and sometimes not, and rooms are in different locations of the same floor depending on their mood (so I suppose the students need magic to even FIND their classroom for each class session). It seems likely to me that their dorm rooms can grow or shrink a little, so as to fit maybe 2 to 7 residents. If there were e.g. *fifteen* girls in the same year in the same House, I guess two extra dorm rooms would come into their House from some other part of the Castle, to make room. Gryffindor Tower, for example, wouldn't have to be any bigger or smaller on the outside to be bigger or smaller on the inside. I have quite a different problem with the magic quill writing down the magic children when they are born in Britain (or in the British Isles): what about magic children who were born outside of the British Isles but their parents emigrated to Britain or returned to Britain before the kids turned 11? They wouldn't be on Hogswarts' list. I think it would be much better if the quill wrote the list each Midsummer Day of all the magical children who would be eligible for the entering class starting that September. That would also answer the question people used to have: if Neville's grandmother was afraid he didn't have enough magic to go to Hogwarts, why didn't she ask Professor McGonagall to look him up in that Book among the kids born in 1980? a_svirn wrote in : << bboyminn: << Let's take a real muggle life example. The police find the muggle parents murdered and only a infant surviving. Are they going to hand over the baby to the first person who comes along? Definitely not; Social Services is going to take the infant into protective custody until a **suitable** guardian can be found. >> a_svirn: You are totally wrong, you know. In real life Social Services would only get involved if a child's parents died intestate, without appointing a guardian and thus leaving their kid in the lurch. If they were prudent enough to take care of the matter and appoint a legal guardian (as the Potters did) the said guardian steps in their shoes right away. They can appoint a guardian in their Will (which is better since they can made financial arrangement as well) or they can follow the Children Act guidelines. Either way the Social Services will be satisfied unless they will have a very good *legal* reason not to. Believe me it's the law. Or look it up if you don't believe me. >> I don't know anything about the law, but I hate to think that if the police went into a house and found only some dead adults and one live baby, they would leave the baby there with no living person to look after it until the dead people and the baby have been identified and, if the baby's parents were among the dead, their will has been found (and probated?). And I suspect they don't call a babysitter to look after it in that house, lest evidence be disturbed. From dsueiro at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 03:00:41 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:00:41 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is The Potter's Invisibility Cloak A Relic? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8de2fdd80609162000o26563922y91ff43f007acdc0e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158392 Tonks: > Does the cloak give DD some special power that he does not have and > he turns it over to Harry when Harry comes to Hogwarts for that > reason, to transfer this power to Harry? If it were just protection > I think James would have kept it. We do see the cloak a lot. So this > can be a big clue to something right under our noses, as usual. > Diego: Reading this mail made wonder about a couple of comments of DD about the IC, both of them during his visit to Harry on PD4: 1) Before going to pay a visit to Slughorn, he said, (refering to Harry baggage): "We do not want to be encumbered by these just now," he said, pulling out his wand again. "I shall send them to the Burrow to await us there. However, I would like you to bring your Invisibility Cloak . . . just in case." 2) Before going away (after the visit to , he gave some advice to Harry, including: "Firstly, I wish you to keep your Invisibility Cloak with you at all times from this moment onward. Even within Hogwarts itself. Just in case, you understand me?" (Advice which of course he wouldn't follow, as usual. He had to go for the cloack before going on the Hoarcrux hunt.) Now that I think about both sentences, I don't really understand WHY he had to say those things. Diego From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Sep 16 23:12:41 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:12:41 -0400 Subject: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158393 a_svirn: "For one thing it does not "fall" to them. It's offered to them and may be refused. More importantly, there *was* a very good reason not to involve the Dursleys - the Potters' Will where they appointed Sirius their son's guardian." BAW: Sirius was, at that time, a wanted criminal. He was believed to have betrayed James & Lily to Voldemort and to have killed Peter Pettigrew. WE know from hindsight that he was framed, but nobody knew that at the time. I think that, notwithstanding the Potter's Will, nobody would have considered Sirius as a proper guardian. a_svirn: "A guardian has the same rights as a parent." BAW: > If his parents had put him down for Hogwarts before they died, > his guardians should honor that wish. a_svirn: "And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his guardian, yet nobody bothered to honour their wish, lest of all Dumbledore. Which only goes to show that he's bothered with laws only when it suits him." BAW: We, of course, don't know what was in the letter, but if one of the conditions was that he was to be sent to Hogwarts at the proper time--which is not unlikely--well, we know how the Wizardling World feels about vows and contracts. Pippin: "Perhaps in that era it would have violated the Statutes of Secrecy to tell any Muggle, whether parent or guardian, about the nature of Hogwarts. In any case, a child has the right to an appropriate education, and in my country, at least, the state will enforce that right against the wishes of the parents or guardians if need be." BAW: Good point. I've quoted this before: "It is ill done to keep dark the mind of the mageborn." A wizardling child--fullblood, halfblod, or Muggleborn--must get the proper training if s/he is not to be a danger to him/herself and others. Wizardling parents can ride herd on the kids' and do damage control for magical breakouts, but what of Muggle parents? There may be a way of stripping a mageling of his/her powers--some fantasy systems do have that feature--but if JKR's does, she hasn't mentioned it. That, really, would be the only way for safely allowing a mage-gifted child to go untrained. Jordan: "The only state (specifically, the UK) that has any _moral_ right to say considers Stonewall a perfectly appropriate education. Muggles, and even muggleborn witches/wizards before accepting Hogwarts attendance, are not a party to the Wizarding World's social contract, and thus should not be considered to be bound by its laws." BAW: In the case of Aunt Petunia, she became 'a party to the Wizerdling World's social contract' when she agreed to take in Harry. As for other muggleborns, we have no evidence of coercion; Hermione's parents seem quite happy to take her to Diagon Alley to shop for school supplies. a_svirn: "I guess it all comes down to the concept of the appropriate. Would the state in your country force a parent or a guardian to send their child, say, to Phillips Academy instead of a public school? Or to Harrow instead of a grammar school? The Dursleys were completely within their rights - as guardians - to send Harry to the local comprehensive. If - as you seem to imply - the wizarding law leaves them without a choice of the matter, it shouldn't allow muggle relatives to assume the custody of wizarding children at all. This would be much fairer." BAW: Magic isn't something that you can turn off, at least in JKR's system. Would you want a child in your neighborhood going around inflating obnoxious aunts, releasing pythons from the zoo, teleporting to the roof of the school to get away from bullies (this last isn't such a bad thing), engorging slugs, entirely without consistent conscious control? Training of the magegift is essential for the safety of the one gifted and everyone around him/her. BAW From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Sep 17 03:39:36 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:39:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158394 > Sherry now: > > Is there anywhere in canon where it says definitely that James told > Dumbledore that Sirius was the secret keeper? I've always thought it was an > assumption, a good assumption, based on the fact that James and Sirius were > such good friends. Julie: Dumbledore says James told him Sirius was the secret-keeper. I suppose the validity of that statement depends on whether you as the reader take Dumbledore at his word or not. Sherry again: Can you point me to the canon, or quote it for me? Honestly, I've read POA many, many times, but I don't remember Dumbledore saying anything like, James told me that Sirius was the secret keeper. I remember it as him saying something like I believed Sirius was the secret keeper, or I was led to believe it or something like that. That is my favorite book, but since I never believed Sirius had betrayed the potters or was out to kill Harry, I probably didn't pay attention to the nuances. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand where you are finding that bit of canon. And of course, if Dumbledore hadn't done what he did, the books would be far different, but it's difficult to believe that placing a helpless child in an abusive situation could ever be in the child's best interest, no matter what else was going on. It's actually why I don't or try not to think of this aspect of the stories very much, because I like Dumbledore, and none of the beginnings of Harry's life with the Dursleys paint the greatest wizard of all time or the epitome of goodness in a very good light for me. Letting an innocent man rot in a terrible prison and letting a child live in a home of abuse and no love makes me very unhappy to contemplate. So, I normally try to avoid it altogether! Sherry, who is thankful she can laugh at herself in such cases. From random832 at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 04:14:58 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:14:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eye Damage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609162114x449cc1d9l94f702ecf97515f6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158395 On 9/16/06, Jamie Figiel wrote: > Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at my daughter's > school and I can't find it anywhere. The question is: Who suffered eye > damage from opening a cursed chest? I figured if anyone would know it > would be you guys. Thanks in advance. My guess is Moody - if he got the eye just so he'd have the abilities wouldn't charmed glasses have worked better? So the eye is probably a replacement for an eye he lost that way if anything. Now, how'd he lose his leg? -- Random832 From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 03:45:36 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:45:36 -0500 Subject: Eye Damage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40609162045y9b219afo3db56ee0093d4375@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158396 > Jamie Figiel wrote: > Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at my daughter's > school and I can't find it anywhere. The question is: Who suffered > eye damage from opening a cursed chest? Janette: *Eurypylus?* From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 05:25:08 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:25:08 -0000 Subject: Is The Potter's Invisibility Cloak A Relic? In-Reply-To: <8de2fdd80609162000o26563922y91ff43f007acdc0e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158397 > Diego: > Reading this mail made wonder about a couple of comments of DD about the IC, both of them during his visit to Harry (Snip)"I shall send them to the Burrow to await us there. However, I > would like you to bring your Invisibility Cloak . . . just in case." > > 2) Before going away (after the visit to , he gave some advice to > Harry, including: "Firstly, I wish you to keep your Invisibility Cloak with you at all times from this moment onward. Even within Hogwarts itself. Just in case, you understand me?" Tonks: It does seem that the cloak is very important, perhaps for more than to keep Harry from being seen. .. or not?? I have been pondering the cloak clue. Adding a bit of this and that from other peoples ideas this is what I have come up with: We do not know how and when James got the cloak. It may or may not be the cloak of Gryffindor. We know that James and Harry are not in the blood line of Gryffindor. I think that DD is the last descendent of Gryffindor. And when JKR said that we should think more about DD's relatives, this is what she means. James gave the cloak to DD. We are to ask why. I think it may be that the cloak at one time belonged to DD. Again it could be the cloak of Gryffindor. Remember that DD said that the sword was the only "known" relic of Gryffindor. That statement leaves the door open for there being another one that is not known. If the cloak were Gryffindor's, I would think that only DD would know this. Perhaps he gave it to James for some reason. DD did not need it himself, and perhaps it does not have any special powers. Or maybe it does. Either way, I think that it belonged to DD and he gave it to James. When, where, why, I don't know. But when James thought that he and his family might be killed, and he knew that the cloak would be of no help, he gave it back to DD. If there were some noble reason for DD to have given it to James to begin with, James may have given it back expecting DD to pass it on to another student just as he had to James. I wonder if the cloak has some important role in the 7th book other than to just hide someone? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 05:54:44 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:54:44 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158398 Ken: > Does anyone happen to know what day of the week it is or what the phase of the moon is? Tonks: Wondering why he wants to know that? Do you have a furry little problem? Are you hiding out somewhere? Jordan: > D. It does not interfere with anything, but somehow otherwise prevents reception. For example, perhaps being unplottable (is Hogwarts unplottable?) causes radio waves to "bend" around the grounds. (Snip) Tonks: I think it is in part of the security charms that are around Hogwarts. Not being able to apparate in or out, etc. and no electronics devices is because of all the security that is around the grounds. Also I like the fact that there are no electronics there, it takes them back in time to a simpler time. Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 17 06:15:18 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 06:15:18 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158399 > > Julie: > Dumbledore says James told him Sirius was the secret-keeper. > I suppose the validity of that statement depends on whether you as the > reader take Dumbledore at his word or not. > > > > Sherry again: > > Can you point me to the canon, or quote it for me? Honestly, I've read POA > many, many times, but I don't remember Dumbledore saying anything like, > James told me that Sirius was the secret keeper. I remember it as him > saying something like I believed Sirius was the secret keeper, or I was led > to believe it or something like that. Julie: Steve quoted the relevant POA paragraphs in an earlier post-- "So Black was the Potters' Secret-Keeper?" whispered Madam Rosmerta. "Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself... and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper himself." My apologies for saying Dumbledore stated this as fact, when it was actually McGonagall relaying Dumbledore's discussion with Dumbledore. There is also the following quote from POA: "It is your turn to listen, and I beg you will not interrupt me, because there is very little time," he (Dumbledore) said quietly. "There is not a shred of proof to support Black's story, except your word -- and the word of two thirteen-year-old wizards will not convince anybody. A street full of eyewitnesses swore they saw Sirius murder Pettigrew. I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been the Potters' Secret- Keeper." And I can't believe Dumbledore would give evidence that Sirius had been the Potters' Secret-Keeper if he hadn't heard the words directly from James Potter, as implied by McGonagall's statement. I suppose one could still call it "heresay" but I don't really doubt McGonagall or Dumbledore. Sherry: > And of course, if Dumbledore hadn't done what he did, the books would be far > different, but it's difficult to believe that placing a helpless child in an > abusive situation could ever be in the child's best interest, no matter what > else was going on. It's actually why I don't or try not to think of this > aspect of the stories very much, because I like Dumbledore, and none of the > beginnings of Harry's life with the Dursleys paint the greatest wizard of > all time or the epitome of goodness in a very good light for me. Letting an > innocent man rot in a terrible prison and letting a child live in a home of > abuse and no love makes me very unhappy to contemplate. So, I normally try > to avoid it altogether! > > Sherry, who is thankful she can laugh at herself in such cases. > Julie: I agree that the whole situation doesn't bear too much close examination of a logical nature. But again, few novels do, especially novels that need to provide unlikely scenarios to set up a plot. So it's really up to the reader. Either Dumbledore placed Harry with the Dursleys because he genuinely believed the alternative to placing Harry in an abusive situation was a very real possibility of death (and in retrospect what abuse Harry did suffer was *relatively* mild, certainly better than dying, IMO), or he placed Harry in an abusive situation when there was actually a more suitable alterative, thus he's a cold, manipulative jerk. Equally, Dumbledore believed the strongly damning evidence that Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters and didn't know Sirius well enough to doubt the solid evidence he possessed (though McGonagall should have known Sirius far better as his head of house and didn't seem to doubt the evidence either), or Dumbledore just didn't care and was more than content to let a likely innocent man rot in Azkaban if it served his ultimate purposes. Good man who makes the best decisions he can given the circumstances and admits his own human fallibility when his decisions sometimes turn out to be in error...or master manipulator with a block of ice for a heart? JKR has told us how she means Dumbledore to come across, but as I believe Lupinlore said, no author can tell any individual reader how to interpret his or her words. That's left to us. Julie, who chooses to stick with the epitome of goodness interpretation of Dumbledore ;-) From ornawn at 013.net Sun Sep 17 06:40:15 2006 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 06:40:15 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - In-Reply-To: <006401c6d9b3$a23d2f50$d072400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158400 >Sherry now: >Well, of course Sirius is impulsive and irrational. He's been in >prison with dementors for 12 years! He never had the chance to grow >up the normal way and to mature in the natural course of time and >life. He's damaged emotionally by the time we meet him. That >doesn't mean he would have been that way if Dumbledore had ever >bothered to try to determine the truth, and if he hadn't been sent >to Azkaban without a trial. Orna: We know him to be impulsive before - his trick on Snape - also you might say ? he was just a teenager. Still ? he was endangering Snape's life, and also Lupin's, in a way. His act of changing secret-keepers ? again ? something impulsive, not too well-thought of. So it seems his impulsiveness, and recklessness didn't start from Azkaban. And the way he fought with Bellatrix, teasing her to do better ? also seems like enjoying a bit too much danger, and extremes. (But that was after Azkaban, you might say). Having said that, I agree that he deserved a just trial, and that I agree also with Magpie, that it is surprising that DD didn't try to see what his side of the truth was, not before he was arrested, and not throughout his 12 years of imprisonment. >Alla: >What I am saying is that IMO Dumbledore had no right to take Harry >away based **only** on the fact that Sirius was secret keeper. >At the very least he had to investigate more IMO as I mentioned >before maybe go there himself and not just rely on hearsay. Orna: That's where I disagree, and agree. I think that if there is any chance that the guardian is in league with the person who murdered your parents, DD had the duty to secure Harry away from him, until further inspection. But he had to investigate it more closely, I agree. And his being arrested as a mad mass-murderer doesn't change this duty. But it makes this neglect easier to understand. Actually I do wonder if Sirius would have got released in a fair trial. What could happen there? He would say ? he changed secret- keeper - no witness for that. And Hagrid witnessing him to be on the spot, unhurt. PP would be thought dead from Sirius' hands ? just strengthening the evidence against him and ? again no witness for him being alive, and many witnesses for hearing PP accusing Sirius, seeing him laugh, and PP + muggles disappear The only thing he might be able to prove, was himself being an unregistered animagus That would send him to Azkaban this way or the other. Ironically ? had he succeded in killing PP in the first place ? he would never been able to prove his innocence. (In RW-court, perhaps in WW they just use Verisatrum - but I'm not sure...). That leaves only DD wanting to hear from him his version for this or other reason. >Magpie: >I'm pretty surprised DD didn't seek Sirius out and find out exactly >what happened and why--even if he thought he was guilty I think >he'd need to know why. DD is somebody who seems known for >understanding why people do things, even if it's after the fact, >and there honestly never seemed to be any understanding with >Sirius, even a fake one. What did people think about why >he was the traitor? With Peter, once the truth was out, people >could see how he would have gone to LV. Orna: It does look surprising, I agree. I think that most people didn't know about the Fidelius, Sirius being secret-keeper. So they had to understand "only" how come Sirius attacked PP and 13 muggles, or was a DE. Hagrid didn't know it, and he wasn't the only one IIRC. It seems they just thought him "mad", which is what people do, when they are reluctant to think about something ? they just label it as "mad". Perhaps they also thought that it was part of Voldemort's evil ingenuity ? to have such an influence on people, having spies everywhere, where you wouldn't suspect it. Perhaps, since Sirius was Black, many people weren't surprised to find one brother DE, and the other - too. And people were used in VWI to distrust everybody, or find Des everywhere ? so perhaps they just thought that they had been mistaken in Sirius all the time. Lupin admitted he thought Sirius was the traitor, Sirius admitted he thought Lupin was the one. So it seems the atmosphere was one in which you never knew who to trust, and never would be really surprised to find "your best friend" belonged to Voldemort. It still leaves DD and what we expect from him as an open issue. Orna, who is not much of a Sirius-fan, but that doesn't mean he has to rot in Azkaban. From CliffVDY at juno.com Sun Sep 17 10:48:44 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:48:44 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > > I will try to summarize the various theories on why electronic devices > > don't work at hogwarts. There are several aspects to this > > > > I think we have to give it up, Jordan. I just re-read the bit on JKR's > website FAQ where she answers the questions about Colin's camera. She > says the battery doesn't work at Hogwarts therefore the camera must > run on magical energy the way a wizard's radio does, apparently > acknowledging that his camera does have some internal electronics. > Hermione, I think, says radios emit static at Hogwarts. Harry probably > has an electronic watch but JKR will say it runs on magical energy at > Hogwarts. So the batteries don't work, some devices do work but run on > magical energy, but radios don't work .... > > Does anyone happen to know what day of the week it is or what the > phase of the moon is? > > Ken > Cliff, the Physicist here: Colin's camera is an Argus C-3, made in Ann Arbor, Michigan, until 1950. It is totally mechanical. It has an electric switch inside so that a flash, powered by a battery works. The flash bulbs are light bulbs which are filled with oxygen gas and magnesium wire. The filament ignites the magnesium. No electronics is involved. Batteries must work or Colin and Harry would be dead as we all run by electricity. My EKG says my heart is OK as it is producing the proper electrical currents (which can be detected without anything touching the skin). I would hope that a scan of my head would show some electrical activity. In Hogwarts, electricity is not needed as magic heats and lights the buildings, moves stairways (I love that spiral escalator at the Headmaster's Office), transports food, etc. But that can't preclude it. Cell phones and radios don't work in tunnels. That isn't magic at work. That's so you'll stay focused on driving. Cliff, trying to find magic in Muggle life, and science in the HP fictional life. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 10:59:36 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:59:36 -0000 Subject: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mobiliarbus/GH/Lupin=Tutor?/Magic Quill/ Baby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158402 > a_svirn: > You are totally wrong, you know. In real life Social Services would > only get involved if a child's parents died intestate, without > appointing a guardian and thus leaving their kid in the lurch. If > they were prudent enough to take care of the matter and appoint a > legal guardian (as the Potters did) the said guardian steps in their > shoes right away. They can appoint a guardian in their Will (which > is better since they can made financial arrangement as well) or they > can follow the Children Act guidelines. Either way the Social > Services will be satisfied unless they will have a very good *legal* > reason not to. Believe me it's the law. Or look it up if you don't > believe me. >> > > Catlady: > I don't know anything about the law, but I hate to think that if the > police went into a house and found only some dead adults and one live > baby, they would leave the baby there with no living person to look > after it until the dead people and the baby have been identified and, > if the baby's parents were among the dead, their will has been found > (and probated?). And I suspect they don't call a babysitter to look > after it in that house, lest evidence be disturbed. a_svirn: And how does all this apply to Harry's situation? Did Dumbledore wait for the Potters will to be probated? Is Hagrid a magical equivalent of a police officer? From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 17 16:58:13 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 17 Sep 2006 16:58:13 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/17/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1158512293.17.88321.m26@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158403 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 17, 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 Sep 17 17:23:11 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:23:11 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158404 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > You are totally wrong, you know. In real life Social > > Services would only get involved if a child's > > parents died intestate, without appointing a > > guardian and thus leaving their kid in the lurch. > > ... >> > > > > Catlady: > > ...I hate to think that if the police went into a > > house and found only some dead adults and one live > > baby, they would leave the baby there with no living > > person to look after it... > > a_svirn: > And how does all this apply to Harry's situation? Did > Dumbledore wait for the Potters will to be probated? > Is Hagrid a magical equivalent of a police officer? > bboyminn: You seem determined to be contrary. We get your point, Sirius was appointed by Harry's parents as guardian, but that is not that. Nothing exists in a vacuum, circumstances DO matter. Sirius was thought to be the Secret Keeper, the Secret was clearly betrayed, the left Sirius with suspicion pointing at him. The authorities, muggle or magic, would be unlikely to release Harry to Sirius or anyone else unless they were sure of his safety. They certainly would not release him to someone who was suspected of betraying the Potters and bring about their deaths. In any case, muggle or magic, the authorities would examine the stituation and make a reasonable determination, and that would take time. That reasonable determination, might occur on the spot if an adult brother or sister, or grandparent, or other relative were on the scene to take the child, but even then some /reasonable determination/ would be made to assure that the child was not being turned over to an unsafe environment. I'm sure you will point out that Sirius /was/ on the scene to take Harry, and once again, I will point out that Sirius cooperated with Hagrid taking Harry. He even assisted Hagrid by giving him his motorcycle. That implies that Sirius is giving permission for Dumbledore to take control of Harry. Perhaps he only intended that to be temporary, and if Sirius hadn't got himself thrown in jail, he could have come out at a later date and tried to assert his right as designated guardian. You ask if Dumbledore waited for the Potter's Will to be probated? Do you really think that would be resolved is five or ten minutes after the crime? Of course, not. Harry needed care immediately. Dumbledore took on the role of that care and he did so with the implied permission of Sirius. Further, no one was going to immediately turn Harry over to Sirius when Sirius was a suspect in the killing of the Potters. Now if Dumbledore had jumped the gun in placing Harry with the Dursley, and if Sirius name was cleared and he was not thrown in prison, then Sirius could have made a claim for guardianship. But none of that happened. Under the CIRCUMSTANCE, which is the part that you seem determined to overlook. Dumbledore did what he felt was best, and he apparently did so with some degree of cooperation and thereby implied permission from Sirius. On a tangental note, as discussed in other parts of this and other threads, people wonder how Sirius could have been thrown in prison without an investigation. The answer is simple, he didn't defend himself, he didn't protest is arrest or his being sent to prison. He was so stunned with shock and racked with guilt that he didn't claim he was innocent. He didn't explain what happened. He may have even made statements that implied his guilt. In that moment, with no protest of his own innocent, with no offerred explanation, with likely statements implying his own guilt, and with evidence pointing at him, it probably seemed very cut and dried to the Ministry. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sun Sep 17 17:24:21 2006 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:24:21 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Harry's guardian? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158405 In a message dated 9/16/2006 2:43:50 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, sherriola at earthlink.net writes: Well, of course Sirius is impulsive and irrational. He's been in prison with dementors for 12 years! He never had the chance to grow up the normal way and to mature in the natural course of time and life. He's damaged emotionally by the time we meet him. That doesn't mean he would have been that way if Dumbledore had ever bothered to try to determine the truth, and if he hadn't been sent to Azkaban without a trial. Why didn't he go to Dumbledore and tell him the truth instead of flying off the handle and going after Pettigrew? Dumbledore would have listened. Why did he risk Lupin and Snape's lives over a silly joke? And why didn't he grow up after the prank, like James did? Sirius is not mature after Azkaban because he wasn't mature before. a_svirn: Oh yeah? I guess Harry's parents had no business to appoint him a guardian then. Probably had no business to get married and conceive a child unless it was with Dumbledore's explicit permission. I know James trusted Sirius, (and he made him godfather, which is not synonymous with legal guardian, BTW) and he probably would have been fine with Harry if Voldemort had not marked him. But this goes back to the discussion at the end of OOP, the same hole DD fell into. Is the happiness of one child worth the lives of 7000+ others when Voldemort comes back? (and DD knows he will stop at nothing to be back) This is not a black and white decision. This is real world, shades of grey, the lesser of two evils. These decisions happen in life. a_svirn: And this infant's survival depends in turn on Dumbledore's extraordinary brainpower. Which is known to be infallible. Got it. Of course Dumbledore is imperfect. We all are. Does that mean he should wash his hands of the whole affair and let Harry be murdered? Dumbledore did the best he could to protect Harry's life. Amber, JMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 17 17:52:33 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:52:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Harry's guardian? References: Message-ID: <009701c6da82$0fdb6d00$0798400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158406 sunnylove: > Why didn't he go to Dumbledore and tell him the truth instead of flying > off > the handle and going after Pettigrew? Dumbledore would have listened. > Why > did he risk Lupin and Snape's lives over a silly joke? And why didn't he > grow > up after the prank, like James did? Sirius is not mature after Azkaban > because he wasn't mature before. Magpie: No, he wasn't, but that has no bearing on whether he should be Harry's guardian or not. Obviously I'm leaving out the extenuating circumstances that actually happened with Sirius seeming like a murderer, but I'm doing that because you seem to be arguing that Sirius was unacceptable as a guardian and therefore Dumbledore had every right to decide he wasn't suitable whatever the Potters said. And there I just disagree. There's no indication that Sirius would have been irresponsible in terms of not taking care of Harry's basic needs--certainly he would have fulfilled more of his needs than the Dursleys did. You can't go down that road because obviously Dumbledore chooses to put Harry in the *worse* situation on that score. In the real world, immature people can be parents, reckless people can be parents--as long as the child isn't being abused or truly endangered. (This is a real issue in the real world, too, as there are people who would like to ban people from raising children because they don't live up to their standards as people, often due to superficial things.) What the Dursleys bring to the table is the magical blood protection, period. If it just came down to these people vs. Sirius as guardians Sirius wins hands down. Who wouldn't think a loving single guy, flawed as he might be, wouldn't beat people who actively hate the baby for what and who he is? And who will mistreat him? Sunnylove: > I know James trusted Sirius, (and he made him godfather, which is not > synonymous with legal guardian, BTW) and he probably would have been fine > with > Harry if Voldemort had not marked him. But this goes back to the > discussion at > the end of OOP, the same hole DD fell into. Magpie: Right--which is why the other discussion is obscuring the issue. It's got nothing to do with Sirius being a bad guardian, or the correct way to deal with an orphan, it's got to do with Dumbledore's plans for the Chosen One. He's not choosing the best home for Harry as a child, he's placing him under what he thinks is the best protection against a Death Eaters, with an eye towards Harry killing Voldemort later. It's not even, imo, a question of the lesser of two evils because the alternative evil is all potential. Dumbledore is really choosing between alternative protections for Harry--does he grow up with a wizard under whatever other protections they could work out (the kind of situation he lives with when he goes to the Weasleys), or does he grow up under the blood protection? There's not even any moment in canon that we can point to where he was protected by living at the Dursleys that I can think of at the moment. sunnylove: > Of course Dumbledore is imperfect. We all are. Does that mean he should > wash his hands of the whole affair and let Harry be murdered? Dumbledore > did > the best he could to protect Harry's life. Magpie: I think that's a bit of a false binary there. It's not like the choice is either put Harry with the abusive people or wash his hands of the whole thing. Dumbledore is making what he thinks is the best decision in terms of protecting Harry because he thinks the blood protection is the best protection he can give him, and he's doing it knowing that this will mean hard years ahead for Harry; he's already got plans for Harry beyond that. (He does wash his hands of that aspect to an extent.) I think we're meant to read it more the way Sherry does, just accepting that this was what Dumbledore thought was best and let's just not think about the potential alternatives. But I don't think it's written in a way to dramatize Dumbledore as completely without options. He always has options, in a way, because as a character he's got so much power and freedom. It's not total power and freedom, but it's a lot. -m From aceworker at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 21:20:43 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts Message-ID: <20060917212043.28181.qmail@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158407 <> I always thought of Hogwarts and possibly Hogmeads and the Hogwarts Express as being in some sort of 'huge magical bubble (or wizardspace)' that splits from the rest of the world. If you imagine Hogwarts as sort of covered by an igloo shape shell you will understand what I mean. This would explain why you can't apparate on the grounds (because the grounds aren't connected to the outisde world, ecept narrowly) and why you can't receive radio signals. Radio's work (but they only receive static) and other electronic devices work but only of the magical atmosphere.There are no oulets in Hogwarts and something about magic drains batteries. You can use them if you find a way to feed magic into their circuits, but the reason students don't use electronic devices much is that it is a waste of time. Why feed enegry into a torch (flashlight) when you can just cast Lumos for instance. Spel-work is more efficent. You could prob feed magical energy into a computer to use the word processor, but a Quick Quill is more efficient. You couldn't go online since Hogwarts isn't connected to the world; except narrowly, Of course the real reason is because JKR wanted to create an atmosphere were electronic devices such as cell-phones don't exist. But it is fun to speculate. DA Jones --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 21:32:06 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:06 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > Is seems that the 'secret' is /not/ 12 Grimmauld > > > Place, but 'Headquarters of the Order'. Twelve > > > Grimmauld Place is only relevant because it is the > > > /current/ location of 'headquarters'. I suspect, if > > > 'headquarters' moves, as it did, the secret moves > > > with it. > > > > Random832: > > I disagree. I think the whole sentence is the secret. > > If the HQ moves, the Fidelius will have to be recast. > > The point here, I believe, and the reason that the > > house is "disappeared", is because of the exact wording > > - the headquarters _may not be found_ at that location > > by anyone who has not been told the secret... Mike now: I'm going to agree with random832 here, if the HQ moves or the Order disbands the Fidelius would no longer be operable. My understanding (read this a while ago) of the Fidelius is that three conditions need to be satisfied: 1. The 'secret' must be **True**. 2. The 'secret' must be **proprietary** to the secret maker. 3. The 'secret' must have some **limited** knowledge. The first is self explanatory. In the second case, both the Potters desire to go into hiding (from who?) and DD being the *head* of the Order make the 'secret' proprietary to each in turn. That is, the Potters can go into hiding and can decide that they want that to be a secret. Likewise, DD can decide that he wants the HQ of the Order to be a secret. The third condition is the one that is a problem for me. **Limited** is surely a subjective term. But you have to have some limits as far as what you could make a secret. For instance, the Potters can go into hiding, but can their existance be a secret? That is, could they possibly make a secret of the fact that they exist? Seems to me that this would require the elimination of knowledge for too large of a degree. Then there is the question of whether their existance is still *propietary*? > bboyminn: > > The point of analysing this is because how the Potters > Secret is verbally constructed affects how the story, > on page and off page, plays out. > > > bboyminn previously: > > > Lastly, there are endless complications with the > > > Charm actually being on the Potters and not the > > > location. First, the Secret Keeper is still alive, > > > so the secret /should/ still be intact, > > > > Random832: > > But the Potters are no longer in hiding. Mike again: Let's apply the conditions to both 'secrets'. First 12 GP is no longer the property of Sirius. It occurs to me that the owner of the property would have to consent to the property becoming part of the 'secret' in order for the 'secret' to be both *true* and *propietary*. Else, anyone could walk up to anothers house and Fidelius that house as their HQ. So when Sirius dies, the question of ownership becomes pertinent as to whether the Fidelius remains in place. When Harry tells DD that he can keep the HQ there, the Fidelius has just been affirmed, no break in the charm. Of course, if the house hadn't been his to give, nothing he says in the matter would affect the Fidelius. If the house had been passed to Bella, she would have made that decision. Now the Potters. If we take Flitwick's words into account: > Orna: > IIRC it was mentioned in PoA that the fidelius charm operates so > that you could place your face against the house - and not see the > Potter's there - so the house doesn't vanish Mike: If we read it they way Flitwick presents it the location of the Potters themselves was the 'secret'. How would Flitwick know? Did the Potters do the charm correctly? Did they make themselves the secret or their hiding place the secret? Well if Muggles started gathering around the ruined house, it seems the hiding place wasn't the 'secret' unless they didn't include Harry as one of the people hiding in that hiding place. My hypothesis follows below. > bboyminn: > > If the Secret is not broken and was placed on the Potters > then the plot remains nearly unresolvable. If the Secret > was on the house and remains unbroken then the plot is > still nearly unresolvable and unexplainable. > Mike: My guess, is that the Potters made their 'secret' that **The Potters were hiding from Lord Voldemort**. Therefore LV could not find the Potters without the 'secret keeper' telling him where the Potters could be found. The 'secret' did not apply to any one who was not LV. So Hagrid and Sirius were not in the dark. Neither were a lot of others, but they couldn't reveal the location because of the charm. But since Peter revealed the 'secret' to LV, the charm was no longer *true* and thus dissolved. Would this make sense? If the Potters thought the charm was going to protect them, would they think it was only going to last for a couple of weeks? No, they would be expecting this to last for a long time. I suggest that they were not prepared to cut themselves off from the rest of the world for a long time. I also suggest that DD told them that LV was after them personally, at least that seems to be the common perception among the WW. Therefore, the Potters weren't hiding from anyone besides LV. It might seem imprudent to only include LV as your secrets objection, but they were young, cocky and still *bulletproof*, nobody else caused them concerned. This is how I see the whole thing making sense as well as not causing any problems for the Trio in book 7. Did I miss anything? Mike From aceworker at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 21:35:04 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles - Message-ID: <20060917213504.4728.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158409 Julie said: <> Right, but why couldn't Dumbldore just be bias against the Blacks. Sirius was a Black and all the Blacks were either on Voldemorts side or neutral. The only reason DD had to trust Sirius was that James and Lily trusted him and the fact that he was a Gryffindor. We know that Sirius was a trouble maker and pulled pranks that could almost be considered evil. What he did to Snape could have resulted in Snape being killed. Dumbldore for whatever reason seems to trust Snape even more then he ever trusted Sirius. Why should he have not assumed that Sirius had killed Pettigrew and betrayed Sirius and Lily it fit with what Dumbledore knew of Sirus char at the time. DA Jones --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 23:45:25 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:45:25 -0000 Subject: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mobiliarbus/GH/Lupin=Tutor?/Magic Quill/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158410 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Someone has pointed out that Mobiliarbus is a very famous spell from > history, being the one that moved Birnham Wood to Dunsinane, so > Hermione would surely have read about it. > > Which reminds me, did Shakespeare give any names of the three witches > in Macbeth? zanooda: You mean from wizarding history, right? :-) Even in this case I don't really understand. If we are talking about Shakespeare, there was no such spell in "Macbeth", and Birnam wood moved to Dunsinane without any witchcraft invoved. English soldiers were holding tree branches for camouflage while advancing to Dunsinane, that's all (please correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe "mobiliarbus" is from some other shakespearean play? Could someone explain? To answer your question, Shakespeare doesn't give any names AFAIK. One of the witches calls another something like "Graymalkin", but I don't think it's a name. I just remembered it because it sounded funny to me. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Sep 18 00:15:24 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:15:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: re:Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mobiliarbus/GH/Lup... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158411 In a message dated 9/17/2006 7:52:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zanooda2 at yahoo.com writes: To answer your question, Shakespeare doesn't give any names AFAIK. One of the witches calls another something like "Graymalkin"of the wi think it's a name. I just remembered it because it sounded funny to me. ------------------------- Sherrie here: "Graymalkin" isn't one of the Wyrd Sisters - it's a cat. One of the Sisters refers to her familiar, who is obviously a gray cat (or possibly a hare, as the word "malkin" was used for both). (It also meant a slatternly or ill-kempt woman.) (And yes, I meant to spell it that way - it's "wyrd", not "weird". Pronounced the same, but it means "fate" or "destiny" [lit., "that which comes"], & connects the Three on the Heath with the Norns or the Fates - in other words, with the Triple Goddess.) I wonder if Binns ever covered that part of wizarding history in his classes??? After all, Hogwarts IS practically on the scene, as it were... Sherrie (who has often wondered of the curse on That Play would be broken if the Wyrd Sisters were to be played by real Witches...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 00:54:46 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:54:46 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158412 Mike again: Let's apply the conditions to both 'secrets'. First 12 GP is no longer the property of Sirius. It occurs to me that the owner of the property would have to consent to the property becoming part of the 'secret' in order for the 'secret' to be both *true* and *propietary*. Else, anyone could walk up to anothers house and Fidelius that house as their HQ. So when Sirius dies, the question of ownership becomes pertinent as to whether the Fidelius remains in place. When Harry tells DD that he can keep the HQ there, the Fidelius has just been affirmed, no break in the charm. Of course, if the house hadn't been his to give, nothing he says in the matter would affect the Fidelius. If the house had been passed to Bella, she would have made that decision. Snow: That makes it sound as though the Fidelius is conditional to the residence and I thought it was stated that it was conditional to the secret keeper only, which was Dumbledore in the case of Grimmald Place. Sirius dieing did not affect the Charm since he was not the secret keeper, which then makes perfect sense that the Fidelius was not the homestead but the Order. Dumbledore said that they moved the Order temporarily until they were certain of whom the residence belonged to. If we apply this same condition to Godric's Hollow then Peter being said keeper, who is not yet dead, would remain to hold the secret of the Fidelius and yet even muggles knew the whereabouts once the deed was served. No one could have found Godric's Hollow residence if Godric's Hollow were the protected item of the Fidelius charm. (I admit it doesn't make much sense the way in which we have been viewing it) Mike: If we read it they way Flitwick presents it the location of the Potters themselves was the 'secret'. How would Flitwick know? Did the Potters do the charm correctly? Did they make themselves the secret or their hiding place the secret? Well if Muggles started gathering around the ruined house, it seems the hiding place wasn't the 'secret' unless they didn't include Harry as one of the people hiding in that hiding place. My hypothesis follows below. Snow: Very good questions and I quite agree! Flitwick serves as a deterrent here by giving an example that we have all taken as fact. Flitwick is stating nothing more than an example but that does not specifically follow that it is residence that is protected. But I have to ask before I read on if you feel that the Fidelius did not protect Harry that night? Mike: My guess, is that the Potters made their 'secret' that **The Potters were hiding from Lord Voldemort**. Therefore LV could not find the Potters without the 'secret keeper' telling him where the Potters could be found. The 'secret' did not apply to any one who was not LV. So Hagrid and Sirius were not in the dark. Neither were a lot of others, but they couldn't reveal the location because of the charm. But since Peter revealed the 'secret' to LV, the charm was no longer *true* and thus dissolved. Snow: First, Peter is alive and is the secret keeper so no one could find Godric's Hollow if the Fidelius were placed on the residence unless Peter died. We know the residence could be found so the charm was not placed with Godric's Hollow, would be a fair assumption I think you agree with this. Second, James and Lily are in a situation where Sirius is suggesting the use of Peter as secret keeper in place of himself (at the last minute) so they may have been a bit apprehensive of including Harry under that specific charm (other protections may have been applied to Harry's protection that they felt more secure of). Lastly, when you state, "the Potters were hiding from Lord Voldemort" I'm only to guess that you include Harry in the scenario sinse he is a Potter. Mike: Would this make sense? If the Potters thought the charm was going to protect them, would they think it was only going to last for a couple of weeks? No, they would be expecting this to last for a long time. I suggest that they were not prepared to cut themselves off from the rest of the world for a long time. I also suggest that DD told them that LV was after them personally, at least that seems to be the common perception among the WW. Therefore, the Potters weren't hiding from anyone besides LV. It might seem imprudent to only include LV as your secrets objection, but they were young, cocky and still *bulletproof*, nobody else caused them concerned. Snow: This might be were I part company completely because the Potter's were not only protecting themselves but more so their child. Even if you take the prophecy out of the equation, you can't dismiss the protection factor of parents for their child. Especially if James and Lily were not aware of the prophecy because they would then be 'thee' intended victims and would want to protect the baby that much more merely being parents. If James and Lily were aware of the prophecy, I don't think much would have changed accept that they would have made alternate plans for the child's protection separate from their own so Harry would be that much more protected if Voldemort managed to infiltrate their own defense. Snow, thinking Mike and I may be on the same page but coloring the picture differently. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Sun Sep 17 18:55:14 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:55:14 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: <009701c6da82$0fdb6d00$0798400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158413 > Magpie: > the lesser of two evils because the alternative evil is all potential. > Dumbledore is really choosing between alternative protections for > Harry--does he grow up with a wizard under whatever other protections they > could work out (the kind of situation he lives with when he goes to the > Weasleys), or does he grow up under the blood protection? ... Who, for the years 1-13, would provide the best place for Harry? Blood protection is a major part of the equation, but add in what we see as society's (WW) view of Harry whe he's introduced. Consider the "Cinderella" aspect of the story, and you'll probably agree that a person brought up in adversity has a far greater chance of being untainted by the awe, distain, anger, fear, etc. that Harry has to endure once he enters his own society. This way he's "just Harry" who's had to face life pretty much on his own, and he's ready for anything. Tesha From ghost_silver_wolf at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 17 21:41:18 2006 From: ghost_silver_wolf at yahoo.co.uk (ghost_silver_wolf) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:41:18 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158414 I believe that Dubledore's purpose for Snape would be finished by the end of the year. Dumbledore knew about Voldermort's curse on the DADA job so why would he put Snape in that position if he didn't want to get rid of him, within a year? Though it does bring up the question, why did Dumbledore hire Quirrell, Lockhart and Lupin, knowing he was putting them at risk? "ghost_silver_wolf" From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Sep 18 05:07:39 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Sep 2006 05:07:39 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion Reminder, 9/25/2006, 12:00 am Message-ID: <1158556059.14.44777.m26@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158415 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Chapter Discussion Reminder Monday September 25, 2006 All Day (This event does not repeat.) Notes: Just a reminder: scheduled for next week is the chapter discussion for Chapter 26, "The Cave", summary to be written by zgirnius. Make sure to reread the chapter! To view the discussion schedule and to see which chapters still need a discussion leader, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database and click on the "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" table. If you'd like to take one of the available chapters, please let the elves know: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Set up birthday reminders http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 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 mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 05:28:34 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:28:34 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158416 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > Mike previously: > It occurs to me that the owner of the > property would have to consent to the property becoming part of > the 'secret' in order for the 'secret' to be both *true* and > *propietary*. Else, anyone could walk up to another's house and > Fidelius that house as their HQ. > > Snow: > That makes it sound as though the Fidelius is conditional to the > residence and I thought it was stated that it was conditional to > the secret keeper only, which was Dumbledore in the case of > Grimmald Place. Mike now: See, this is part of my premise. The secret has to be *proprietary*. You can't just call any place you want your 'secret' residence. DD can't walk up to Lucius Malfoy's mansion and invoke a Fidelius Charm saying that this house is the secret HQ of the Order of the Pigeons, thereby stopping the Malfoy's from finding their own house. DD doesn't have propriety over Lucius' house. It's the same for 12GP. Sirius, as the owner of the house, has to give his permission to make the house the HQ for the OotP and to be part of the 'secret'. Once Sirius is dead, the house passes to new ownership. If the new owner does not consent to it being the HQ then the Fidelius is dissolved. DD would no longer have propriety to claim the house as part of his 'secret'. That's why they moved the HQ out until the could positively determine that ownership was passed to Harry and that Harry had no objection to keeping the HQ there. > Snow again: > Sirius dying did not affect the Charm since he was not the secret > keeper, which then makes perfect sense that the Fidelius was not > the homestead but the Order. Dumbledore said that they moved the > Order temporarily until they were certain of whom the residence > belonged to. Mike: See above. Sirius dying affected the ownership of the house which *does* affect the applicability of the Fidelius. His dying doesn't necessarily break the charm nor reveal the 'secret' location of the OotP HQ, but the new owner could certainly invoke his/her right of ownership and refuse to allow their property to be someone elses 'secret' location. > Snow again: > If we apply this same condition to Godric's Hollow then Peter > being said keeper, who is not yet dead, would remain to hold the > secret of the Fidelius and yet even muggles knew the whereabouts > once the deed was served. No one could have found Godric's Hollow > residence if Godric's Hollow were the protected item of the > Fidelius charm. (I admit it doesn't make much sense the way in > which we have been viewing it) Mike: Right, which is why I view the 'secret' as no longer *true* once the Potters are no longer hiding (Lily and James dead, Harry removed). But, I further hypothesized the the Fidelius was cast as a "we are hiding from someone" charm. This would allow Flitwick's presentation to still apply to the Potters scenario and would make sense of the aftermath. If LV was told the 'secret' then the Fidelius is broken, anybody can find the Potters now. It doesn't matter that Peter, the SK, is still around, the Fidelius was already broken. > Snow: > > But I have to ask before I read on if you feel that the Fidelius > did not protect Harry that night? Mike: Yes, I think the Fidelius included Harry, at least I would hope so. But we must take into account what Flitwick said. That it is an immmensly complex spell and that the Potters may not have cast it correctly. > Snow: > First, Peter is alive and is the secret keeper so no one could > find Godric's Hollow if the Fidelius were placed on the residence > unless Peter died. We know the residence could be found so the > charm was not placed with Godric's Hollow, would be a fair > assumption I think you agree with this. Mike: Yes, except the part about Peter dying having an effect. JKR said the secret isn't broken by the SK dying. I don't think you meant it that way, did you? > Snow again: > > Lastly, when you state, "the Potters were hiding from Lord > Voldemort" I'm only to guess that you include Harry in the > scenario sinse he is a Potter. Mike: Yup :-) > Snow: > This might be were I part company completely because the Potter's > were not only protecting themselves but more so their child. Even > if you take the prophecy out of the equation, you can't dismiss > the protection factor of parents for their child. Especially if > James and Lily were not aware of the prophecy because they would > then be 'thee' intended victims and would want to protect the baby > that much more merely being parents. > > If James and Lily were aware of the prophecy, I don't think much > would have changed except that they would have made alternate > plans for the child's protection separate from their own so Harry > would be that much more protected if Voldemort managed to > infiltrate their own defense. > > Snow, thinking Mike and I may be on the same page but coloring the > picture differently. Mike: I'm not seeing where you and I part company. I don't disagree with anything you say in the above paragraphs and don't see where it's different from what I'm saying. Unless you mean that *bulletproof* crack? ;-) All I'm suggesting there is that the Potters may not have understood all the ramifications of how they worded their spell and/or may not have known what they could or couldn't make a 'secret' of. Maybe I could have added *inexperienced* instead of bulletproof. I don't think DD ever told the Potters about the prophesy per se, only that LV was after them and Harry personally. You have a good idea regarding seperate protection for Harry, but I just don't think they did it. To sum up, IMO there is no longer any Fidelius on the house in Godric's Hollow nor the hiding place of the Potters (all 3 of 'em). Also, IMO, the *whereabouts of the HQ of the OotP* is still a 'secret' and now that DD is dead, nobody new can find the *HQ* location. As to anyone finding the house at 12 GP, I think the protections the Blacks put on it are still in place, independent of the house being the "secret HQ of the OotP. So if the OotP moved out or disbanded, Harry might still have a problem with the Black's protections, or not. Who knows, who cares, it's not going to be a factor, Harry will never live there. Mike From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 02:52:10 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:52:10 -0500 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: <009701c6da82$0fdb6d00$0798400c@Spot> References: <009701c6da82$0fdb6d00$0798400c@Spot> Message-ID: <8ee758b40609171952t3516b9d8m9cecd08d1c4074a8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158417 > Magpie: > It's got nothing to do with Sirius being a bad guardian, or > the correct way to deal with an orphan, it's got to do with > Dumbledore's plans for the Chosen One. He's not choosing the > best home for Harry as a child, he's placing him under what > he thinks is the best protection against a Death Eaters, > with an eye towards Harry killing Voldemort later. It's not > even, imo, a question of the lesser of two evils because the > alternative evil is all potential. Dumbledore is really > choosing between alternative protections for Harry--does he > grow up with a wizard under whatever other protections they > could work out (the kind of situation he lives with when he > goes to the Weasleys), or does he grow up under the blood > protection? And if we remember his conversation with Harry later (in OotP???), he had been quite dispassionately weighing up the pros and cons, and did not expect to become as attached to Harry as he later became - Harry as a babe was a piece in a game of wizard chess that DD was playing - Harry as a teenager was loved and admired by DD to the extent that DD risked making a wrong move... montims From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 22:21:18 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:21:18 -0500 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40609171521m4a2d7196k16b572b7e19f3887@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158418 > bboyminn: >> I'm sure you will point out that Sirius /was/ on the scene to take Harry, and once again, I will point out that Sirius cooperated with Hagrid taking Harry. He even assisted Hagrid by giving him his motorcycle. That implies that Sirius is giving permission for Dumbledore to take control of Harry. Perhaps he only intended that to be temporary, and if Sirius hadn't got himself thrown in jail, he could have come out at a later date and tried to assert his right as designated guardian. You ask if Dumbledore waited for the Potter's Will to be probated? Do you really think that would be resolved is five or ten minutes after the crime? Of course, not. Harry needed care immediately. Dumbledore took on the role of that care and he did so with the implied permission of Sirius. Further, no one was going to immediately turn Harry over to Sirius when Sirius was a suspect in the killing of the Potters. >snip< << And if I might jump in - while Sirius was clearly concerned for Harry, I do believe he was too fixated on finding Peter the traitor to be able to give the injured baby his full attention. I believe this also jives with his behaviour in PoA, when he tries repeatedly to enter the boys' dorm to get to Peter, despite the risks - this is a very singleminded man... montims From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 18 11:18:03 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:18:03 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158419 ghost_silver_wolf wrote: > Though it does bring up the question, why did Dumbledore hire > Quirrell, Lockhart and Lupin, knowing he was putting them at risk? Potioncat: Dumbledore has hired around 40 teachers for that post, not just the few we've seen. OK, we might guess it took him 2 or 3 to catch on there was a curse. We don't know how bad the events were for those who came before our time. You know, it was very, very risky to hire a werewolf when you know something bad is going to happen. I wonder if DD was hoping all along that Lupin would be outed in a major way so that he could go undercover. Still, it could have been much worse. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 13:35:10 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eye Damage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060918133511.95416.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158420 Jamie Figiel wrote: Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at my daughter's school and I can't find it anywhere. The question is: Who suffered eye damage from opening a cursed chest? I figured if anyone would know it would be you guys. Thanks in advance. Jamie F. Katie writes: Mad-Eye Moody would be my best guess. Although I'm not positive...but I seem to remember that somewhere. Maybe someone else can back me up. I'm not sure. --------------------------------- 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 tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 13:56:02 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:56:02 -0000 Subject: Malkin ( was a bunch of other things) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158421 > Sherrie here: > > "Graymalkin" isn't one of the Wyrd Sisters - it's a cat. One of the Sisters refers to her familiar, who is obviously a gray cat (or possibly a hare, as the word "malkin" was used for both). (It also meant a slatternly or ill-kempt woman.) > Tonks: Oh, my... what does this mean for Madam Malkin?? Does this mean that she is not the *in* place to get your robes? Is she shabby? Or maybe she can transfigure into a cat. Should we be watching her more closely? Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 18 13:58:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:58:56 -0000 Subject: Shakespeare and witches Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158422 A few various and perhaps unrelated thoughts about Macbeth have sprung to mind, triggered by some recent posts. In message 113732 dated 24/09/04, which was part of a thread to do with Trevor the toad, I wrote the following: > Potioncat: > Were there 3 witches? What was the third familiar? Does anyone > else think it's interesting that there is a toad, and a cat in this story too? Geoff: Indeed there were three witches. I've just hauled out a very old copy of "Macbeth" from the bookshelf which is full of scribbled marginal notes from when my school did a version when I was in the Sixth Form. Being an all-boys' school, we did it Shakespearian style with all parts being cast for us lads and I cleverly collected First Witch (no laughing in the wings there!). So I have taken a "professional" interest in these observations and in the use of Shakespeare's lines in "the medium that dares not speak its name". My point was that, in the notes to my edition of the play, it suggests that Graymalkin was a common cat's name and implied that Paddock was use another name for a toad. The relevant scene from Macbeth is the following: "First witch: When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain? Second witch: When the hurly-burly's done, When the battle's lost, and won. Third witch: That will be ere the set of sun. First witch: Where the place? Second witch: Upon the Heath. Third witch: There to meet with Macbeth. First witch: I come, Graymalkin. All: Paddock calls anon; Fair is foul, and foul is fair, Hover through the fog and filthy air." (Macbeth Act 1: Scene 1) ***** In message 158410, zanooda made reference to the trees in Birnam Wood and is quite right that there is there is absolutely no suggestion of magic on Shakespeare's part. The final part of the prophecy presented to Macbeth is: "Third Apparition: Be lion-mettled, proud and take no care Who chafes, who frets or where conspirers are: Macbeth shall never vanquish'd be, until Great Birnam Wood, to high Dunsinane Hill Shall come against him." (Act 4: Scene 1) The way in which it works out in the plot is in the following: "Siward: What wood is this before us? Mentieth: The wood of Birnam Malcolm: Let every soldier hew him down a bough, And bare't before him, thereby shall we shadow The numbers of our host and make discovery Err in report of us" (Act 5: Scene 4) This rather cheap way of making the prophecy seem to come true - in the eyes of Macbeth at least ? incensed J.R.R.Tolkien immensely. It was from this and his love of trees that the great tree-shepherds, the Ents, came into creation in the "Lord of the Rings". Treebeard, the eldest, took a crucial part in the defeat of Saruman the woods really "came to high Isengard Hill against him" (apologies to the Bard). ***** In message 158411, Sherrie wrote: "Graymalkin" isn't one of the Wyrd Sisters (And yes, I meant to spell it that way - it's "wyrd", not "weird".) Geoff: Just to be pedantic (as ever!), according to my notes, in the collected Folio edition of 1623, the witches were variously referred to as "wayward" or "weyard". There is an interesting side-link to Purcell here that, in his opera, "Dido and Aeneas" ? which again sees the downfall of a hero through the agency of witches, one of the arias begins by addressing them as "Wayward Sisters". Finally, feeling yet another attack of pedantry coming on, I come to the subject of shifting trees around. "Mobiliarbus" seems to be another case of JKR either being bad at Latin or deliberately distorting it. The Latin word for tree is not "arbus" but "arbor" and "mobili-" seems to be related to "mobilis" (=moveable). I would have expected the use of "moveo" in its Imperative form "move" (the 'e' is sounded) which would have given "movearbor" as the required command. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 18 14:24:55 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:24:55 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609151640k7fd15c1ajcb9b5d082baf4d90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158423 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > The spark plugs, headlights, etc, on the Anglia seem to work well > enough - sure, it breaks down when they get to hogwarts, but shouldn't > the charms on the car itself interfere with those? > That's a good example, Jordan! I'm not familiar with British Fords, I wonder if that model would have had an electronic engine control? An electronic engine control is really a small, single purpose computer. Potentially then computers *do* work at Hogwarts! Was it Phill who recently suggested that Colin's camera is an Arugs C3? Do we know that from the books, from JKR's website, or is that movie contamination? I didn't mean to be dismissive of your post, BTW. It's just that once I re-read that FAQ on JKR's web site I realized that she didn't think all these things through and that there is unlikely to be any way to make everything consistent in regard to how electronics work or do not work at Hogwarts. Trying to do that for her is looking more and more like a fool's errand to me. If she doesn't understand "maths" she certainly doesn't understand electonics and we are just going to have to ignore the inconsistency, which after all is the hobgoblin of little minds. Hollywood has elevated this hobgoblin to high art, or at least huge profits. I guess I just expect more of book authors than screenwriters. Another one of life's disappointments, I'll get over it. Mark Twain had similar problems with James Fenimore Cooper but at least, like Geoff, I can suspend my disbelief and enjoy the HP novels anyway. It would be nice if we didn't have to suspend our disbelief over every stinking detail .... Ken From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 18 14:40:33 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:40:33 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: > Cliff: > Is that Ginny saying that after banging her head on her new kitchen > cabinet (US cupboard) door? Ken: Did you mean to say (UK cupboard)? I've heard both terms used interchangably in the US, it may depend on which region you are from as to which is preferred. When we lived briefly just north of London there were frequent ads on TV for a place called "Texas Tom's" where you could buy new kitchen "units". I can't recall Harry or anyone else in these novels referring to cabinets as units but that is what the Texas Tom ads called them. I wonder if that is standard UK terminology or since Tom was purported to be from Texas is that what people in the UK think *we* call them?? This was all brought back to me a few days ago when I happened to be driving behind a car with vanity license plates that read "TX TOM". Ken PS: I recently attributed something to someone named Phill in a post about electronics at Hogwarts when it should have been you. I apologize for the error. From kernsac at earthlink.net Mon Sep 18 14:40:00 2006 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:40:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eye Damage References: <20060918133511.95416.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <047801c6db30$52b2f1d0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 158425 Jamie Figiel < jsfigiel at aol.com > wrote: Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at my daughter's school and I can't find it anywhere. The question is: Who suffered eye damage from opening a cursed chest? I figured if anyone would know it would be you guys. Thanks in advance. You know, when I first read this, I had no idea; but just now I remembered in HBP that Hermione received a black eye from opening something or looking in something in the twins' room. I don't have time to look up the info, but I wonder if that's the answer they're looking for. Peggy From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 18 14:46:35 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:46:35 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Ken: > > Does anyone happen to know what day of the week it is or what the > phase of the moon is? > > Tonks: > Wondering why he wants to know that? Do you have a furry little > problem? Are you hiding out somewhere? > Ken: I live with four domestic wolves and I am one of the few people who still wear a watch that has a moon phase dial on it, do you suppose that Lupin has one too? Other than that I admit nothing. Hiding? Why would I hide now, the moon (checking watch) is nearly *new*? Looks like the warm, wet summer will give us a nice crop of Wolfsbane this year.... Ken From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 18 15:58:39 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:58:39 -0000 Subject: Moody's injuries & the Longbottoms (Re: Eye Damage) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609162114x449cc1d9l94f702ecf97515f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158427 Random: > My guess is Moody - if he got the eye just so he'd have the abilities > wouldn't charmed glasses have worked better? So the eye is probably a > replacement for an eye he lost that way if anything. Now, how'd he > lose his leg? Jen: The fact we haven't been told how Moody received his injuries makes me think they are important to the story, specifically to the Longbottom storyline. In the first trial Harry observes in the Pensieve, for Karkaroff, Moody has two normal eyes (and maybe his leg?) and he explains that he lost the chunk off his nose while capturing Rosier. Then he's present again at the Bagman trial and Harry makes no mention of his face, so presumably Moody still has two normal eyes. Then for the Longbottom trial, Moody is absent with no explanation. It all fits together so neatly--he's one of the best Aurors, he must know Frank and Alice since they work together, and four of Voldemort's most zealous supporters were captured. Who else likely did the job? That means Moody may yet have information about what happened to Neville the night of the torture, who the Secret Keeper was for the Longbottoms, and other mysteries yet to be resolved. Jen Reese From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 16:44:50 2006 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:44:50 -0000 Subject: Moody's injuries & the Longbottoms (Re: Eye Damage) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158428 What if Moody were the Auror assigned to protect them? That would really explain what happened to him, because the Death Eaters would have to go through him to get to the Longbottoms. KathyO > The fact we haven't been told how Moody received his injuries makes me think they are important to the story, specifically to the Longbottom storyline...That means Moody may yet have information about what happened to Neville the night of the torture, who the Secret Keeper was for the Longbottoms, and other mysteries yet to be resolved. > Jen Reese > From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 18 17:40:19 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:40:19 -0000 Subject: WHOOPS! Re: Chapter Discussion Reminder, 9/25/2006, 12:00 am In-Reply-To: <1158556059.14.44777.m26@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: > > Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal > > Chapter Discussion Reminder > Monday September 25, 2006 > All Day > > Notes: > Just a reminder: scheduled for next week is the chapter discussion > for Chapter 26, "The Cave", summary to be written by zgirnius. Make > sure to reread the chapter! Greetings, listees! I just wanted to make a correction to the above announcement. The chapter discussion scheduled for next Monday, September 25, is actually *Chapter 21* (The Unknowable Room), to be led by Marianne. So please re-read THAT one for the 25th, rather than Chapter 26. :) Sorry for any confusion the previous announcement may have caused! Shorty Elf, for the HPfGU List Elves From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 18:10:36 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moody's injuries & the Longbottoms (Re: Eye Damage) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060918181037.79896.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158430 Kathy wrote: What if Moody were the Auror assigned to protect them? That would really explain what happened to him, because the Death Eaters would have to go through him to get to the Longbottoms. KathyO > The fact we haven't been told how Moody received his injuries makes me think they are important to the story, specifically to the Longbottom storyline...That means Moody may yet have information about what happened to Neville the night of the torture, who the Secret Keeper was for the Longbottoms, and other mysteries yet to be resolved. > Jen Reese > Kati Katie responding to the theory on top: But Neville's parents WERE Aurors. I think it would be unlikely that Moody would be assigned to protect fellow Aurors - especially ones that were as gifted as the Longbottoms. However, I don't think it's at all unlikely that the Longbottoms and Moody were injured in the same battle, and that Moody's storyline will intersect dramatically with Neville's in Book 7. Neville had become a most important character (and one of my favorites!), and I think his storyline is far from resolved. I also have a sneaking suspicion that one or both of Neville's parents may recover once LV is dead. But we'll have to wait and see. But I doubt Moody was protecting the Longbottoms, since they were considered quite capable of doing it themselves. Katie Recent Activity 43 New Members Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS Harry potter half-blood prince Half-blood prince Harry potter Harry potter birthday party Harry potter collectible Yahoo! News US News Get the latest national news now Yahoo! TV Love TV? Listings, picks news and gossip. Y! GeoCities Share Your Passion Join the web's lar- gest community. . --------------------------------- 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 18:25:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:25:30 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158431 ghost_silver_wolf wrote: > I believe that Dubledore's purpose for Snape would be finished by > the end of the year. Dumbledore knew about Voldermort's curse on > the DADA job so why would he put Snape in that position if he didn't > want to get rid of him, within a year? > > Though it does bring up the question, why did Dumbledore hire > Quirrell, Lockhart and Lupin, knowing he was putting them at risk? > > > Carol responds: Why hire Snape for the DADA position? Perhaps because he's the best man for the job--one who's familiar with the Dark Arts and can not only teach the students what they need to know at this dangerous time, including nonverbal defensive spells and alternate means of fighting Dementors for those who can't cast a Patronus or can't bring a happy memory to mind when faced with a Dementor, but can also perform the nonteaching duties of the DADA teacher, such as removing curses from necklaces and stopping the curse on Katie Bell from killing her? Admittedly, Dumbledore couldn't anticipate those exact events, but Snape had saved *him* from being killed by the curse on the ring and he knew that the students and staff would be in unusual danger from Dark Magic throughout the year because Voldemort was back (and, IMO, Snape had told DD that Draco would be trying to kill him). Of course, there were other reasons for hiring Snape as well--no other qualified teachers available and a need to bring the old Potions Master, Slughorn, back to Hogwarts--but I think that Dumbledore had been waiting to appoint Snape to the DADA position until he really needed him. He must have known that neither he nor Snape would last the year, and it was time to put Snape to good use while he still could. And, of course, there's the idea circulating around this list that he expected Snape to go into deep cover as a Death Eater at the end of the year. As for why Dumbledore would hire those other people, he had to have a DADA teacher, and he had a specific need for Lupin (the old friend of Sirius Black) and the real Moody (a former Auror) at the time he hired them. And Quirrell wasn't evil the first year he taughr. He was just seized with a mysterious urge to go off to Albania to learn more about the Dark Arts. Oops. IMO, Dumbledore told each of those teachers that it was a one-year appointment and/or that the post was jinxed. Can't prove it, of course, but Crouch/Moody certainly intended to stay for only one year, so the real Moody must have known he'd been hired only because of the extra danger presented by the TWT. Carol, who thinks that Snape is the best DADA teacher Harry ever had--too bad Harry doesn't realize it From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 18:13:29 2006 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:13:29 -0000 Subject: Eye Damage In-Reply-To: <047801c6db30$52b2f1d0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158432 HERE'S YOUR ANSWER still pointing at Black's chest, looking down at him. A livid bruise was rising around Black's left eye and his nose was bleeding. "You killed my parents," said Harry, his voice shaking slightly but his wand quite steady. Black stared >From the Lexicon KathyO --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Kern" wrote: > > Jamie Figiel < > jsfigiel at ... > > wrote: Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at my daughter's > school and I can't find it anywhere. The question is: Who suffered eye > damage from opening a cursed chest? I figured if anyone would know it > would be you guys. Thanks in advance. > > You know, when I first read this, I had no idea; but just now I remembered > in HBP that Hermione received a black eye from opening something or looking > in something in the twins' room. I don't have time to look up the info, but > I wonder if that's the answer they're looking for. > > Peggy > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 19:06:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:06:43 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158433 Mike wrote: > The secret has to be *proprietary*. You can't just call any place you want your 'secret' residence. DD can't walk up to Lucius Malfoy's mansion and invoke a Fidelius Charm saying that this house is the secret HQ of the Order of the Pigeons, thereby stopping the Malfoy's from finding their own house. DD doesn't have propriety over Lucius' house. It's the same for 12GP. Sirius, as the owner of the house, has to give his permission to make the house the HQ for the OotP and to be part of the 'secret'. > . . . I view the 'secret' as no longer *true* once the Potters are no longer hiding (Lily and James dead, Harry removed). > But, I further hypothesized the the Fidelius was cast as a "we are hiding from someone" charm. This would allow Flitwick's presentation to still apply to the Potters scenario and would make sense of the aftermath. If LV was told the 'secret' then the Fidelius is broken, anybody can find the Potters now. It doesn't matter that Peter, the SK, is still around, the Fidelius was already broken. Carol responds: I disagree that the secret has to be "proprietary." I think it simply has to be a legitimate secret. "Malfoy manor is the headquarters of the Pigeons" is not a real secret and would not work to conceal Malfoy manor from its owners, and "the Potters are hiding from Lord Voldemort" is not a secret. Everyone in the Order and most of the Death Eaters already knew it, not to mention Voldemort himself. the secret has to be something along the lines of "The Potters are hiding at [specific address], Godric's Hollow." The house might still be visible since it didn't have the additional protections on it that Mr. Black had placed on 12 GP, but no one who hadn't been told the secret could see the Potters living there, as Flitwick indicates--and as the Charms teacher, he would certainly know how the charm works. I don't think that the Potters could come and go freely. I think that someone else, say Peter Pettigrew or Sirius Black, had to bring them food. Or maybe Dumbledore provided the house, stocked with food and whatever else they would need, in which case he "forgot" the location of his own house when Pettigrew became the Secret Keeper and neglected to tell him the secret. (I still don't think DD knew the secret until the charm was broken, as explained below.) If James couldn't leave the house (or yard) without breaking the charm (if he leaves, he's no longer hiding there, right?), he wouldn't need the Invisibility Cloak, so why not give it to DD either for the Order members' use or to hold on to until James and Lily could come out of hiding? I agree that the Fidelius Charm (note its name: 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://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=fidel&ending= ) may well have been broken the moment that Pettigrew told Voldemort the secret and was certainly broken when the house was destroyed and the Potters, two of them dead, were no longer hiding there because the secret itself no longer existed. "The Potters are hiding in [address] Godric's Hollow" was no longer true and the secret was invalidated at that time, if not at the very moment that Pettigrew proved faithless. I think that Dumbledore had *not* been told the secret, and his knowing (as he had known before the secret was placed inside Pettigrew) where the Potters had been hiding was enough to tell him that they had been betrayed and were either in great danger or already dead. But, IMO, he would have needed Snape's faded Dark Mark to tell him that Harry was alive and Voldemort defeated. Carol, agreeing that the charm was no longer in effect when Hagrid arrived and Harry was visible amid the rubble (along with his parents' bodies) because the Fidelius was already broken From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 19:42:12 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:42:12 -0000 Subject: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158434 BAW: Sirius was, at that time, a wanted criminal. He was believed to have betrayed James & Lily to Voldemort and to have killed Peter Pettigrew. WE know from hindsight that he was framed, but nobody knew that at the time. I think that, notwithstanding the Potter's Will, nobody would have considered Sirius as a proper guardian. a_svirn: No, he wasn't at the time a wanted criminal. He was proclaimed a criminal only after his showdown with Pettigrew, and "wanted" criminal twelve long years later, after he broke from Azkaban. BAW: > If his parents had put him down for Hogwarts before they died, > his guardians should honor that wish. a_svirn: As Carol pointed out upthread it was magical quill that put Harry's name down for Hogwarts. And even if it didn't, how should the Dursleys know about their wishes? It's not like they were privileged to read their Will. And in any case I don't see how come the Dursleys, who genuinely despise the Potters and the WW, must honour their wishes while for Dumbledore, who was their mentor and comrade-in-arms, it's perfectly OK to disregard them? Talk about double standards. BAW: We, of course, don't know what was in the letter, but if one of the conditions was that he was to be sent to Hogwarts at the proper time--which is not unlikely--well, we know how the Wizardling World feels about vows and contracts. a_svirn: But the Dursleys do not belong to the WW. And whatever they owe Harry, they owe Dumbledore nothing. > a_svirn: > And how does all this apply to Harry's situation? Did > Dumbledore wait for the Potters will to be probated? > Is Hagrid a magical equivalent of a police officer? > bboyminn: You seem determined to be contrary. a_svirn: You seem to like making personal remarks like that. bboyminn: You ask if Dumbledore waited for the Potter's Will to be probated? Do you really think that would be resolved is five or ten minutes after the crime? Of course, not. Harry needed care immediately. a_svirn: So? Taking care of Harry until things are sorted out and giving him right away to the Dursleys is two different kettles of fish. bboyminn: Dumbledore took on the role of that care and he did so with the implied permission of Sirius. a_svirn: Not true. He simply told Hagrid to bring Harry. bboyminn: Further, no one was going to immediately turn Harry over to Sirius when Sirius was a suspect in the killing of the Potters. a_svirn: Except that he wasn't. Dumbledore was the only one who might have any suspicions. bboyminn: On a tangental note, as discussed in other parts of this and other threads, people wonder how Sirius could have been thrown in prison without an investigation. The answer is simple, he didn't defend himself, he didn't protest is arrest or his being sent to prison. He was so stunned with shock and racked with guilt that he didn't claim he was innocent. He didn't explain what happened. He may have even made statements that implied his guilt. a_svirn: So it's his own fault that he wasn't given a fair trial? From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 19:48:46 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:48:46 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158435 > bboyminn wrote: > > Sirius was thought to be the > Secret Keeper, the Secret was clearly betrayed, the left > Sirius with suspicion pointing at him. The authorities, > muggle or magic, would be unlikely to release Harry to > Sirius or anyone else unless they were sure of his > safety. > > I'm sure you will point out that Sirius /was/ on the > scene to take Harry, and once again, I will point out > that Sirius cooperated with Hagrid taking Harry. He even > assisted Hagrid by giving him his motorcycle. That > implies that Sirius is giving permission for Dumbledore > to take control of Harry hpfan_mom now: At the time he arrived in GH, did Hagrid believe that Sirius was the Potters' Secret-Keeper? If so, wouldn't he have been a little hesitant to borrow the motorcycle and use it to carry The Boy Who Lived, since the secret had clearly been given up? And how did Hagrid get to GH, if he had to leave by borrowed transportation? I wondered about Hagrid's means of travel on a post a long time ago, asking how he got to the Rock-in-the-Sea in PS/SS. Perhaps it's those "dead useful" thestrals. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 19:47:50 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:47:50 -0000 Subject: Eye Damage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158436 --- "Jamie Figiel" wrote: > > Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at > my daughter's school and I can't find it anywhere. > > The question is: > 'Who suffered eye damage from opening a cursed chest?' > > I figured if anyone would know it would be you guys. > Thanks in advance. > > Jamie F. > bboyminn: Personally, I think either you don't really understand the question, or the person asking the question is in error. There have been /chests/ in the books, enchanted chest, but I don't recall any cursed chests, and I don't recall anyone being injured by one. Now I suppose it could be someone from the Chocolate Frog or other Wizard Trading Cards, but that would be an extremely obscure question. Now if the question were actually something like - Name a person who suffered eye damage and who owned a cursed chest? Then the answer would be Moody, but still the question, even rephrased in this form, is in error because Moody's trunk wasn't cursed, it was enchanted. Enchanted refers to the application of general magic; Cursed refer to the application of uniformly negative magic. Moody had a magical enchanted trunk but it was not cursed. Based on the way the question is phrased, I don't think anyone in the books fits. Though, if you find the answer, please let us know. PS: Hermione was punched by a magic trick telescope. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 19:52:14 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:52:14 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: <009701c6da82$0fdb6d00$0798400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158437 > Magpie: I think we're meant > to read it more the way Sherry does, just accepting that this was what > Dumbledore thought was best and let's just not think about the potential > alternatives. a_svirn: Actually, I believe we are supposed to think of alternatives. I even believe that the whole thing was exactly the monumental mistake Dumbledore hinted about when he bragged about his brainpower. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 20:31:18 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:31:18 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158438 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > ... Of course, there were other reasons for hiring > Snape as well--no other qualified teachers available > and a need to bring the old Potions Master, Slughorn, > back to Hogwarts--but I think that Dumbledore had been > waiting to appoint Snape to the DADA position until he > really needed him. bboyminn: I think you have hit on the real reason; there was no one else. As someone else pointed out it's been 30 or 40 years since Voldemort cursed the position, that means Dumbledore has been through 30 or 40 (or whatever) DADA teachers. By the time we enter the story, it looks to me like he is scraping the bottom of the barrel; Quirrel's incompetent, Lockhart's a fraud, Lupin's a werewolf, Moody is mad, and Umbridge is a vindictive spiteful interferring counter-productive old b... b... b... ...witch. There is no one left who is willing to take on the position except Snape. It would seem much easier to find a new Potions teacher than to find a new DADA teacher. To the last part of Carol's statement, I will only partly agree. I think it is critical at this time, now that Voldemort is truly back and the DE's are active, to have a REAL DADA teacher, one who knows his stuff. But I don't think Dumbledore was holding Snape in reserve intentionally. I think he simply ran out of options and had to pick the only available and qualified candidate. As to the other ways in which Dumbledore made use of Snape, Snape would have been available to perform those functions not matter what position he held. So, Dumbledore really doesn't gain anything in terms of secondary aspects from given Snape the job. > Carol Concludes: > > IMO, Dumbledore told each of those teachers that it was > a one-year appointment and/or that the post was jinxed. > Can't prove it, of course, ... > > Carol, who thinks that Snape is the best DADA teacher > Harry ever had--too bad Harry doesn't realize it > bboyminn: I suspect it was common knowledge, or suspicion, that the DADA was /rumored/ to be cursed. I have no problem with Dumbledore reminding candidates of the /rumor/ and suspect most of the candidates brought the subject up themselves. I don't think Dumbledore hide it but I also don't think he emphasized it. I also agree that Dumbledore had long ago accepted that no teacher would stay more than a year, and so that was probably part of the agreement. As to your parting comment, I definitely agree. Snape was the best DADA teacher Harry ever had, but Harry resisted that knowledge because it came from Snape. Snape classes dealt with things that are critical for Harry to know. He presented alternative ways to deal with Dementors, which Harry rejected. He taught non-vebal magic which is criticial to dueling, but which Harry was terrible at. Snape as good as says in his parting statement that he had given Harry the tools he needs if he will only accept them and learn them; controlling his emotions, occlumency, non-verbal magic, etc.... "No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter. ...You haven't got the nerve or the ability--." "Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 18 20:53:04 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:53:04 -0000 Subject: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158439 > BAW: > Sirius was, at that time, a wanted criminal. He was believed to > have betrayed James & Lily to Voldemort and to have killed Peter > Pettigrew. WE know from hindsight that he was framed, but nobody > knew that at the time. I think that, notwithstanding the Potter's > Will, nobody would have considered Sirius as a proper guardian. > > a_svirn: > No, he wasn't at the time a wanted criminal. He was proclaimed a > criminal only after his showdown with Pettigrew, and "wanted" > criminal twelve long years later, after he broke from Azkaban. Pippin: If I can butt in here, Fudge implies that Sirius was wanted before Pettigrew caught up with him. "Black was tired of his double agent role, he was ready to declare his support openly for You-Know-Who, and he seems to have planned this for the moment of the Potters' death. [...] His master had fallen at the very moment when he, Black, had shown his true colors as a traitor." -- PoA ch 10 This sounds as though other evidence had been planted revealing that Black was a Death Eater. The Ministry did not know that Black had been the Potter's secret-keeper and yet, they arrested Black *before* they'd had a chance to get evidence from the Muggle witnesses. The fact that he was standing there laughing shouldn't have been enough to incriminate a member of the Order unless they already thought he was guilty. > BAW: > We, of course, don't know what was in the letter, but if one of > the conditions was that he was to be sent to Hogwarts at the proper > time--which is not unlikely--well, we know how the Wizardling World > feels about vows and contracts. > > a_svirn: > But the Dursleys do not belong to the WW. And whatever they owe > Harry, they owe Dumbledore nothing. Pippin: They owe Harry a suitable education, something the local comprehensive was not equipped to give a magical child. Certainly they didn't think it was good enough for their own child. And we don't know what, if anything, Petunia owed to Dumbledore, since we haven't seen any of their correspondence. The gift of the motorcycle implies that in the end Sirius sent Harry to his Aunt and Uncle with his blessing. Whether that was wise of him or not can be debated, but if he was Harry's guardian, as he claims, then he had the right to make that decision. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 21:37:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:37:02 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Magpie: > I think we're meant > > to read it more the way Sherry does, just accepting that this was > what > > Dumbledore thought was best and let's just not think about the > potential > > alternatives. > > a_svirn: > Actually, I believe we are supposed to think of alternatives. I even > believe that the whole thing was exactly the monumental mistake > Dumbledore hinted about when he bragged about his brainpower. > Carol responds: That's possible, of course, but I don't think so. Dumbledore is confident that the blood protection is in place and will remain in place until Harry's seventeenth birthday. Also, although he regrets Harry's mistreatment at the hands of the Dursleys, he sees that Harry has suffered no longterm psychological or physical damage from that treatment. In fact, though this was certainly no part of Dumbledore's plan, he has developed self-reliance and some degree of indifference to discomfort as the result of that treatment. He can certainly tolerate the dislike and suspicion of his schoolmates (in CoS and the first part of GoF, for example) better than Ron can, and, unlike Ron, he's not afraid of spiders. I'm not defending the Dursleys, just noting that here as often in the HP books, good comes out of evil. I do think that Dumbledore made the best choice available to him at the time, and I think it would have been irresponsible (or, even, to use, Lupinlore's favorite word, reprehensible) for him to risk letting Sirius Black get hold of Baby!Harry when, as far as Dumbledore knew, Black had just betrayed the Potters to their deaths. Not only Harry's fate but the fate of the Wizarding World lay in Dumbledore's hands at that moment, and he couldn't risk giving Harry to a man who might either murder him on the spot or turn him over to Voldemort. He had to come up with a plan that would guarantee Harry's safety, and giving him to Sirius certainly would not have done so. We don't have the word of anyone other than Sirius himself that the Potters made him Harry's guardian. We know for a fact only that they made him Harry's godfather, which is not the same thing. If the Potters made a will, their copy would certainly have been destroyed along with the house, and no other copy has been produced. So even if Black was Harry's *legal* guardian rather than that being the intention of the Potters but not put in writing, how could Dumbledore know? And even if he did know, surely Harry's safety was more important than Black's right to guardianship even if Black was his legal guardian? If Black hadn't gone after Pettigrew, if he had instead gone to Dumbledore and explained the situation, I could see his having a claim. As it is, I see nothing wrong with Dumbledore's actions. And if Black genuinely cared about Harry's welfare, I think he would have relinquished his claim after talking to Dumbledore, who had given Harry a protection Black could not give him by placing him with his mother's blood relative, Petunia. (BTW, I think the blood protection protects him from real harm from the Dursleys--Petunia doesn't succeed in hitting him with the frying pan and Vernon feels an electric shock when he tries to choke Harry.) Imagine for a moment Baby!Harry placed with Sirius black, a twenty-two year-old known for his recklessness. He rides away with Harry on his flying motorcycle, but his mind is on revenge against Peter Pettigrew. Should he go into hiding from the Death Eaters, who know that he's a member of the Order and a friend of the Potters, or should he go after Peter and seek revenge? Really, Black would have had only one sensible choice--go to Dumbledore for help. If Harry would not have been safe with a wiaarding family (and he would not have been able to go out on the street without being recognized), surely he'd have been much less safe with rash, reckless, arrogant young Sirius Black? The Death Eaters had not been caught, and those that remained loyal would not have hesitated to kill either Sirius Black or Baby!Harry. Carol, believing that Dumbledore made the only choice that would guarantee Harry's surviving to the age of eleven From dsueiro at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 15:31:56 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:31:56 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8de2fdd80609180831p43948c65l82e431053f4809b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158441 Potioncat: > Dumbledore has hired around 40 teachers for that post, not just the few > we've seen. OK, we might guess it took him 2 or 3 to catch on there was > a curse. We don't know how bad the events were for those who came > before our time. > Diego: In my opinion, Dumbledore didn't state at any moment that the curse involved something bad happening to the person holding DADA post, just the fact that none of them managed to stay on the job after a year. We don't know for sure whether some of the professors teaching DADA in the past, after the purported curse was in effect, just walked away from the job for personal reasons, without something bad happening to them (or maybe we know and I have misread something). Diego From dsueiro at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 15:22:58 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:22:58 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eye Damage In-Reply-To: <047801c6db30$52b2f1d0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> References: <20060918133511.95416.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> <047801c6db30$52b2f1d0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: <8de2fdd80609180822h510f9ca0h7071c765b06b7c79@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158442 Peggy: > You know, when I first read this, I had no idea; but just now I remembered > in HBP that Hermione received a black eye from opening something or looking > in something in the twins' room. I don't have time to look up the info, but > I wonder if that's the answer they're looking for. > Diego: I have no idea either. But I've just checked and Hermione got her eye bruised with a telescope, not with a chest. Diego From courtneyccox at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 16:20:59 2006 From: courtneyccox at yahoo.com (Courtney (Cox) Grauvogl) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:20:59 -0000 Subject: Eye Damage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158443 > >>Jamie F.: > Help! I need an answer to a question for a contest at my daughter's > school and I can't find it anywhere. The question is: Who suffered eye > damage from opening a cursed chest? I figured if anyone would know it > would be you guys. Thanks in advance. Courtney: I cannot at the moment remember anyone getting/suffering eye damage from opening a cursed chest. Hermione suffered a black eye from looking through Fred/George's "punching telescope" in HBP before they went to Diagon Alley to buy school supplies for the year. Courtney From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 22:05:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:05:57 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158444 Steve wrote: > To the last part of Carol's statement, I will only partly > agree. I think it is critical at this time, now that > Voldemort is truly back and the DE's are active, to have > a REAL DADA teacher, one who knows his stuff. But I don't > think Dumbledore was holding Snape in reserve > intentionally. I think he simply ran out of options and > had to pick the only available and qualified candidate. > > As to the other ways in which Dumbledore made use of > Snape, Snape would have been available to perform those > functions not matter what position he held. So, > Dumbledore really doesn't gain anything in terms of > secondary aspects from given Snape the job. Carol responds: I can't prove it, of course, but I think Dumbledore knew that at some point he would have to make Snape the DADA teacher, if only because he would be the only available candidate, and he didn't want to waste him, or lose his services too early, by giving him the position before it was absolutely necessary. And I would argue that making potions as needed (Mandrake solution, Wolfsbane Potion, Veritaserum) was part of Snape's duties as Potions Master, whereas removing the curse from the necklace and saving Katie were part of his duties as DADA teacher. If someone else had the position, that would have been their job, not Snape's, just as it was Lockhart's job to go after the monster in the Chamber of Secrets (as he had been bragging that he would do all year). When Lockhart says that he'll brew the Mandrake Restorative Potion, Snape responds coldly, "I believe I am the Potions Master at this school." At the end of the year, when Ginny is taken into the Chamber of Secrets, Snape tells him that his moment has come at last. No one questions that it's Lockhart's job to deal with the monster (though they doubt his ability to do it): all the other teachers side with Snape. And Harry and Ron, overhearing the conversation, decide to go to Lockhart for help, and when he tries to refuse, Harry says, "But you're the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher! You can't go now! Not with all the Dark stuff going on here!" It seems to me that, just as it's Sprout's job in that book to grow the mandrakes and Pomfrey's to administer the potion, it's Snape's job to make the potion and Lockhart's to deal with the "Dark stuff." In HBP, Dumbledore knows there's going to be even more "Dark stuff" to deal with, especially if he and Harry manage to find a Horcrux, and he wants someone familiar with the Dark Arts in the position of DADA teacher. Imagine if there had been another DADA teacher and McGonagall had sent Filch to Snape, the Potions master, with the necklace. Don't you think the DADA teacher would have stepped in and insisted it was his job? And Snape uses Lupin's position as DADA instructor as an excuse to consult with him about the Marauder's without revealing that Lupin is one of the makers of the map (Dark magic is "supposed to be your area of expertise"). In HBP, Dark Magic/DADA is Snape's area of expertise, and Potions is left to Slughorn (unless Snape wants a student to sort rotten flobberworms from good ones for detention). At least we agree that, as far as teaching itself goes, Severus Snape is the best man for the job. Carol, wishing that the position hadn't been cursed and Snape could have taught DADA from the moment he first applied From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 00:08:51 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:08:51 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > I disagree that the secret has to be "proprietary." I think it > simply has to be a legitimate secret. "Malfoy manor is the > headquarters of the Pigeons" is not a real secret and would not > work to conceal Malfoy manor from its owners, and "the Potters are > hiding from Lord Voldemort" is not a secret. Everyone in the Order > and most of the Death Eaters already knew it, not to mention > Voldemort himself. The secret has to be something along the lines > of "The Potters are hiding at [specific address], Godric's > Hollow." Mike: Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I like the idea that the Potters would have to include a location to *limit* the knowledge dispersion of the 'secret' down to a reasonable level. I still want to include the objection of Voldemort into the secret. Something like: *We, the 3 Potters, are hiding from Lord voldemort at 10-31 Hollow Lane*. It's always been my impression that the Potters were told that LV himself and only himself was after them. (at least, that's how I picture DD phrasing it without actually spilling the beans about the prophesy). I also have the impression that the Potters didn't cast an airtight Fidelius, they left themselves some outs which also left some holes in their defenses. No canon really to support this, just my overall impression after putting all the pieces together. As to propietary, here I've got to disagree. Let me spin a little fictitious scenario for ya. Let's say Sirius' good buddy from Azkaban, a Mr. Heeliecta Buttin, was visiting Sirius at 12 GP *before* anybody decides to call it the HQ and *before* DD casts the Fidelius. Now, Mr Buttin meets all these Order mambers and asks Sirius what's going on here? Sirius explains the situation with LV and the Order. Mr Buttin, although he isn't an Order member himself, decides that #12 would make a good HQ and furthermore it should be under a Fidelius Charm. So, without permission from Sirius and without DD's knowledge, Mr Buttin casts a Fidelius Charm making 12 GP the 'secret' HQ of the OotP and himself as Secret Keeper. How does that play for you? See, I think *proprietary* has to be integral to the ability to cast a *proper* Fidelius. > Carol again: > I don't think that the Potters could come and go freely. > > If James couldn't leave the house (or yard) without breaking the > charm (if he leaves, he's no longer hiding there, right?) Mike: Well, he could unprotected while 'out' then re-protected when he comes back 'in'. This is where I *feel* the Potters inexperience came in. I think they included LV's preclusion of knowledge in their 'secret' so they would have a little more freedom of movement and a little less restriction of access to themselves. It's how the whole scenario **reads** to me. They were counting on DD's words that LV wanted them personally (as Fudge told us in PoA), and probably believed they could get away with just precluding LV or maybe LV and his DEs. I'm not saying it was the smart thing to do, I just read the story that way. If anyone likes a different take on it, fine with me. But I also think my scenario ties all the factors together real nicely and answers all the questions satisfactorily. Mike From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Sep 19 00:46:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:46:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection References: Message-ID: <002a01c6db85$1de4e030$ef80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158446 > Pippin: > If I can butt in here, Fudge implies that Sirius was wanted before > Pettigrew caught up with him. > "Black was tired of his double agent role, he was ready to declare > his support openly for You-Know-Who, and he seems to have > planned this for the moment of the Potters' death. [...] His > master had fallen at the very moment when he, Black, had > shown his true colors as a traitor." -- PoA ch 10 > > This sounds as though other evidence had been planted revealing > that Black was a Death Eater. Magpie: Actually, to me it sounds as if Fudge is making up the story in retrospect, showing how people's minds work. He "knows" Sirius is guilty, he knows he declared himself for Voldemort at the moment Voldemort fell, and he's put them together into a narrative for Sirius that's completely untrue--but seems true given the facts they have. Your point about their arresting Sirius before interviewing any witnesses is persuasive, but knowing how the Wizarding justice system works I actually have no problem believing they jumped to conclusions every step of the way and had no case against Sirius at all--except that they knew somebody was the traitor and when this happened it all "fell into place" around Sirius. As an aside, it really fascinates me how this thread echoes Sirius' life in canon. I don't mean that as a criticism on the criticism of him as a guardian, but it's sad that a basically good guy who never got the chance to prove himself in any way but by suffering and dying for others is so easily dismissed as unfit for the life he was originally supposed to have. He was just never quite important enough to Dumbledore's plans to flourish under him--black sheep all the way. I feel like this might ultimately make him he and Regulus a more poingnant pair, somehow. -m From CliffVDY at juno.com Tue Sep 19 01:06:26 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:06:26 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158447 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > Cliff: > > Is that Ginny saying that after banging her head on her new kitchen > > cabinet (US cupboard) door? > > Ken: > > Did you mean to say (UK cupboard)? I've heard both terms used > interchangeably in the US, it may depend on which region you are from > as to which is preferred. > PS: I recently attributed something to someone named Phill in a post > about electronics at Hogwarts when it should have been you. I > apologize for the error. Cliff here: Yes, that was movie contamination as I still-framed the DVD to get a closeup of the camera being pried out of Colin's hand. The Argus brand was clearly visible and I knew it was an Argus C-3 when I saw the movie. It is the only widely available camera of that type (simple, split view rangefinder, with separate, bulb flash). In that it is probably the only choice as its 1945-1950 era fits 1991 Hogwarts. I was just guessing the British would say "cabinet" instead of "cupboard" but there were many other terms. There are similarities between Phill and Cliff. Five letters. Consonant, consonant, vowel, double consonant. ;-] From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 01:29:18 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:29:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection In-Reply-To: <002a01c6db85$1de4e030$ef80400c@Spot> References: <002a01c6db85$1de4e030$ef80400c@Spot> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0609181829o6443bfc0ke215f471eab317ef@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158448 > > Magpie: > Actually, to me it sounds as if Fudge is making up the story in > retrospect, > showing how people's minds work. He "knows" Sirius is guilty, he knows he > declared himself for Voldemort at the moment Voldemort fell, and he's put > them together into a narrative for Sirius that's completely untrue--but > seems true given the facts they have. Your point about their arresting > Sirius before interviewing any witnesses is persuasive, but knowing how > the > Wizarding justice system works I actually have no problem believing they > jumped to conclusions every step of the way and had no case against Sirius > > at all--except that they knew somebody was the traitor and when this > happened it all "fell into place" around Sirius. > Debbie: Yup, that dubious backstory about how Sirius had tired of his double-agent role was undoubtedly embellishment invented by Fudge. However, there was every reason to arrest Sirius. My understanding of English law (which is highly suspect as it is largely based on the press) is that a person can be detained for a period of time without being charged. And when Sirius was arrested, he was presiding over a crater in a Muggle street, laughing like a maniac, with 14 dead muggles and Pettigrew's finger in front of him. Remember, too, that Fudge was then work for Crouch's Department of Magical Law Enforcement. As with the Longbottom affair some months later, the first priority must have been to catch those responsible, or at least those apparently responsible, so that the public will breathe easy and maintain Crouch's popularity. And Sirius was there for the taking. The circumstantial evidence was already there, and if there was any evidence to the contrary, the eyewitnesses' memories were conveniently wiped away. Besides, when Dumbledore came forward asserting that Sirius was Secret-Keeper -- case closed. Besides, in Sirius' emotional state, it wouldn't have taken much to get a confession out of him. Thirteen years later, Sirius is still so consumed with guilt at the Secret-Keeper switch that he did not deny killing James and Lily ("I'm to blame . . . I know it . . . "). In fact, I'll bet he pled guilty, thinking he deserved it. Debbie still disppointed that Fudge faded out of the picture without confessing that he fabricated much of his account > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Sep 19 01:45:52 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:52 -0000 Subject: Inappropriate charms on a goat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158449 I am reading _Doctor Mirabilis_, the fictional recreation of the life of Roger Bacon, by James Blish. It recounts the Father of Experimental Science's first challenge to the Auctoritates, demonstrating by experiment(!) that an adamant could not be broken by the blood of a goat. In Blish's novel Bacon kept the goat in his apartment. It made me think of Aberforth. Then I thought, naw, I can't see JK Rowling being interested enough in the history of science to know anything about Roger Bacon. But then I realized that while I see alchemists like Roger Bacon and others, from Jabir to Newton, as proto-scientists groping in the dim light of the dawn of reason for a theory of matter, others might see them as figures of occult- mysticism-whatever. So Rowling might be familiar with Roger Bacon that way--Nicholas Flamel and all that. So for those of you who are into that, the Aberforth-Roger Bacon connection might be a line of inquiry From kernsac at earthlink.net Tue Sep 19 02:02:42 2006 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:02:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eye Damage References: <20060918133511.95416.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> <047801c6db30$52b2f1d0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> <8de2fdd80609180822h510f9ca0h7071c765b06b7c79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001201c6db8f$b1cdf930$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 158450 Diego: I have no idea either. But I've just checked and Hermione got her eye bruised with a telescope, not with a chest. Diego Peggy: Yeah, I knew it was with a telescope, but I thought she opened something to find the telescope. Perhaps not. I'll be interested to hear what the answer turns out to be to the contest question. Peggy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 02:03:48 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:03:48 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158451 > Steve: > > You seem determined to be contrary. We get your point, > Sirius was appointed by Harry's parents as guardian, but > that is not that. Nothing exists in a vacuum, > circumstances DO matter. Sirius was thought to be the > Secret Keeper, the Secret was clearly betrayed, the left > Sirius with suspicion pointing at him. Alla: Determined to be contrary to what? I understand that you are addressing a_svirn, but I absolutely don't see what point you are making with this sentence. Sorry. As to the nothing exists in the vacuum, well, that is true indeed and as I mentioned earlier there are certainly could be mitigating circumstances to Dumbledore's decision to disregard what Harry's parents wanted for their boy, if something happens to them. And actually this is the very rare case where I would agree with Carol in thread about Sirius - certainly if Sirius was made the guardian orally, then Dumbledore may not have known about it and then his actions will look differently to me ( unless Carol was saying that Sirius was lying - then I'd like to express my disagreement here :)) So what I was saying? Oh, yes, the bottom line to me remains the same - Dumbledore better have better reasons than he **thought** that Sirius betrayed the Potters without any additional proof to that, otherwise he just looks way too manipulative to me. I sincerely **hope** that Dumbledore knew something we don't know yet when he sent Hagrid to pick up Harry, I really really do. Steve: > I'm sure you will point out that Sirius /was/ on the > scene to take Harry, and once again, I will point out > that Sirius cooperated with Hagrid taking Harry. He even > assisted Hagrid by giving him his motorcycle. That > implies that Sirius is giving permission for Dumbledore > to take control of Harry. Perhaps he only intended that > to be temporary, and if Sirius hadn't got himself thrown > in jail, he could have come out at a later date and tried > to assert his right as designated guardian. Alla: My point is that IMO Dumbledore was not supposed to send Hagrid there in the first place, you know. Whatever Sirius did on the scene is secondary, although sure I agree that he should have just taken the child and left instead of going after Peter. Easier said than done, of course considering the mood he was in after losing his two best friends, I suppose. But why would dutiful member of the Order argue with great Albus Dumledore's decisions? bboyminn: >> Now if Dumbledore had jumped the gun in placing Harry > with the Dursley, and if Sirius name was cleared and he > was not thrown in prison, then Sirius could have made a > claim for guardianship. But none of that happened. Alla: Well, yes, of course - then the story would not have happened as we know it. I don't see though why we cannot analyse the actions of the characters in **real people** mode. bboyminn: > Under the CIRCUMSTANCE, which is the part that you seem > determined to overlook. Dumbledore did what he felt was > best, and he apparently did so with some degree of > cooperation and thereby implied permission from Sirius. Alla: Sirius agreed for Dumbledore to give child to Dursleys? Do you mind referring me to the quote? I don't mean him agreeing to release Harry to Dumbledore's care, but agreeing that Harry would stay with Dursleys. I could have forgotten it, since I do that sometimes, so do you mind refreshing my memory? And **of course** Dumbledore did what he felt was best. My questions is best for whom. If as Julie said he did it for the best interests of the child, that is one story. You seem to be sure of that. I **want** to be sure of that, because despite my numerous problems with OOP Dumbledore I do not want to see him as manipulative bastard, but so far I am not sure **at all** Steve: > In that moment, with no protest of his own innocent, with > no offerred explanation, with likely statements implying > his own guilt, and with evidence pointing at him, it > probably seemed very cut and dried to the Ministry. Alla: Yeah, Ministry is working that way, it is not surprising to me at all. I am just wondering why it seemed so cut and dry to Albus Dumbledore. He is not in the habit as we know to just declare people guilty, in fact he gives them second and third chances. I cannot help but wondering if someone lied to Dumbledore that Sirius was present with Voldemort in Godric Hollow and that what forced his hand to take Harry away from Sirius as soon as possible. Maybe that was the same individual who used invisibility cloak? Hmmmm, curious speculation. JMO, Alla From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 02:06:29 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:06:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moody's injuries & the Longbottoms (Re: Eye Damage) In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609162114x449cc1d9l94f702ecf97515f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0609181906r3d299bc4ke2776bb403b7b0f1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158452 > Jen: > Then for the Longbottom trial, Moody is absent with no explanation. It > all fits together so neatly--he's one of the best Aurors, he must know > Frank and Alice since they work together, and four of Voldemort's most > zealous supporters were captured. Who else likely did the job? That > means Moody may yet have information about what happened to Neville > the night of the torture, who the Secret Keeper was for the > Longbottoms, and other mysteries yet to be resolved. > > > Debbie: Are you sure the Longbottoms had a Secret Keeper? Canon seems to be very consistent that Voldemort went after the Potters. That's what Fudge says at the Three Broomsticks in PoA, and what Dumbledore tells Harry in OOP ("He chose you, Harry."). That's not to say that the Longbottoms were not protected. But Dumbledore was aware of the prophecy for a very long time before Voldemort acted upon it. The Secret Keeper plan was not implemented until he received specific intelligence that Voldemort was after the Potters. So maybe, instead of a Secret-Keeper, the Order was guarding the Longbottoms' house like they were guarding Harry at the beginning of OOP. And maybe Moody was on duty the fateful night. However, I doubt it. If his assailants gouged out his eye, he would have seen them. If so, he could have testified, and there wouldn't have been so many doubts about Barty Crouch Jr.'s involvement. There's also the bit about the Longbottoms' testimony being unreliable, suggesting that it was necessary for a conviction. No, I tend to think that Moody lost his eye when he closed in on the Lestranges to make the arrest (and, lo and behold, Barty Crouch Jr. was with them). As I read the canon, the perpetrators were not caught red-handed, as the public would not have had time to clamor for the DMLE to catch those responsible. And he lost his eye because he held his ground and succeeded in bringing them in, in spite of being attacked by Bella's nine-inch nails (ok, that last bit isn't really canon, but it's how I imagine it). Debbie wondering why, if Mad-Eye has important information, why we haven't learned it already [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Tue Sep 19 02:50:11 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:50:11 -0000 Subject: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158453 houyhnhnm102 wrote: > So for those of you who are into that, the Aberforth-Roger Bacon > connection might be a line of inquiry Abergoat writes: Ah, may favorite topics - Aberforth and goats...although I do tend to merge them more than most people here like, no one's going for the 'Aberfroth is presently a goat' idea. Your mention of Roger Bacon reminds me of someone earlier's post suggesting that Albus's relationship with Aberforth might mirror the Sherlock Holmes series, with Aberforth being intellectually superior to Albus but completely lacking the interest to use it for society's betterment. I thought it was a fun idea. And no matter what anyone says, Albus Dumbledore only questions whether Aberforth can read...not whether Aberforth learned to read. The distinction could be quite significant. Abergoat, fighting the tide From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 19 03:19:30 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:19:30 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158454 > Alla: > > Sirius agreed for Dumbledore to give child to Dursleys? Do you mind > referring me to the quote? I don't mean him agreeing to release > Harry to Dumbledore's care, but agreeing that Harry would stay with > Dursleys. > > I could have forgotten it, since I do that sometimes, so do you > mind refreshing my memory? > Pippin: 'But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black argued, but in the end he gave in. Told me ter take his motorbike ter get Harry there.' --PoA ch 10 Alla: > And **of course** Dumbledore did what he felt was best. My > questions is best for whom. > If as Julie said he did it for the best interests of the child, that > is one story. You seem to be sure of that. I **want** to be sure of > that, because despite my numerous problems with OOP Dumbledore I do not want to see him as manipulative bastard, but so far I am not sure **at all** Pippin: It is like the kindertransport in WW2 where loving German Jewish families sent their children to an uncertain fate in Britain. Most of the children were treated well but some weren't. Still they were safer than they would have been in Germany. > Alla: > > Yeah, Ministry is working that way, it is not surprising to me at > all. I am just wondering why it seemed so cut and dry to Albus > Dumbledore. > He is not in the habit as we know to just declare people guilty, in > fact he gives them second and third chances. > > I cannot help but wondering if someone lied to Dumbledore that > Sirius was present with Voldemort in Godric Hollow and that what > forced his hand to take Harry away from Sirius as soon as possible. Pippin: If that was the case DD would have warned Hagrid, but Hagrid didn't know. More likely Voldemort had planted additional evidence blaming Sirius because he wanted the real spy to be able to continue in his useful role. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 03:22:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:22:55 -0000 Subject: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158455 > > a_svirn: > > But the Dursleys do not belong to the WW. And whatever they owe > > Harry, they owe Dumbledore nothing. > > Pippin: > They owe Harry a suitable education, something the local comprehensive > was not equipped to give a magical child. Alla: I agree on this part, Pippin. Pippin: The gift of the motorcycle implies that in the end Sirius sent Harry to his > Aunt and Uncle with his blessing. Whether that was wise of him or not > can be debated, but if he was Harry's guardian, as he claims, then he had > the right to make that decision. > Alla: I am flipping through first chapter of PS/SS, Pippin right now and since you are one of the people who is very well versed with canon, I want to repeat my question - where does it say that Sirius knew where Harry is going? Going to Dumbledore's care, yes, certainly he agreed with that, knowing that he wanted to hunt down Peter, unfortunately. Knowing that Harry goes to Dursleys? COuld you give me the page? Thanks. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 03:45:48 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:45:48 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158456 > > Alla: > > > > Sirius agreed for Dumbledore to give child to Dursleys? Do you mind > > referring me to the quote? I don't mean him agreeing to release > > Harry to Dumbledore's care, but agreeing that Harry would stay with > > Dursleys. > > > > I could have forgotten it, since I do that sometimes, so do you > > mind refreshing my memory? > > > Pippin: > 'But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, Dumbledore > said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black argued, but in the > end he gave in. Told me ter take his motorbike ter get Harry there.' > --PoA ch 10 Alla: Oh, thanks Pippin. At least he argued. And I certainly need to reread PoA. I seem to start forgetting important dialogue. As I said though I don't see Sirius agreement ( after argument) to make Dumbledore's actions looking better. I want to see some further investigating than just saying Sirius was a secret keeper, then he automatically guilty. It smells too much of Barty and Fudge and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, unfortunately. > Alla: > > And **of course** Dumbledore did what he felt was best. My > > questions is best for whom. > > If as Julie said he did it for the best interests of the child, that > > is one story. You seem to be sure of that. I **want** to be sure of > > that, because despite my numerous problems with OOP > Dumbledore I do not want to see him as manipulative bastard, > but so far I am not sure **at all** > > Pippin: > It is like the kindertransport in WW2 where loving German Jewish > families sent their children to an uncertain fate in Britain. Most of > the children were treated well but some weren't. Still they were > safer than they would have been in Germany. Alla: Sirius argued, which to me implies that he did not really want to send Harry there and he is family, not Dumbledore, no? Yes he yielded to Albus Dumbledore after argument, which certainly was not wise of him and he was fixated on Peter, unfortunately too, but Dumbledore having a right to make this decision - not sure. > > > Alla: > > I cannot help but wondering if someone lied to Dumbledore that > > Sirius was present with Voldemort in Godric Hollow and that what > > forced his hand to take Harry away from Sirius as soon as possible. > > Pippin: > If that was the case DD would have warned Hagrid, but Hagrid didn't > know. More likely Voldemort had planted additional evidence blaming > Sirius because he wanted the real spy to be able to continue in his useful > role. Alla: Not necessarily. In this line of speculation Dumbledore may not have expected Sirius to show up to get Harry, maybe he thought that Sirius would run away since his master is supposedly dead. Although even what you are saying - planting additional evidence to blame Sirius is in essense comes to the same thing to me - meaning that Dumbledore should have had more information than we know, one way or another. I am not excluding someone in invisibiluty cloak planting those evidence. ;) my speculation of course nothing more. Alla From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 19 05:11:50 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:11:50 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158457 > > > Alla: > > > > > > Sirius agreed for Dumbledore to give child to Dursleys? Do you > mind > > > referring me to the quote? I don't mean him agreeing to release > > > Harry to Dumbledore's care, but agreeing that Harry would stay > with > > > Dursleys. > > > > > > I could have forgotten it, since I do that sometimes, so do you > > > mind refreshing my memory? > > > > > Pippin: > > 'But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, > Dumbledore > > said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black argued, but > in the > > end he gave in. Told me ter take his motorbike ter get Harry > there.' > > --PoA ch 10 > > Alla: > > Oh, thanks Pippin. At least he argued. And I certainly need to > reread PoA. I seem to start forgetting important dialogue. As I said > though I don't see Sirius agreement ( after argument) to make > Dumbledore's actions looking better. I want to see some further > investigating than just saying Sirius was a secret keeper, then he > automatically guilty. It smells too much of Barty and Fudge and > leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, unfortunately. > Julie: The more I think about it, the more I believe Dumbledore's actions may not have been about Sirius at all, but about the blood magic. He wasn't specifically trying to keep Harry away from Sirius, and he may not have even formed an opinion on Sirius's guilt even though he had been told Sirius was the secret-keeper. (I can see Dumbledore later hearing about Sirius standing over the hole where 12 Muggles died and where all that was "left" of Peter--one finger-- remained, laughing maniacally as he was arrested, and Dumbledore thinking "It must be true then. I didn't want to believe it, because I thought I knew young Sirius...") Back to GH, I think Dumbledore was being proactive with Harry, sending him to the Dursleys because THAT is where he would be completely safe. Sirius, even if innocent, couldn't provide Harry the same iron-clad protection. And even though Sirius argued with Hagrid, he did finally give in. Whether he agreed that Harry would be safer with the Dursleys or he was more intent on finding a certain rat than taking guardianship of his godson, it doesn't really matter much. His agreement sealed the deal, effectively transferring responsibility for Harry to Dumbledore. Julie From rkelley at blazingisp.net Tue Sep 19 06:08:07 2006 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:08:07 -0500 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158458 (I'm unable to read every post, so please forgive me if my thoughts are repeats of previous postings.) I'm intrigued by the clue of the cloak. Invisibility cloaks are supposed to be really rare, yet we've already seen four of them - Harry's, Barty Crouch Jr's, - and two belonging to Mad Eye Moody. When Harry first touched the Invisibility Cloak, he thought it felt like water woven into the material. Is that how all invisibility cloaks feel, or is it possible that Lily somehow wove a special potion into this cloak before James gave it to DD? We still do not know what Lily's job was in the DOM, but we do know she excelled in Potions class, and that her wand was particularly good for charms. What could Lily have been working on that she would have wanted to hide from the Deatheaters or LV? Lily and James knew Voldemort was after them, and either there was something special about the cloak and they did not want it to fall into LV's hands, or else they purposely hid something in it - perhaps for safekeeping. If DD had known about a special purpose, it seems unlikely that he would have given it to Harry when he was so young - especially since Harry was prone to leave it in unlikely places. I had thought at first it might contain some sort of protection which Lily wove into to help Harry, but then I thought of all the scrapes Harry got into while wearing the cloak, and I decided if it did hold a potion for protection, that it didn't work very well. Snape wore the cloak into the Shrieking Shack, so it seems that if the cloak held an ordinary type of spell he might have noticed it. I think if the cloak contains anything, it will be something unexpected and unknown to all until it is revealed. We still don't know why it's important that Harry has his mother's eyes, and we don't know what her job was - we're also supposed to learn more about Aunt Petunia. I think we're going to find out very important things about Lily and her family. Perhaps the cloak figures into that somehow. We don't know if the cloak was handed down in James' family, or if he and Lily acquired it after marriage, so at this point it seems that all possibilities are open, but since James' forte was transfiguration, I'm guessing that if anyone did something special to the cloak, it had to be Lily. In regards to the comment about DD possibly being the last descendant of Gryffindor - don't forget about Aberforth. He and DD were very different, but they were still brothers. Thank you for listening to my humble thoughts. Swizzlewand From ghost_silver_wolf at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 19 06:36:53 2006 From: ghost_silver_wolf at yahoo.co.uk (ghost_silver_wolf) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:36:53 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158459 justcarol67 wrote > Carol Responds > I can't prove it, of course, but I think Dumbledore knew that at some > point he would have to make Snape the DADA teacher, if only because he > would be the only available candidate, and he didn't want to waste > him, or lose his services too early, by giving him the position before > it was absolutely necessary. If I may run with that theory a bit. Possibly it explains why Snape really hates Harry. Dumbledore, having full access to the prophecy, probably knew that Voldermort would be coming back, the scar (he will mark him) would have indicated this. Maybe he told Snape about this and advised Snape that at some point he would have to take the DADA job to help Harry beat Voldemort. Snape knowing this might have resented that fact that he had to put himself at a degree of risk for Harry. It might also have been planned for the sixth year. He was born when the seventh month dies, could refer to Harry's seventh year. silver_ghost_wolf rambling a bit. From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 07:46:17 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:46:17 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060919074617.10922.qmail@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158460 --- pippin_999 wrote: > Fudge implies that Sirius was > wanted before > Pettigrew caught up with him. Cassy: Fudge isn't exactly known for his honesty and trustworthliness, right? >The Ministry did not know that >Black had been the Potter's secret-keeper Cassy: They could have, if Dumbledore had told them. And speaking of Dumbledore, funny that he didn't react to Hagrid's mentioning of meeting Sirius near the Potter's house ruins, considering that later he was so convinced of Sirius being a traitor and murderer. Or was he really? By the way, could anyone tell me if Sirius was arrested on the day of Potters death or later? Anyway, on that very day we still have those missing hours, when a lot of things could have happen, including Dumbledore speaking with the Minister about secret-keeping business. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Sep 19 07:59:24 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:59:24 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158461 AmanitaMuscaria now - It's probably been said before, but it may be that the Ford nglia broke down _because_ it got to Hogwarts. > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > > > The spark plugs, headlights, etc, on the Anglia seem to work well > > enough - sure, it breaks down when they get to hogwarts, but shouldn't > > the charms on the car itself interfere with those? > > > > That's a good example, Jordan! I'm not familiar with British Fords, I > wonder if that model would have had an electronic engine control? An > electronic engine control is really a small, single purpose computer.... snip.... > > Ken > AM again - no, that model certainly didn't have any electronic engine control. Nor did it have electric windows, nor seatbelts, as far as I remember. Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 19 09:27:41 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:27:41 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" wrote: > > AmanitaMuscaria now - It's probably been said before, but it may be > that the Ford nglia broke down _because_ it got to Hogwarts. > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" > wrote: > > > > > > > > The spark plugs, headlights, etc, on the Anglia seem to work well > > > enough - sure, it breaks down when they get to hogwarts, but > shouldn't > > > the charms on the car itself interfere with those? > > > > > > > That's a good example, Jordan! I'm not familiar with British Fords, > I > > wonder if that model would have had an electronic engine control? An > > electronic engine control is really a small, single purpose > computer.... snip.... > > > > Ken > > > > AM again - no, that model certainly didn't have any electronic engine > control. Nor did it have electric windows, nor seatbelts, as far as I > remember. > Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria Geoff: That particular model of the Anglia was in production from 1959-1967 when it was superseded by the first Escorts. It was the first small UK Ford to break away from their "matchbox" outline models. So Arthur Weasley did quite well to obtain one of these in the early 1990s. They're very definitely collectors' items nowadays. At that time, British cars were pretty basic. It would have had single-speed windscreen wipers, no rear window wipers, no rear window demister, ordinary wind-down windows etc. It may have possibly lacked a heater. Again, electronic management systems are a very much modern development. I bought a second-hand Hillman Minx in 1964 which was a middle range family saloon and it lacked a heater; I had one fitted. It was because of the British drive to build cars for export. If you wanted one for an English winter, you added on(!) Seatbelts only began to come into use in the mid-1960s. I remember buying a brand-new car in '67 and being considered quite "with it" because I specified seat belts. It did have a heater as standard this time. From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Tue Sep 19 11:37:31 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:37:31 +1200 (NZST) Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak Message-ID: <20060919113731.72539.qmail@web58410.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158463 The Fidelius charm works on the building, not on the individual. So, if James and Lily left the house in Godric's Hollow, they would be vulnerable. Is it possible that Dumbledore confiscated the cloak to stop James from leaving the house? He didn't know that James was an illegal animagus, so he probably thought that taking the cloak would stop James rushing out on any errands/mad ideas. On the other hand, Dumbledore may have confiscated the cloak if he discovered that James had been spying on someone, perhaps Snape (Dumbledore would be able to see James standing there, even if he were wearing the cloak). We know that there were some suspicions about a spy in the Order. As a responsible father trying to keep his family alive, James may have tried to discover who the rat was. Another two questions a) why didn't the Potters use Dumbledore as their secret keeper? He seems to be the strongest option. b) what defenses were in place to protect the Longbottoms, the other family believed to be part of the prophecy? We know that the Lestranges and Crouch Jnr were able to get at them soon after the Potters' demise. Nate, who thinks too much. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 12:49:53 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:49:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Guardianship, agreements, and public protection In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0609181829o6443bfc0ke215f471eab317ef@mail.gmail.com> References: <002a01c6db85$1de4e030$ef80400c@Spot> <80f25c3a0609181829o6443bfc0ke215f471eab317ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40609190549k105d8de7mfc639e1e3a86a189@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158464 > Debbie: > Yup, that dubious backstory about how Sirius had tired of his double-agent > role was undoubtedly embellishment invented by Fudge. However, there was > every reason to arrest Sirius. My understanding of English law (which is > highly suspect as it is largely based on the press) is that a person can > be > detained for a period of time without being charged. And when Sirius was > arrested, he was presiding over a crater in a Muggle street, laughing like > a > maniac, with 14 dead muggles and Pettigrew's finger in front of him. > In the UK, under the muggle anti-terrorism laws, a British suspect can be detained without trial by the police for a specified period - I believe this was increased from 14 to 28 days after 9/11 - but habeus corpus still stands, and at the end of the specified time they must be charged or released, and if charged will stand trial. But the WW, of course, has its own laws... Does it also have a police force? I mean, not just to arrest (aurors?) but also to detain and question, before sending criminals to Azkaban. Actually, I suppose the MoM investigates all wizarding crime and infractions, so I have answered my own question - they are a kind of (benevolent?) government entity like the KGB. montims From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 14:00:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:00:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158465 > Julie: > The more I think about it, the more I believe Dumbledore's > actions may not have been about Sirius at all, but about the > blood magic. He wasn't specifically trying to keep Harry > away from Sirius, and he may not have even formed an opinion > on Sirius's guilt even though he had been told Sirius was > the secret-keeper. Back to GH, I think Dumbledore was being proactive with > Harry, sending him to the Dursleys because THAT is where > he would be completely safe. Sirius, even if innocent, > couldn't provide Harry the same iron-clad protection. Alla: The problem for me is that his actions are also about Sirius, no matter what IMO, even if he indeed was thinking primarily about blood protection and I have no problem believing that he indeed **was** thinking primarily about blood protection. The problem for me is **why** he took it upon himself to decide that blood protection over the protection of love (I mean we do agree that Sirius loved Harry, right? More that Dursleys did?) would be the safest thing for Harry? Do you know what I mean? Of course now I am going to my usual problems with blood protection thingy, which had not much to do with Sirius indeed. Here we have Dumbledore deciding that this is what he needs to do to keep Harry safe, but it is not like he thought about it well in advance as far as we know yet at least. It is not like Lily thought about it well in advance ( we know that she did not know what would happen after her sacrificing her life for Harry - they did not plan it or anything like this, which I was incredibly happy to learn). In fact what Lily wanted for her son it seems was to stay with Sirius and Lily certainly does not fit the rash and arrogant description for me. In fact, when Dumbledore decides about blood protection, he may not have even known what Lily did, right? Unless someone who used invisibility cloak told him? So, here we have Dumbledore in a matter of few hours ( or even less) making a decision that blood protection charm indeed would be the best thing for Harry to stay safe. In fact it would be so safe, that it is worth going against direct wishes of his parents and taking Harry away from his guardian, in fact it would be so safe that it is worth to disregard the warning of his Deputy who pretty much figured Dursleys out after watching then for **one** day. It would be SO safe that it is worth letting Harry be abused, etc. How did Dumbledore decide that blood protection is what needed the most? Why don't we see that it indeed saved Harry? In fact we have seen that Lily's protection worked quite nicely when Harry is not at privet Drive (when Quirrel tried to touch him for once), so that makes one wonder again, why Harry should have stay there? Is Petunia's protection indeed works as additional layer? But we do not see yet (IMO) that it indeed saved Harry from anybody. I understand this is all for the sake of the story, Harry leaving evil step parents works very poignantly in PS/SS, but it really cracks under the check of any rational thinking to me :) And I am not saying that we should apply completely RL thinking to this story, but Dumbledore's actions that night raise more and more questions for me now. Alla: Julie: > And even though Sirius argued with Hagrid, he did finally > give in. Whether he agreed that Harry would be safer > with the Dursleys or he was more intent on finding a > certain rat than taking guardianship of his godson, it > doesn't really matter much. His agreement sealed the > deal, effectively transferring responsibility for Harry > to Dumbledore. Alla: As soon as Sirius has any hope on the horizon of clearing his name he offers Harry to stay with him. I sincerely doubt that he transferred any responsibility for Harry to Dumbledore, at least any long term responsibility. Don't get me wrong, I think he should have taken Harry with him and left, going after Peter was certainly not wise ( understandable, but not wise), but Dumbledore's behaviour is questionable for me too. IMHO, Alla From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Tue Sep 19 14:27:58 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:27:58 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: <20060919113731.72539.qmail@web58410.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158466 Swizzlewand wrote: > Lily and James knew Voldemort was after them, and either there > was something special about the cloak and they did not want it > to fall into LV's hands, or else they purposely hid something > in it - perhaps for safekeeping. Abergoat adds: Or Dumbledore convinced them that giving the cloak to him so one of Dumbledore's Voldemort spies could keep an invisible ear to the ground to hear if Voldemort had learned of Fidelius and was going after the Secret Keeper...it may have even been James idea. Interesting idea about Lily charming the cloak, I don't have anything further to offer though... Nate wrote: > So, if James and Lily left the house in Godric's Hollow, they > would be vulnerable. Is it possible that Dumbledore confiscated > the cloak to stop James from leaving the house? Abergoat writes: I think Dumbledore let people make their own decisions (or he would have insisted that he be the Secret Keeper) so I doubt he confiscated it. Nate wrote: > a) why didn't the Potters use Dumbledore as their secret keeper? > He seems to be the strongest option. Abergoat writes: This one fascinates me too. If the Potters knew Voldemort was after Harry, why wouldn't they pick the absolute safest Secret Keeper? I worry Imperius came into play - it wouldn't be hard for Peter - Sirius and the Potters wanted to trust him, he was their friend. They would be vulnerable to Imperius even if they are normally resistant to it. OotP supports this, saying people are more vulnerable to Imperius because they don't know Voldemort has returned. Nate wrote: > b) what defenses were in place to protect the Longbottoms, the > other family believed to be part of the prophecy? We know that the > Lestranges and Crouch Jnr were able to get at them soon after the > Potters' demise. Abergoat writes: This as another excellent line of thought. We don't hear that the Longbottoms were using Fidelius... And the bar discussion in PoA seems like it would mention that. JKR makes clear that the Lestranges (she doesn't mention Barty Jr) where 'sent' after the Longbottoms and knew nothing of the prophecy. Lucius Malfoy (and Rufus Scrimgeour) benefited enormously from the Longbottom incident: 1) Bella, who wants everyone to look for Voldemort, is jailed 2) Barty Sr, who is vigorously pursuing DEs, is brought down 3) Frank Longbottom, a very popular Auror, is removed from the line of succession So Malfoy, a DE, avoids his sister-in-laws pressure to search for Voldemort, avoids being arrested as a DE and has a family friend, Rufus (OotP) move up through the ranks of the Auror Office faster than he might have. Way too convenient. I wouldn't be surprised of young DE Barty Jr told the truth at his trial, he hadn't been anywhere near the Longbottoms. Abergoat From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 15:00:54 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:00:54 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060919150054.12773.qmail@web38314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158467 --- abergoat wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised of young DE Barty Jr told > the truth at > his trial, he hadn't been anywhere near the > Longbottoms. Cassy: It would fit the whole atmosphere of bitter irony (like Harry forgetting about Sirius's mirror) and also the thread of father-son tragedies (Riddle Sr. rejecting his son which leads to him turning evil, Crouch Sr. doing the same to his own). Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Sep 19 15:12:08 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:12:08 -0000 Subject: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mobiliarbus/GH/Lupin=Tutor?/Magic Quill/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158468 > zanooda: > To answer your question, Shakespeare doesn't give any names AFAIK. One > of the witches calls another something like "Graymalkin", but I don't > think it's a name. I just remembered it because it sounded funny to me. > =========================================== > Shakespeare wrote: > Script / Text of Act I Macbeth > > ACT I > SCENE I. A desert place. > > Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches > First Witch > When shall we three meet again > In thunder, lightning, or in rain? > > Second Witch > When the hurlyburly's done, > When the battle's lost and won. > > Third Witch > That will be ere the set of sun. > > First Witch > Where the place? > > Second Witch > Upon the heath. > > Third Witch > There to meet with Macbeth. > > First Witch > I come, Graymalkin! > > Second Witch > Paddock calls. > > Third Witch > Anon. > > ALL > Fair is foul, and foul is fair: > Hover through the fog and filthy air. > > Exeunt Eddie: The witches are not named. Graymalkin and Paddock appear to be offstage characters whom Witch 1 and 2, respectively, hear call to them. Eddie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 15:27:53 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:27:53 -0000 Subject: Scrimgeour a DE (was More thoughts on the Cloak) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158469 Abergoat said: Lucius Malfoy (and Rufus Scrimgeour) benefited enormously from the Longbottom incident: 1) Bella, who wants everyone to look for Voldemort, is jailed 2) Barty Sr, who is vigorously pursuing DEs, is brought down 3) Frank Longbottom, a very popular Auror, is removed from the line of succession So Malfoy, a DE, avoids his sister-in-laws pressure to search for Voldemort, avoids being arrested as a DE and has a family friend, Rufus (OotP) move up through the ranks of the Auror Office faster than he might have. Way too convenient. Tonks: This plays into my theory that Scrimgeour is a DE. I have suggested that he was the 4th DE on the tower. But even if it was not him on the tower, I do think that he is in league with the DE and in the best place to help with the plot to take over the WW. My reasons are: DD does not quite trust him. And DD was evasive when Harry asked him if Scrimgeour was "good". (HBP,page 61 US version.) Bones was murdered, and by LV himself. Perhaps she was getting too close to knowing the truth about him. In all these years the MoM, as Harry reminds us, has never been successful in caching LV. And Scrimgeour was an Auror. He could have done many things to prevent LV from being caught. Like a bad police officer that helps the bad guys by tipping them off before a raid, etc. Weren't the raids on the DE home conducted by a different division? If not, I would guess that he couldn't prevent them all as that would blow his cover and his main job is to keep LV safe from detection. All in all, I don't think that Snape is the only one pretenting to be one thing while really being something else. I think we will be shocked to discover that lies and deceit are in many places. Who can we really trust? Tonks_op From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Sep 19 15:33:43 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:33:43 -0000 Subject: The Final Sentence In-Reply-To: <8de2fdd80609150643rb3e4f38t5f5709489cdb3cfc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158470 > Diego: > The problem is that JKR has already stated quite clearly that the last > word of book 7 would be "scar". Eddie: Nah, that's just a red herring. The actual last sentence will be, "Whatever happened to Mr. Weasly's car?" Eddie, LTM (laughin' to myself) although not quite LOL. From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Sep 19 15:28:54 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:28:54 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eye Damage In-Reply-To: <001201c6db8f$b1cdf930$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Kern" wrote: > > Diego: > I have no idea either. But I've just checked and Hermione got her eye > bruised with a telescope, not with a chest. > Diego > > Peggy: Yeah, I knew it was with a telescope, but I thought she opened > something to find the telescope. Perhaps not. I'll be interested to hear > what the answer turns out to be to the contest question. > > Peggy > Eddie: Hermione opened brown cardboard boxes. Harry was sleeping in Fred & George's bedroom (they have their own place above the joke shop by then) but F&G had left behind boxes of stuff. Eddie From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 19 15:47:01 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:47:01 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: <20060919113731.72539.qmail@web58410.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158472 > Nate Hennessey wrote: > > The Fidelius charm works on the building, not on the individual. So, if James and Lily left the house in Godric's Hollow, they would be vulnerable. Is it possible that Dumbledore confiscated the cloak to stop James from leaving the house? He didn't know that James was an illegal animagus, so he probably thought that taking the cloak would stop James rushing out on any errands/mad ideas. On the other hand, Dumbledore may have confiscated the cloak if he discovered that James had been spying on someone, perhaps Snape (Dumbledore would be able to see James standing there, even if he were wearing the cloak). We know that there were some suspicions about a spy in the Order. As a responsible father trying to keep his family alive, James may have tried to discover who the rat was. > > Another two questions > a) why didn't the Potters use Dumbledore as their secret keeper? He seems to be the strongest option. > b) what defenses were in place to protect the Longbottoms, the other family believed to be part of the prophecy? We know that the Lestranges and Crouch Jnr were able to get at them soon after the Potters' demise. > > Nate, who thinks too much. > aussie: Guess what? We discussed JKR's NAQ (Never Asked Question) in July (See message #155457 for thread). After doing a bit of back reading, we can get rid of some possibilities, and toss around some others. DD didn't need the IC for RAB. "career advisor" (#155491) pointed out, RAB wrote his letter before James was attacked, so possibly dead long before then (Unless he was the "cannot find you if you are dead" person DD spoke of) Q a) Nate asks why James didn't use DD as the SK. If DD confiscated the IC from James, and suspected him of being the spy, then James may have been bitter towards DD. It may have influenced DD sending Hagrid to rescue Harry instead of going personally. James wasn't a school boy anymore. To confiscate the IC may have included a bit of hexing (though I hope not). Q b) Nate also asked about the Longbottom's defenses. Once Voldemort was defeated, owls were flying / magical fireworks were like shooting stars / wizrds hugged muggles ... and the Longbottoms may have felt safer for Neville. We don't know how much time passed between James dying and the Longbottoms being attacked. Another reply suggests Barty Jr may not have been at the Longbottoms. True. what were the Death Eaters really needing to find out and how? The DE didn't need them to talk if there was a wizard good at occlemancy with them. Bellatrix could teach Draco, so she may have probed their minds with almost as devistating an effect as Bertha Jenkins. Did we hear if they were captured and taken somewhere, or was this a house break-in and the torture went on in their home. If so, could Neville have been under James' IC. A last act of Alice's to save her son from being a part of the attack. aussie (wondering if Neville had flash backs like Harry did about Lily dying. -During the Dementor on the Train time, Harry asked if anyone heard screams, only Ron answered "no". Ginny sobbed and Neville didn't volunteer anything) From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Sep 19 16:20:34 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:20:34 -0000 Subject: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158473 > Nate wrote: > didn't Dumbledore take the cloak from Harry > at Slughorn's then give slip it into Harry's pocket when > they got to Hogwarts? > > ibchawz responds: > DD actually told Harry to keep the IC > with him at all times, even at school. If I am not mistaken, this > conversation occurred in the Weasley broom shed after they left > Slughorn's. When Harry went to Diagon Alley (prior to start of term), > he had his IC with him. Eddie: Harry had the IC with him even later on the train. He used it to spy on Malfoy, Malfoy broke Harry's nose and threw the IC over Harry. Tonks found Harry under it before the train left. So, no, DD didn't take the cloak from Harry at Slughorn's. Eddie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 16:44:38 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:44:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158474 > Alla: > > The problem for me is that his actions are also about Sirius, no > matter what IMO, even if he indeed was thinking primarily about > blood protection and I have no problem believing that he indeed > **was** thinking primarily about blood protection. The problem for me is **why** he took it upon himself to decide that blood > protection over the protection of love (I mean we do agree that > Sirius loved Harry, right? More that Dursleys did?) would be the > safest thing for Harry? > (snip) > > Don't get me wrong, I think he should have taken Harry with him and left, going after Peter was certainly not wise ( understandable, but not wise), but Dumbledore's behaviour is questionable for me too. > Tonks: We don't know what went on behind the scenes. We know that some time elapsed and we have all speculated as to what happened and why. Whatever it was, I think that DD would know to do the correct thing. After all he is the wisest and most powerful of them all. He would understand things about the blood protection that most others would not. This was an unusual situation. No one had ever survived an AK before. AFAWK, There was never a prophesy like this one before. This little baby was the hope of the world. The whole world, WW and MW was on his shoulders. And DD is the head of the highest court in the WW. He **is** the one to make a decision of this magnitude. For all we know the whole court could have met, or the inner core if there is one. Harry is not just a baby with a Godfather in the wings. Harry is the "chosen one". He is the hope of the world. It was not about taking him from Sirius; it was about saving the world. And if DD says that putting him with the Dursleys was the only way to keep Harry safe to grow up whole and pure, then I believe him. It was the *only* way. (And by extension, if JKR says, since it is the way she wrote it, that Harry at the Dursleys was the only way, I believe her too.) Bottom line: DD is the Head Mugwamp, and it falls to him to make these decissions, perhaps with counsel from the inner circle, perhaps without. It is not up to the Head of the MoM. The Wizengamot has a higher purpose and as the head of it, DD is IMO the head of all of the most important things in the WW. Until Scrimgeour, most of the Ministers of Magic have looked to DD for advise and counsel. . Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 19 18:46:20 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:46:20 -0000 Subject: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mobiliarbus/GH/Lupin=Tutor?/Magic Quill/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > > zanooda: > > To answer your question, Shakespeare doesn't give any names AFAIK. One > > of the witches calls another something like "Graymalkin", but I don't > > think it's a name. I just remembered it because it sounded funny to me. > > =========================================== > > > Shakespeare wrote: > > Script / Text of Act I Macbeth > > > > ACT I > > SCENE I. A desert place. > > > > Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches > > First Witch > > When shall we three meet again > > In thunder, lightning, or in rain? > > > > Second Witch > > When the hurlyburly's done, > > When the battle's lost and won. > > > > Third Witch > > That will be ere the set of sun. > > > > First Witch > > Where the place? > > > > Second Witch > > Upon the heath. > > > > Third Witch > > There to meet with Macbeth. > > > > First Witch > > I come, Graymalkin! > > > > Second Witch > > Paddock calls. > > > > Third Witch > > Anon. > > > > ALL > > Fair is foul, and foul is fair: > > Hover through the fog and filthy air. > > > > Exeunt > > Eddie: > The witches are not named. Graymalkin and Paddock appear to be > offstage characters whom Witch 1 and 2, respectively, hear call to them. > > Eddie Geoff: I made this point in message 158422 which I posted yesterday. The relevant piece was: "In message 113732 dated 24/09/04, which was part of a thread to do with Trevor the toad, I wrote the following: > Potioncat: > Were there 3 witches? What was the third familiar? Does anyone > else think it's interesting that there is a toad, and a cat in this story too? Geoff: Indeed there were three witches. My point was that, in the notes to my edition of the play, it suggests that Graymalkin was a common cat's name and implied that Paddock was use another name for a toad. " The only named supernatural person in the play is Hecat who enters to support the three witches in Act 4 Acene 1 where Macbeth receives the prophecy from the three apparitions. From katbofaye at aol.com Tue Sep 19 19:03:40 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:03:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, and more Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158476 It is interesting to me that JKR has chosen this contradiction. She spends six books with DD telling everyone who will listen that love is the strongest magic, nothing is more powerful than love. However she puts Harry in the safest place magically, the Dursleys. A place without love and only blood protection. Voldemort states he knows nothing of Love magic in Book 6. This should have been another advantage. JKR comes close to negating one of the themes of the series for the reader who notices. Love was not strong enough to protect Harry or he would have been placed with Sirius or Hagrid or a host of other people. Nope, love did not carry the day. The magic DD sneered at in Voldemort's cave, blood magic, is what worked best. I wonder if JKR has noticed this contradiction. katssirius From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 19:05:54 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:05:54 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158477 > Tonks: > We don't know what went on behind the scenes. We know that some time > elapsed and we have all speculated as to what happened and why. Alla: Well, yes. And that is precisely why I am leaving a room for mitigating circumstances for Dumbledore. He does not look good to me with the information I have now, but I certainly leave a room for possibility that there is something else I am not aware about ... or not. Tonks: > Whatever it was, I think that DD would know to do the correct thing. > After all he is the wisest and most powerful of them all. He would > understand things about the blood protection that most others would > not. Alla: And he also says that his mistakes are of bigger magnitude than others (paraphrase) and that I believe too. He may have understand the things about blood protection others do not, it is just I want to know the reasons for his decision - **why** he came up with blood protection. In short - I don't buy the Dumbledore would do correct thing just because he is Dumbledore, you know? Just does not sit right with me. Tonks: > This was an unusual situation. No one had ever survived an AK > before. AFAWK, There was never a prophesy like this one before. > This little baby was the hope of the world. The whole world, WW and > MW was on his shoulders. Alla: What you just described is precisely manipulative Dumbledore I detest so much, **but** it is certainly one of the possibilities, but then Dumbledore should not have said so many times how much he loves Harry IMO - not **weapon** Harry, but just Harry. It is those conflicting messages I get from Dumbledore that frustrate me so much - if he indeed cares only for Harry as weapon, come out and say so, the thing is I am not so sure he does. Good of many does not always get priority over the well being of one, IMO. Just look at the lengths Israelis are always always willing to go to save even one hostage, how many soldiers are risking their lives for that (I am not even talking about today situation, but about many situations in the past, when every single life counts). If Dumbledore ruthlessly decided that Harry's life does not matter, that this kid should suffer in order to save the world later on, well, Russian language is famous not only for the great writers, but for some very strong words, which then I would like to tell to Dumbledore. :) The thing is I don't think he did do that, especially based on HBP. I think he indeed truly loved Harry, but his previous decisions in my book goes in conflict with that. That is the case where in my book character suffers for the sake of plot. Maybe indeed JKR did not know whether her other books will even be published and for Cinderella story, Harry certainly should have stayed with Dursleys, but for later books, it is just not sitting well with me. In fact, while I am angry at Dumbledore for not checking on Harry later on and making sure that he is treated okay (yes, I know the arguments that maybe he could not have, but I am not buying them), I always sort of accepted that the initial decision to leave Harry there was the only option Dumbledore had, I just wanted the reasons why blood protection is the safest one to be spelled out clearer. But as I recently realized and mentioned on list - I very embarrassingly forgot Sirius remark that he was indeed an appointed guardian, that is why now to me even Dumbledore's initial decision does not pass scrutiny of "that is how the conflicted man who is forced to act to save the baby behaved" and instead pushes me back to contemplate whether Dumbledore is indeed a manipulative bastard. Here is another related thing, which I cannot let go of. As we know Potters turned down Dumbledore's offer to become a secret keeper for them, except we don't know why, unless I again forgot something important. :( One can of course argue that James was arrogant, etc,etc. Since I am not into that line of reasoning at all ( I always remember that Lily was a very strong woman and IMO would not have allowed James to make any decisions without her), I am forced to look into other reasons. I speculate that Potters thought that they had a reason to mistrust Dumbledore. **NO** I am not arguing evil Dumbledore or anything of similar nonsense. :) All that I am saying that it is possible that the webs of lies and mistrust that Voldemort weaved around members of the original order went very deep, maybe even deeper than we know and I want to know **who** did it ( Shhhhh, Pippin ;)) As we know Sirius and Remus suspected each other, and I also speculate that maybe someone told James and Lily that Dumbledore for some reason is not worthy of their trust ( if that happened, then Dumbledore's not respecting his wishes is even more annoying, but this is of course speculation on the top of speculation). Was there somebody who whispered lies and ugly suspicions about one another to members of original OOP? Tonks: And DD is the head of the highest court in > the WW. He **is** the one to make a decision of this magnitude. > For all we know the whole court could have met, or the inner core if > there is one. Alla: Yes, of course - if learn that something like that happened, that is entirely different story. Tonks: > Harry is not just a baby with a Godfather in the wings. Harry is > the "chosen one". He is the hope of the world. It was not about > taking him from Sirius; it was about saving the world. And if DD > says that putting him with the Dursleys was the only way to keep > Harry safe to grow up whole and pure, then I believe him. It was the > *only* way. (And by extension, if JKR says, since it is the way she > wrote it, that Harry at the Dursleys was the only way, I believe her > too.) Alla: Well, I am glad you do. :) As you can see I don't. As a matter of fact, can anybody refer me to the quote where it is said that blood protection was the **only** way? Safest in Dumbledore mind, yeah. The only way, not sure. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 19:35:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:35:48 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158478 > Abergoat wrote: > This as another excellent line of thought. We don't hear that the > Longbottoms were using Fidelius... And the bar discussion in PoA > seems like it would mention that. > > JKR makes clear that the Lestranges (she doesn't mention Barty Jr) > where 'sent' after the Longbottoms and knew nothing of the prophecy. > Lucius Malfoy (and Rufus Scrimgeour) benefited enormously from the > Longbottom incident: > > 1) Bella, who wants everyone to look for Voldemort, is jailed > 2) Barty Sr, who is vigorously pursuing DEs, is brought down > 3) Frank Longbottom, a very popular Auror, is removed from the line of succession > > So Malfoy, a DE, avoids his sister-in-laws pressure to search > for Voldemort, avoids being arrested as a DE and has a family > friend, Rufus (OotP) move up through the ranks of the Auror > Office faster than he might have. Way too convenient. > > I wouldn't be surprised of young DE Barty Jr told the truth at > his trial, he hadn't been anywhere near the Longbottoms. > Carol responds: If Barty Jr. was innocent, how do you explain his fanatical loyalty to Voldemort and his frequent, eager use of Unforgiveable Curses, not only on spiders, but on his own students (Imperius curse), on Krum (Imperius curse) and on his own father (Avada Kedavra)? And why would Voldemort regard him as his "loyal servant at Hogwarts" if he didn't know that Barty Jr. had helped Crucio the Longbottoms in an effort to find his whereabouts? Why would he so intensely hate "Death Eaters who walked free" if he weren't a loyal Death Eater who was imprisoned (and committed a horrible deed, helping to Crucio the Longbottoms) for Voldemort's sake? And why the prolonged Crucio of the spider in front of Neville, indifferent to Neville's pain, for the specific purpose of getting Neville into his office to give him the book on magical water plants, if he weren't guilty of helping Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity? Why so eager to put Harry's name into the Goblet of Fire and place him in Voldemort's hands so that Voldemort can use his blood and then kill him if he hadn't always been a loyal Death Eater? (Notice that the chained chair bound him as it did Karkaroff but did not bind Ludo Bagman--he's referred to as "the chained boy." IMO, the chair knows that he's guilty.) As for the Malfoy idea, I wouldn't be surprised if Lucius "sent" the Lestranges and Barty to the Longbottoms, or rather if he dropped some hints that Bella picked and she recruited her loyal followers (her husband and brother-in-law and the eager young Barty Jr.) to Crucio the Longbottoms, but where does Rufus Scrimgeour fit in? What evidence do we have of a link between him and Lucius Malfoy? Also, what do you mean by "the line of succession"? What evidence do we have that frank Longbottom had any ambition to be, say, head of Magical Law Enforcement? Carol, who thinks that Barty Jr. was guilty as charged and that his mother's sacrifice was in vain From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 19:47:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:47:43 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158479 As we know, Dumbledore mistakenly states in HBP that Voldemort used Nagini to kill Frank Bryce (unfortunately, Harry never remembers the dream in which he sees LV AK Frank), but possibly DD isn't entirely mistaken. In GoF he states that Frank Bryce, like Bertha Jorkins, *disappeared.* IOW, his body was never found. Since Voldemort planned to feed first Wormtail (who is reprieved from death by a message from Crouch!Moody stating that Crouch Sr. is dead) and then Harry (who escapes from the graveyard using the cup portkey) to Nagini after killing them, it seems likely to me that Voldemort fed both Bertha Jorkins and Frank Bryce to Nagini after killing them, partly to reward or appease Nagini and partly to dispose of the evidence. Dumbledore also mentions a number of disappearances in VW1 though he doesn't specify any names. Mad-Eye Moody later refers to Caradoc Dearborn who disappeared without a trace, and we know of two disappearances in HBP (Ollivander and Florian Fortescue). While I think that Ollivander may be in hiding (or kidnapped), I wonder if any of the other people who disappeared may have been eaten by Nagini. Carol, who thought of this idea as she reread the paragraph in GoF about Frank's disappearance and put two and two together From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Sep 19 20:09:35 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:09:35 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158480 Alla: > I speculate that Potters thought that they had a reason to mistrust Dumbledore. **NO** I am not arguing evil Dumbledore or anything of similar nonsense. :) All that I am saying that it is possible that the webs of lies and mistrust that Voldemort weaved around members of the original order went very deep, maybe even deeper than we know and I want to know **who** did it ( Shhhhh, Pippin ;)) As we know Sirius and Remus suspected each other, and I also speculate that maybe someone told James and Lily that Dumbledore for some reason is not worthy of their trust ( if that happened, then Dumbledore's not respecting his wishes is even more annoying, but this is of course speculation on the top of speculation). Ceridwen: Ooh, yes. Very good question that I've seen touched on elsewhere now that the debate about the cloak is opening up new venues. Lupin was suspected. Sirius was suspected. Who knows? Maybe even James was suspected - what better place to hide if you're guilty than as one of the potential victims? Maybe the web of lies and mistrust was so pervasive that even DD was suspected. Didn't someone mention that no one could trust anybody else at the height of VWI? But, Sirius and James trusted Peter. He might not have seemed the type, he seemed too wrapped up in his hero-worship of James, or whatever. Sirius and James, and most likely Lily too, thought that making him the SK would be a good idea, a switch no one would dream of. Slightly dismissive of Peter, but everyone seems to dismiss him. A trusted person, or someone who wasn't seen to be smart or brave or treacherous enough, could start a whispering campaign like this. If it is anyone, I would go with Peter, who had his own reasons to pit allies against each other. Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 20:24:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:24:03 -0000 Subject: Scrimgeour a DE (was More thoughts on the Cloak) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158481 Tonks: > This plays into my theory that Scrimgeour is a DE. I have suggested > that he was the 4th DE on the tower. But even if it was not him on > the tower, I do think that he is in league with the DE and in the > best place to help with the plot to take over the WW. > > My reasons are: > DD does not quite trust him. And DD was evasive when Harry asked him > if Scrimgeour was "good". (HBP,page 61 US version.) > > Bones was murdered, and by LV himself. Perhaps she was getting too > close to knowing the truth about him. > > In all these years the MoM, as Harry reminds us, has never been > successful in caching LV. And Scrimgeour was an Auror. He could have > done many things to prevent LV from being caught. Like a bad police > officer that helps the bad guys by tipping them off before a raid, > etc. Weren't the raids on the DE home conducted by a different > division? If not, I would guess that he couldn't prevent them all as > that would blow his cover and his main job is to keep LV safe from > detection. > > All in all, I don't think that Snape is the only one pretenting to > be one thing while really being something else. I think we will be > shocked to discover that lies and deceit are in many places. Who can > we really trust? Carol responds: I don't think that Scrimgeour is a DE--more a Barty Crouch Sr. type who might resort to the DE's methods to bring them in. He seems like the tough-cop type to me. He couldn't have been the fourth DE on the tower (Brutal-Face) who was petrified by Harry. (Scrimgeour for some reason says that the DE was found "Stupefied"--probably JKR misremembering.) Also, Harry knows what Scrimgeour looks like and talked with him soon afterwards, and Scrimgeour has a distinctive limp. (I think that the fourth DE is Yaxley, mentioned by Snape along with Greyback and "the Carrows," who I think are Amycus and Alecto, in "Spinner's End." Why else would JKR drop those names into that chapter?) As for Scrimgeour not being "good," Dumbledore doesn't deny that he's good, he just says that it's "an interesting question" and that he's "able," with a "more determined and forceful" personality than Fudge. He also says that Scrimgeour is "a man of action" who has "fought Dark wizards most of his working life" and "does not underestimate Lord Voldemort" (as Fudge did) (HBP Am. ed. 61). So the question is, what constitutes "good." He certainly seems to be opposed to Lord Voldemort and the DEs, but so was Crouch Sr., who became almost as ruthless as the people he was pursuing when he started using their methods, not only authorizing Aurors to kill DEs rather than capturing them but authorizing the use of the other Unforgiveables, Cruciatus and Imperius, on suspects. We don't know whether Scrimgeour, the former head of the Aurors, continued that policy as Head of Magical Law Enforcement, but I wouldn't be surprised if he has used the Unforgiveables himself when Crouch was in charge of that department. Again, I don't think he's a DE, but as sirius Black told Harry, the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters. There are ruthless and power-hungry people in the Ministry, as Crouch Sr. and Umbridge demonstrate, and it's possible that Scrimgeour is another example. He wants to destroy Voldemort and the DEs as far as I can tell (he was looking for Sirius Black in OoP, thinking he was the betrayer of the Potters and the murderer of thirteen people) but he's also as aware as Fudge of public image and willing to arrest innocent people to maintain it. Beware of politicians who are also police, I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns the WW into a police state in Book 7. Carol, agreeing that we haven't heard the last of Rufus Scrimgeour From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 20:56:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:56:20 -0000 Subject: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mobiliarbus/GH/Lupin=Tutor?/Magic Quill/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158482 Geoff wrote: > Indeed there were three witches. > > > > My point was that, in the notes to my edition of the play, it > suggests that Graymalkin was a common cat's name and implied > that Paddock was use another name for a toad. > " > > The only named supernatural person in the play is Hecat who > enters to support the three witches in Act 4 Acene 1 where Macbeth > receives the prophecy from the three apparitions. > Carol responds: Right. As I said elsewhere, Grimalkin means "grey cat" and is probably the first witch's familiar spirit, as Paddock the toad is probably the second witch's. (Let's hope he doesn't become a potion ingredient in a later scene, along with the "fillet of a fenny snake." Hecate was the Greek goddess of sorcery (associated in the Middle Ages with witchcraft, and regarded by the three witches in "Macbeth" as their queen). Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, Hecate could transform into a black dog and is sometimes depicted as carrying a knife. Hm. remind you of anyone (not female) in the HP books? Carol, hoping that we're not too OT here and still wondering if Nagini is Voldemort's familiar (whether or not she's a Horcrux) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 21:13:56 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:13:56 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, and more Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158483 katssirius wrote: > > It is interesting to me that JKR has chosen this contradiction. She > spends six books with DD telling everyone who will listen that love is the strongest magic, nothing is more powerful than love. However she puts Harry in the safest place magically, the Dursleys. A place > without love and only blood protection. Voldemort states he knows > nothing of Love magic in Book 6. This should have been another > advantage. JKR comes close to negating one of the themes of the series for the reader who notices. Love was not strong enough to protect Harry or he would have been placed with Sirius or Hagrid or a host of other people. Nope, love did not carry the day. The magic DD sneered at in Voldemort's cave, blood magic, is what worked best. I wonder if JKR has noticed this contradiction. > > katssirius > Carol responds: I don't think it's a contradiction. Lily's sacrificial love "carried the day." No other sacrifice can equal hers in JKR's view. The blood protection is based on that ultimate gift, a gift that no one can give Harry because no one else both shares his blood and would die to save him. (Even James's death isn't as important because it's a death in battle and not a sacrifice. As I've said elsewhere, he's a hero, but Lily's a martyr.) I'm not sure that Sirius's love for Harry could have equalled a mother's love, however much Harry reminded him of James, and they don't share the bond of blood kinship, which is clearly an important theme in the books ("Blood's important," says Hagrid, weeping into his beer over Grawpy and his dead mother.) The reason that DD "sneers" at "blood magic" in Voldemort's cave is that Voldemort is asking for a blood *tribute* as a way of weakening his enemies. LV is afraid of death and sees blood as a symbol of death and injury. Dumbledore calls this form of magic "crude" and is disappointed that Voldemort would resort to it. That's very different from the blood *protection* provided by Lily's sacrifice, which *is* based on love. Since the blood protection could not be extended to Sirius Black because he doesn't share Harry's blood, he would have been a most unsafe guardian even setting aside his youth, reckless personality, and desire for revenge against Pettigrew. I think that JKR would find your reading unsettling, as it underestimates the importance of Lily's sacrificial love. Carol, who thinks that Lily's love is somehow in her blood and Harry's, as magic also seems to be in the blood From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 21:29:53 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:29:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, and more Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: > > It is interesting to me that JKR has chosen this contradiction. She spends six books with DD telling everyone who will listen that love is the strongest magic, nothing is more powerful than love. However she puts Harry in the safest place magically, the Dursleys. A place without love and only blood protection. Voldemort states he knows nothing of Love magic in Book 6. This should have been another advantage. JKR comes close to negating one of the themes of the series for the reader who notices. Love was not strong enough to protect Harry or he would have been placed with Sirius or Hagrid or a host of other people. Nope, love did not carry the day. The magic DD sneered at in Voldemort's cave, blood magic, is what worked best. I wonder if JKR has noticed this contradiction. > Tonks: I see no contradiction. There is love and there is LOVE. Lily's was the greater and gave a protection in Harry's blood that Sirius' love could not do. Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 22:19:33 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:19:33 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158485 > >>Tonks: > > > > This was an unusual situation. No one had ever survived an AK > > before. AFAWK, There was never a prophesy like this one > > before. This little baby was the hope of the world. The whole > > world, WW and MW was on his shoulders. > > > >>Alla: > What you just described is precisely manipulative Dumbledore I > detest so much, **but** it is certainly one of the possibilities, > but then Dumbledore should not have said so many times how much he > loves Harry IMO - not **weapon** Harry, but just Harry. > Betsy Hp: I'm having a hard time seeing the contradiction you see, Alla. Harry is, per the prophecy, the only thing out there threatening Voldemort. Voldemort takes enough interest in that prophecy that he targets Harry personally, even though Harry is just an infant at the time. Surely the most loving thing Dumbledore can do is keep Harry safe, weapon or no weapon? Yes, keeping Harry safe is a practical matter too, if the prophecy is true (and Dumbledore seems a bit cynical about the whole thing). But the fact is, Voldemort had made Harry his number one enemy. Should Dumbledore not take that seriously? Just leave Harry somewhere kinda, sorta, mostly safe? Like Neville? > >>Alla: > Maybe indeed JKR did not know whether her other books will even be > published and for Cinderella story, Harry certainly should have > stayed with Dursleys, but for later books, it is just not sitting > well with me. > Betsy Hp: This is probably part of the breakdown of our views. For me, in the story-book pantheon of "bad parents" the Dursleys just aren't that bad. At least, not in my opinion. I don't read a lot of children's books and those that I have are a bit dated. So "bad parents" tend to be *really* bad in the books I've read, and the Dursleys come across as mildly horrid but survivable. (Harry wasn't treated like Cinderella, for example. Washing a car and weeding a flower bed does not compare to the drudgery of a scullery maid. He was also allowed to keep his name and his place in society.) I guess I just don't see that Dumbledore has all that much to answer to for leaving Harry at the Dursleys. It was the place where Harry was the safest. I expect any loving person would have done the same thing. Or lived with Harry ending up in Bellatrix's capable hands because of their unwillingness to make the hard call. > >>Alla: > But as I recently realized and mentioned on list - I very > embarrassingly forgot Sirius remark that he was indeed an > appointed guardian, that is why now to me even Dumbledore's > initial decision does not pass scrutiny of "that is how the > conflicted man who is forced to act to save the baby behaved" and > instead pushes me back to contemplate whether Dumbledore is indeed > a manipulative bastard. > Betsy Hp: Well, I'm pretty sure Dumbledore's mother was married to his father... . Seriously, this is where I think Dumbledore's position as a patron weighs in. I'm not sure JKR meant to set up her world this way. (I'm not sure how much faith I put into her world building skills. I get the sense she's more a satirist than a world builder.) But I do get the sense that the WW works on the patron-client system. [see this fabulous essay here: http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html ] The Potters were Dumbledore's clients. So yeah, Dumbledore had the right to decide what to do with their son once they were killed. In such a crisis situation it was Dumbledore's *duty* to get involved. He's the Weasley patron as well, I'd imagine. So we see him take a similarly commanding position when Arthur is wounded in OotP. Dumbledore decides what the Weasley children should do, without consulting their mother. Similarly, if something happened to Vincent Crabbe's father, Lucius Malfoy might be consulted as to Crabbe's welfare. Interestingly enough, I get the sense that Sirius was *not* Dumbledore's client when Voldemort fell. Dumbledore may have wanted to be, but I can easily see Sirius deciding he doesn't need that sort of protection and striking out on his own. Which would explain why his sentence to Azkaban was such a farce. He didn't have anyone to speak for him. (When Sirius finally breaks free in PoA, I think he does agree to take Dumbledore on as his Patron. Which is why Dumbledore supervises the passing on of Sirius's property in HBP.) > >>Alla: > Here is another related thing, which I cannot let go of. As we > know Potters turned down Dumbledore's offer to become a secret > keeper for them, except we don't know why, unless I again forgot > something important. :( > One can of course argue that James was arrogant, etc,etc. > Since I am not into that line of reasoning at all ( I always > remember that Lily was a very strong woman and IMO would not have > allowed James to make any decisions without her), I am forced to > look into other reasons. > I speculate that Potters thought that they had a reason to > mistrust Dumbledore. > Betsy Hp: Oh, I think part of it was James's and Sirius's arrogance in their own creativity. That they could outfox Voldemort without any help. I don't think they actually distrusted Dumbledore. For one, Hagrid would have had something to say about that if there were even a hint of such thinking. For another, James does give Dumbledore his cloak, and Dumbledore also has care of the Potters' Gringotts key. I think the secret-keeper switch wasn't shared with Dumbledore because they were either afraid Dumbledore would frown on the risk it put Sirius into, or they were just used to not sharing their plans with authority figures. I think it fairly obvious that Peter would do everything in his power to keep the plan as secret as possible. So he'd have encouraged keeping it just between the players. > >>Alla: > As a matter of fact, can anybody refer me to the quote where it is > said that blood protection was the **only** way? Safest in > Dumbledore mind, yeah. > Betsy Hp: Is there anything anywhere within the books suggesting that there was another way of keeping Harry safe? Because really, if we're supposed to start doubting Dumbledore's call, than there needs to be a suggestion of another way he could have gone *within the books*. And I think it'd be really important to show that another character had approached Dumbledore with that other possibility. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Sep 19 22:28:16 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:16 -0000 Subject: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158486 Abergoat writes: > Ah, may favorite topics - Aberforth and goats...although > I do tend to merge them more than most people here like, > no one's going for the 'Aberfroth is presently a goat' idea. houyhnhnm: I'm not weighing in on this one. Sorry Abergoat > Your mention of Roger Bacon reminds me of someone > earlier's post suggesting that Albus's relationship with > Aberforth might mirror the Sherlock Holmes series, with > Aberforth being intellectually superior to Albus > but completely lacking the interest to use it for > society's betterment. houyhnhnm: I think the Sherlock-Mycroft post was in the back of my mind. I agree that Albus' questioning whether Aberforth can read could be taken as an illustration of his eccentricity only. Maybe Aberforth has a brazen head which will answer all our questions in book 7. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 22:27:39 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:27:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609191527v80c9fcbm29a2877484c785d8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158487 Dumbledore placing Snape in the DADA position, a position he knows is cursed and cannot retain a teacher for more than a year, is the main reason I'm not completely sold that Snape is working for Voldemort. I'm simply not taking a side on this. It could work out either way, at the author's discretion. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 22:46:43 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:46:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609191546r73c8aefasa4772b91fb783089@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158488 > Julie: > The more I think about it, the more I believe Dumbledore's > actions may not have been about Sirius at all, but about the > blood magic. He wasn't specifically trying to keep Harry > away from Sirius, and he may not have even formed an opinion > on Sirius's guilt even though he had been told Sirius was > the secret-keeper. Back to GH, I think Dumbledore was being proactive with > Harry, sending him to the Dursleys because THAT is where > he would be completely safe. Sirius, even if innocent, > couldn't provide Harry the same iron-clad protection. Alla: The problem for me is that his actions are also about Sirius, no matter what IMO, even if he indeed was thinking primarily about blood protection and I have no problem believing that he indeed **was** thinking primarily about blood protection. The problem for me is **why** he took it upon himself to decide that blood protection over the protection of love (I mean we do agree that Sirius loved Harry, right? More that Dursleys did?) would be the safest thing for Harry? Lynda: The thing is, since Sirius was thought to be a serial murderer, and was very quickly headed for prison, there is no way any logically (or illogically) thinking person would have put Harry into his custody. Supposedly, Sirius was the one that gave up the Potter family's location. Oh yeah. and once everything came out into the open and the truth about who the secret keeper had been was revealed, Sirius did make a bid to take over custody of Harry. Of course, that came to naught when Sirius had to go into hiding again. So there's really nothing going on that's untoward with Dumbledore's decision to place Harry into the Dursteys care. Keep in mind that I have never thought Dumbledore is portrayed as omniscient. I think his references to his fallibility are to remind us of exactly that. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 23:05:36 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:05:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Sirius, and more Sirius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609191605i7ee5a21ch5fc760ce0f6a25fd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158489 Katssirius: It is interesting to me that JKR has chosen this contradiction. She spends six books with DD telling everyone who will listen that love is the strongest magic, nothing is more powerful than love. However she puts Harry in the safest place magically, the Dursleys. A place without love and only blood protection. Voldemort states he knows nothing of Love magic in Book 6. This should have been another advantage. JKR comes close to negating one of the themes of the series for the reader who notices. Love was not strong enough to protect Harry or he would have been placed with Sirius or Hagrid or a host of other people. Nope, love did not carry the day. The magic DD sneered at in Voldemort's cave, blood magic, is what worked best. I wonder if JKR has noticed this contradiction. katssirius Lynda: Perhaps familial bonds and the love that is instinctive among family (Lily and Petunia were sisters after all) will prove to be a stronger protective force than we yet realize. JKR has said that there is more to Petunia than we have yet seen. Perhaps the lingering of love for her blood sister will provide extra protection for Harry in the next book. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 23:11:31 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:11:31 -0000 Subject: Scrimgeour a DE (was More thoughts on the Cloak) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158490 > Tonks wrote: > This plays into my theory that Scrimgeour is a DE. I have suggested > that he was the 4th DE on the tower. But even if it was not him on > the tower, I do think that he is in league with the DE and in the > best place to help with the plot to take over the WW. Goddlefrood: I have followed with interest and not a little scepticism the view that Scrimgeour is a Death Eater. It is my view that he is not, but we really probably do not have enough evidence to go on, and it may be just possible that he is, or possibly a sympathiser without actually being in the inner circle. This support quoted above, however, is almost certainly not in favour due to Harry having seen Scrimgeour up close and personal prior to the Astronomy Tower incidents. I am thinking particulalry of his visit to The Burrow. The fourth Death Eater (who is, form recollection only ever described as brutal-faced) while not named in the book is more likely to be Yaxley or an as yet minor character. Yaxley is put forward because he was one of those mentioned by Snape at Spinner's End together with the Carrows (unconfirmed, but probably Alecto and Amycus). Just my two penn'orth Goddlefrood From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 19 23:57:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:57:08 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158491 > Alla: > > And he also says that his mistakes are of bigger magnitude than > others (paraphrase) and that I believe too. He may have understand > the things about blood protection others do not, it is just I want > to know the reasons for his decision - **why** he came up with blood > protection. In short - I don't buy the Dumbledore would do correct > thing just because he is Dumbledore, you know? Just does not sit > right with me. > Pippin: But surely his big mistake is the one canon keeps harping on -- that he trusted the wrong person. On the technical details of magic he is not likely to be wrong, nor would it be very meaningful if he was. Anyway, love alone is not enough to protect anybody from Voldemort. One of the most poignant things in canon is that we see how sorely all the dead are missed. Most of them were loved, but it didn't save them. Sirius's love alone could not have protected Harry any more than James's did. Nothing is purer than Harry's love for his parents, but it didn't save them. > Alla: > > What you just described is precisely manipulative Dumbledore I > detest so much, **but** it is certainly one of the possibilities, > but then Dumbledore should not have said so many times how much he loves Harry IMO - not **weapon** Harry, but just Harry. Pippin: It is not a question of the good of many over the good of one. Obviously Harry needs to survive in order to save himself, not just other people. Dumbledore knew that Voldemort would never give up his quest to kill Harry. No one except Harry ever survived longer than a year or so from Voldemort's first attempt on them. We can guess that the Order has successfully hidden people, but I doubt that it has hidden anyone Voldemort was after personally. Also there is the mind link, so Dumbledore would not be able to pretend that Harry had died. Saying that Dumbledore is a great wizard so he should have been able to devise something better than the blood protection is like saying we can put a man on the moon so why can't we cure cancer. It's a non sequitur. But Dumbledore is a greater wizard than Voldemort because he anticipated, as Voldemort did not, that Lily's love would give a power to Petunia that protects Harry even though Petunia is not magical and the sacrifice was not made for her sake. Alla: > I speculate that Potters thought that they had a reason to mistrust > Dumbledore. **NO** I am not arguing evil Dumbledore or anything of > similar nonsense. :) > > All that I am saying that it is possible that the webs of lies and > mistrust that Voldemort weaved around members of the original order > went very deep, maybe even deeper than we know and I want to know > **who** did it ( Shhhhh, Pippin ;)) Pippin: Nope, not being shushed, sorry :) It beats me how people can look at the mound of evidence piling up around Lupin and pretend it isn't there. I think these books must be very much about the power of denial. In his book _Friends, Lovers, Chocolate_, Alexander McCall Smith has an interesting take on akrasia, the philosophical term for doing things against one's better judgement. It is called 'weakness of will' in English though the literal meaning of the Greek word is 'bad mixture'. Hmmm. Anyway, McCall says it is really a *strong* will that allows people to ignore their conscience and do as they wish. If we think of Lupin as a person with a strong will who is able to overcome his better judgement in order to get what he wants, then perhaps we can resolve the paradox of how an apparently weak-willed person could be a bold and resourceful spy. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 20 01:02:11 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:02:11 -0700 Subject: divide and conquer. potters, sirius and DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158492 Ceridwen: Ooh, yes. Very good question that I've seen touched on elsewhere now that the debate about the cloak is opening up new venues. Lupin was suspected. Sirius was suspected. Who knows? Maybe even James was suspected - what better place to hide if you're guilty than as one of the potential victims? Maybe the web of lies and mistrust was so pervasive that even DD was suspected. Didn't someone mention that no one could trust anybody else at the height of VWI? But, Sirius and James trusted Peter. He might not have seemed the type, he seemed too wrapped up in his hero-worship of James, or whatever. Sirius and James, and most likely Lily too, thought that making him the SK would be a good idea, a switch no one would dream of. Slightly dismissive of Peter, but everyone seems to dismiss him. A trusted person, or someone who wasn't seen to be smart or brave or treacherous enough, could start a whispering campaign like this. If it is anyone, I would go with Peter, who had his own reasons to pit allies against each other. Ceridwen. Sherry now: I would go even farther down this road. I had this idea last night. Perhaps it wasn't even as bad as suspecting DD of treachery, but maybe someone was telling James that DD was not looking out for their best interest, was going to manipulate something. It didn't have to be sinister, just something to make James and Lily feel they could not quite trust him to be the secret keeper. And Maybe that same person was telling DD that there was something fishy about that Sirius Black, or about Lupin, or about James. It's an old trick, divide and conquer. One ratty person, or one completely unsuspected person could have done this easily with a nasty little whispering campaign. Just sow some seeds of distrust in the minds of all the parties involved, and you end up with hopelessly unprotected Potters and eventually orphaned Harry. I really like this theory! Sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 20 01:10:49 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:10:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Sirius, and more Sirius In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609191605i7ee5a21ch5fc760ce0f6a25fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158493 Lynda: Perhaps familial bonds and the love that is instinctive among family (Lily and Petunia were sisters after all) will prove to be a stronger protective force than we yet realize. JKR has said that there is more to Petunia than we have yet seen. Perhaps the lingering of love for her blood sister will provide extra protection for Harry in the next book. Lynda Sherry now: But love is not instinctive among blood kin. I neither like nor love my biological mother or her children from her second husband. I don't hate them either. I simply do not care. But I love as dearly as any daughter, the woman who was my father's second wife and who raised me from when I was 6 to 14. Blood is not thicker than water, but love is most definitely thicker than blood. However, I think it's possible that Petunia may once have loved her sister, and the jealousy only came along after the Hogwarts letter came. Either way, I've always been slightly uncomfortable on the whole thing about the blood magic, because everything else in the books seems to point out how too much emphasis on blood is wrong and leads to the discrimination against Half bloods, Muggle borns, muggles and on. Sherry From kamilaa at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 00:10:49 2006 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:10:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609191527v80c9fcbm29a2877484c785d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0609191527v80c9fcbm29a2877484c785d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158494 So I'm the only one who thought that Dumbledore moved Snape to DADA and hired Professor Slughorn to teach Potions simply so Harry could take NEWT-level Potions? Thereby allowing Harry to keep his hopes of someday becoming an Auror intact for at least one more year? Just me then? Okay, figures. Honestly though, at the time it was my first thought; Snape would not have allowed Harry to continue on in Potions due to his not achieving the proper mark on his OWLS, but with Slughorn there he was free to do so. And he did, of course, thereby learning many useful (and a few questionable) things. Granted, most of the ideas put forward in this thread make a great deal of sense and I'm sure they factored into Dumbledore's decision-making process, but I also feel allowing Harry to carry on with Potions another year played a part as well. *waves hello to the list* -- Kamil You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat. --Albert Einstein [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 01:52:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:52:47 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158495 > Betsy Hp: > This is probably part of the breakdown of our views. For me, in the > story-book pantheon of "bad parents" the Dursleys just aren't that > bad. At least, not in my opinion. I don't read a lot of children's > books and those that I have are a bit dated. So "bad parents" tend > to be *really* bad in the books I've read, and the Dursleys come > across as mildly horrid but survivable. (Harry wasn't treated like > Cinderella, for example. Washing a car and weeding a flower bed > does not compare to the drudgery of a scullery maid. He was also > allowed to keep his name and his place in society.) Alla: Yes, this is part of the breakdown of our views - I consider beating child ( Harry's remark that experience taught him to stay away from the reach of Vernon's hands - paraphrase) and starving him to be very high on **horrid scale** of bad parents. Betsy Hp: > I guess I just don't see that Dumbledore has all that much to answer > to for leaving Harry at the Dursleys. It was the place where Harry > was the safest. I expect any loving person would have done the same > thing. Or lived with Harry ending up in Bellatrix's capable hands > because of their unwillingness to make the hard call. Alla: I just want to see it :) Not attack by analogy, but attack on Privet Drive and Blood protection kicking in, anything to show me that Harry's sufferings, "ten difficult and dark years" were for the reason of him to stay alive. >> Betsy Hp: But I do get the > sense that the WW works on the patron-client system. > [see this fabulous essay here: > http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html ] > > The Potters were Dumbledore's clients. So yeah, Dumbledore had the > right to decide what to do with their son once they were killed. In > such a crisis situation it was Dumbledore's *duty* to get involved. Alla: Sorry, I read the first part and decided to ask whether you mind summarising the idea in a few sentences? Pretty please? :) Is the idea that WW works as medieval society? For protection they give themselves as sort of servants? I just don't see any proof that Potters indeed were Dumbledore's clients. Do we see that Potters came and asked for that protection? In fact, I see quite the opposite - they refused DD's offer to be their SC, so I do not think that Dumbledore had a right or duty to get involved. Susan suggested to me offlist that it is sort of DD world in Jo mind in a sense. He gets involved because he is **it** of the sort. ( I am not misinterpreting you, right? :)) That is actually much easier to swallow for me as metathinking reason, but Jo specifically said for example that DD is no Christ, I don't know, I guess I can still consider him to be the **it** in the general philosophical sense. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I think part of it was James's and Sirius's arrogance in their > own creativity. That they could outfox Voldemort without any help. > I don't think they actually distrusted Dumbledore. For one, Hagrid > would have had something to say about that if there were even a hint > of such thinking. For another, James does give Dumbledore his > cloak, and Dumbledore also has care of the Potters' Gringotts key. Alla: Yes, I understand the argument about arrogance and I specifically said that I do not buy this argument :), so I am looking for other venues specifically because I don't find this argument convincing, if you do buy this argument, then obviously this line of speculation makes no sense for you :) You know? To make a long story short, I am crossing out the turning down Dumbledore offer to be a secret keeper because of James and Sirius arrogance completely, because I think that Lily was **not** arrogant, ever and that she was if not in charge of such decision,then certainly played active part and no, I don't buy that she would let James exclude her either. Sorry! I am ready to eat crow as always, but for now I am not considering this venue. If somebody was telling James lies that DD is not to be trusted, then sure I can see Lily going ahead with the plan. As to DD having a cloak and a key, well, I don't think that **if** Potters distrusted Dumbledore they distrusted him for a long time. The events were unfolding fast and they could have given DD cloak and key before somebody told them convincing lie about Headmaster. Oh, and how Hagrid will know? Just speculating of course. > > >>Alla: > > As a matter of fact, can anybody refer me to the quote where it is > > said that blood protection was the **only** way? Safest in > > Dumbledore mind, yeah. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Is there anything anywhere within the books suggesting that there > was another way of keeping Harry safe? Because really, if we're > supposed to start doubting Dumbledore's call, than there needs to be > a suggestion of another way he could have gone *within the books*. > And I think it'd be really important to show that another character > had approached Dumbledore with that other possibility. Alla: Erm... yes, I do doubt Dumbledore's call in some instances as in trusting some people, so I see no reason why we cannot consider that maybe he failed to consider another option to keep Harry safe. We are probably not supposed to doubt his word in this instance, but this is again plot dictated reason IMO as in story supposed to go this way. >Katssirius wrote: > > > > It is interesting to me that JKR has chosen this contradiction. JKR comes close to negating one of the themes of > the series for the reader who notices. Love was not strong enough > to protect Harry or he would have been placed with Sirius or Hagrid > or a host of other people. Nope, love did not carry the day. The > magic DD sneered at in Voldemort's cave, blood magic, is what worked > best. I wonder if JKR has noticed this contradiction. > > > > Tonks: > I see no contradiction. There is love and there is LOVE. Lily's was > the greater and gave a protection in Harry's blood that Sirius' love > could not do. Alla: I am afraid this contradiction is staring in my face too :) But this is not the question of Lily's love v Sirius love for me. I mean, sure Lily's love is a great sacrificial love, although I would argue that Sirius love comes close. This is the question of Sirius' love v Petunia love for me, which is to me is non-existant. As I mentioned before we **do** see Lily's protection working not on Privet Drive. This is the protection given to Harry by her death. This is the protection because of which Quirrell cannot touch Harry. This is not the protection of Petunia as far as I know. > Ceridwen: > A trusted person, or someone who wasn't seen to be smart or brave or > treacherous enough, could start a whispering campaign like this. If it is > anyone, I would go with Peter, who had his own reasons to pit allies against > each other. Alla: Peter seems like an obvious candidate doesn't he? I am sure he is much smarter than he seems. Who else could that be? > Lynda: > > Perhaps familial bonds and the love that is instinctive among family (Lily > and Petunia were sisters after all) will prove to be a stronger protective > force than we yet realize. JKR has said that there is more to Petunia than > we have yet seen. Perhaps the lingering of love for her blood sister will > provide extra protection for Harry in the next book. Alla: I will be the first one to say that to me the love **should be** and is instinctive among the blood kin, but it does not always works this way unfortunately. Having said that, IF in book 7 we will see that Petunia indeed **loves** Harry, then sure the contradiction will sort of be resolved. Don't get me wrong - the protection of loving family is the best thing Harry could have received IMO, but the protection of people who treated him this way, I don't know. JMHO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 20 02:51:24 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:51:24 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158496 Betsy Hp: > > I guess I just don't see that Dumbledore has all that much to > > answer to for leaving Harry at the Dursleys. It was the place > > where Harry was the safest. I expect any loving person would > > have done the same thing. Or lived with Harry ending up in > > Bellatrix's capable hands because of their unwillingness to make > > the hard call. > > In such a crisis situation it was Dumbledore's *duty* to get > > involved. Alla: > Is the idea that WW works as medieval society? For protection they > give themselves as sort of servants? I just don't see any proof > that Potters indeed were Dumbledore's clients. Do we see that > Potters came and asked for that protection? In fact, I see quite > the opposite - they refused DD's offer to be their SC, so I do not > think that Dumbledore had a right or duty to get involved. > > Susan suggested to me offlist that it is sort of DD world in Jo > mind in a sense. He gets involved because he is **it** of the > sort. ( I am not misinterpreting you, right? :)) > > That is actually much easier to swallow for me as metathinking > reason, but Jo specifically said for example that DD is no Christ, > I don't know, I guess I can still consider him to be the **it** in > the general philosophical sense. SSSusan: ::takes deep breath:: Oh, man. I'm so not sure I want to get into this. As I told Alla today, I am sick to death of the DD-Dursleys discussion. ;-) But here goes. I am in total agreement with the comments I've left in here from Betsy. I think -- have always thought -- that DD made the tough choice but the best choice he could have made in that desperate time. I know it didn't work out perfectly, but why did things play out this way? Well, because JKR needed for Harry Potter to grow up in a cupboard under the stair on Privet Drive. I mean, that's the world she was building for Our Hero, the background she intended for him to have when we first meet him at age 11. Having Sirius take off with Baby Harry just wasn't the path JKR wanted to head down. So why did DD make the choice he did? Because somebody needed to set this all in motion. Yeah, that's flip, but I think it's the situation. Anyway, Alla pressed me for why it was *Dumbledore's* choice to make, and again, I rather flip-ly (but also seriously) said, "Maybe because DD is 'It' in JKR's world." Maybe that's a cop-out answer, but I mean, truly, perhaps he is! He's the "epitome of goodness," in her own words. He's long been the Headmaster at Hogwarts. He's Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards and Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. He has been asked more than once to run for Minister for Magic. He defeated Grindelwald and is the only person Voldemort ever feared. He's the leader of the Order of the Phoenix at the time of the Potters' deaths. He's the MAIN MAN in the Wizarding World at this time. So, with Harry's parents gone, with the godfather/guardian suspected as the one who betrayed those parents, who else would there be to make this choice? Now, I realize that some might say, "But what if the question is not so literal as "Why DID DD make the choice?," but more "What RIGHT did DD have to make it?" I still answer the same way! He made it because he was the Main Man in the WW and he is used to making choices, used to making decisions, used to leading (...and clearly many, many people respect him for those choices, decisions & skills). But he also made this choice -- had the "right" to make it -- because for JKR, he is the kind of man who has earned the right to make choices involving the leadership of and, yes, maybe even the fate of, the WW. Before anyone jumps down my throat for that last bit, I'm not saying everyone around here agrees that he should be in that position, nor that many might not see it as quite presumptuous of him to have taken those kinds of things on. I'm just saying that my gut reaction is that *Herself* thinks that this was DD's proper role. He'll make mistakes (not the least of which is just assuming Sirius' guilt), he'll regret how some of it played out (not the least of which is the Dursleys' eventual treatment of Harry), but I think we're supposed to understand that it was DD's place to make the choices here. IOW, I don't think JKR expected quite so many people to think so hard about alternatives to having "Epitome of Goodness" Albus Dumbledore make the call the night of Godric's Hollow. I think it was a "given" in her mind that that's just where the story started. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who knows someone had to make the choice that night and who's glad DD was the one From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Sep 20 03:18:11 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:18:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood protection/Sirius, Sirius, and more Sirius References: Message-ID: <004401c6dc63$690276c0$c466400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158497 katsurrius: >> It is interesting to me that JKR has chosen this contradiction. > She spends six books with DD telling everyone who will listen that > love is the strongest magic, nothing is more powerful than love. > However she puts Harry in the safest place magically, the Dursleys. > A place without love and only blood protection. Voldemort states he > knows nothing of Love magic in Book 6. This should have been > another advantage. JKR comes close to negating one of the themes of > the series for the reader who notices. Love was not strong enough > to protect Harry or he would have been placed with Sirius or Hagrid > or a host of other people. Nope, love did not carry the day. The > magic DD sneered at in Voldemort's cave, blood magic, is what worked > best. I wonder if JKR has noticed this contradiction. >> > > Tonks: > I see no contradiction. There is love and there is LOVE. Lily's was > the greater and gave a protection in Harry's blood that Sirius' love > could not do. Magpie: But I think the point K is making is that there's all this stuff about how it's love that matters, or who you are that matters, and then Harry has to live with people who don't love him because they happen to share the same blood. Sure Lily's sacrifice was important (though hardly surprising--most mothers would have made the same choice) but Harry receiving special protection from living with blood family who hate him rather than someone who loves him because they formed a family with his family through love is I think understandably seen by many people as undercutting the theme of blood not mattering, because you've got this big theme about how it doesn't matter who your parents are in terms of who you are, with the bad guys going on about BLOOD all the time. It's not surprising some people wonder why that goes along with this magical bond that's protecting Harry. Family is important all over the books, of course, but in most cases I think the real bonds seem to be more about love than blood. Even Sirius' family seems like there's pain coming from love there. That to me is what makes staying in the house hateful to Sirius, and that's what still ties him to his family. Betsy Hp: This is probably part of the breakdown of our views. For me, in the story-book pantheon of "bad parents" the Dursleys just aren't that bad. At least, not in my opinion. I don't read a lot of children's books and those that I have are a bit dated. So "bad parents" tend to be *really* bad in the books I've read, and the Dursleys come across as mildly horrid but survivable. (Harry wasn't treated like Cinderella, for example. Washing a car and weeding a flower bed does not compare to the drudgery of a scullery maid. He was also allowed to keep his name and his place in society.) Magpie: They seem pretty Cinderella-like to me. He doesn't do the same kinds of tasks as Cinderella but isn't the point that he's shunned and made to wear rags etc. because he's hated the way she was? He doesn't keep his place in society. I don't know how much worse the Dursleys would have to be in order to hit Cinderella level given Harry is living in a semi-realistic society. Sure it's survivable--DD even hints he thinks it might be good for the kid. But where I think it gets complicated is just in the mixing of genres. Harry's not being sent to just a home away from court like in King Arthur--he's not being raised on a farm where he works hard but has a good upbringing. You can't lock the kid in the cupboard, let him be beaten up and give him funny clothes and have him not be Cinderella. But of course, the Cinderella set-up also requires that JKR let us meet our hero at a low point, and that's again where it gets sticky, because why would it have to be one extreme or the other? There's no reason really that Harry has to either live with the Dursleys, unaware there's any other possible life for him out there, taking abuse or be unsafe. Think about it for a few minutes and of course you can think of compromises. JKR herself allows for that quickly enough, which is why Harry's no longer in a cupboard. Even so, I can deal with Dumbledore putting Harry with the Dursleys. The answer for having Harry live there is just, well, he has to live there to protect him. The books I think present this in a pretty straightforward way. Dumbledore even seems to imply he didn't care about Harry's personal unhappiness until he showed up at Hogwarts and wowed him and then suddenly he wanted to give him presents or whatever. I can deal with Dumbledore doing something kind of brutal because it was protect his Chosen One. It just makes it a little hard later when Dumbledore tries to later on fulfill both the role of fairy godfather and the person who organized the Cinderella household without, you know, dealing with that. There's a reason fairy tales split mom into the sainted dead mother and the wicked stepmother. We don't hate Cinderella's father in the story for marrying the stepmother because I think we understand that the situation sort of just has to be. That's how I think the blood protection is supposed to work. It just doesn't always for everyone. Alla: Sorry, I read the first part and decided to ask whether you mind summarising the idea in a few sentences? Pretty please? :) Is the idea that WW works as medieval society? For protection they give themselves as sort of servants? I just don't see any proof that Potters indeed were Dumbledore's clients. Do we see that Potters came and asked for that protection? In fact, I see quite the opposite - they refused DD's offer to be their SC, so I do not think that Dumbledore had a right or duty to get involved. Magpie: It's a great essay--but long, yes. The basic idea is that the Wizarding World doesn't really have a justice system where people are really protected by the law. The way it seems to work instead is that there are certain powerful wizards who can protect others, and people ally themselves with them. Lucius Malfoy in CoS, the essay suggests, felt he had to assert his own position for the wizards (probably ex-DEs) who counted on him for protection. The Weasleys all ally themselves with Dumbledore--except Percy who switches to Fudge once Fudge starts to strike out on his own. Harry seems to have the making of a future Patron too. -m From kking0731 at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 03:27:39 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:27:39 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158498 Snow: Sorry for the late reply Mike > Snow (me) previously: > That makes it sound as though the Fidelius is conditional to the > residence and I thought it was stated that it was conditional to > the secret keeper only, which was Dumbledore in the case of > Grimmald Place. Mike now: See, this is part of my premise. The secret has to be *proprietary*. You can't just call any place you want your 'secret' residence. DD can't walk up to Lucius Malfoy's mansion and invoke a Fidelius Charm saying that this house is the secret HQ of the Order of the Pigeons, thereby stopping the Malfoy's from finding their own house. DD doesn't have propriety over Lucius' house. It's the same for 12GP. Sirius, as the owner of the house, has to give his permission to make the house the HQ for the OotP and to be part of the 'secret'. Once Sirius is dead, the house passes to new ownership. If the new owner does not consent to it being the HQ then the Fidelius is dissolved. DD would no longer have propriety to claim the house as part of his 'secret'. That's why they moved the HQ out until the could positively determine that ownership was passed to Harry and that Harry had no objection to keeping the HQ there. Snow: Then whom ever owned the place where the Potters were hidden in Godric's Hollow would have had to give permission for someone to put a Fidelius on it, that much I agree on. However, the owner giving permission or taking permission away or dieing should have little bearing on the Fidelius once it was cast. This is why I don't feel that the residence or address has much to do with the actual Charm depending I think on who cast the Charm. The only circumstance that can eliminate the Charm, imo, would be if the caster of the charm dissolved it or moved it (like Dumbledore did temporarily). If the secret keeper of the Charm dies, the secret dies with him. The only reason anyone found Godric's Hollow was because the Charm was broken. In both circumstances we know of concerning the Fidelius the secret keeper does not die and yet Godric's Hollow was breached and Grimmald Place was not, why? This is why I tend to think that the secret keeper is not always the caster of the Charm. In the Grimmald Place scene I would expect the caster to be the same as the secret keeper, which was Dumbledore since The Order was the elite group of defenders led by Dumbledore; No one but himself could be entrusted. In the Godric's Hollow scene I would lean less towards the secret keeper also being the one who cast the Charm. Peter, no matter how much he has been portrayed as competent (later in life), has no skill to the degree of performing complex magic such as the Fidelius. Someone else had to have performed the spell. Someone who also kept himself hidden and checked up on the secret keeper, someone who could lift the Charm or move it if need be. This was a unique situation where the Potters entrusted Sirius to be secret keeper over Dumbledore himself and yet at Sirius request relied on Peter in his stead. What better way to ensure safety than to elect the caster to be different than the secret keeper? The caster of the Charm could reverse it if need be; like if Peter was found not to be were he should have been found with no evidence of struggle. That way someone could find the bodies and any evidence as well as save anyone lucky enough to survive. > Snow (me) previously: > Sirius dying did not affect the Charm since he was not the secret > keeper, which then makes perfect sense that the Fidelius was not > the homestead but the Order. Dumbledore said that they moved the > Order temporarily until they were certain of whom the residence > belonged to. Mike: See above. Sirius dying affected the ownership of the house which *does* affect the applicability of the Fidelius. His dying doesn't necessarily break the charm nor reveal the 'secret' location of the OotP HQ, but the new owner could certainly invoke his/her right of ownership and refuse to allow their property to be someone elses 'secret' location. Snow: I agree which makes it that much more interesting to who owned the house in Godric's Hollow. If Dumbledore owned the house and died then there may be a problem with the Fidelius if his elected processor disputed the Charm but Dumbledore didn't die so who owned the house because the house was revealed? Did it really matter who owned it in this case? I know I am doing a very bad job at convincing but I don't think the property has bearing on the Charm to the degree of the occurrence of GH. I just don't see it in this situation. It isn't about the location. > Snow (me) previously:> > If we apply this same condition to Godric's Hollow then Peter > being said keeper, who is not yet dead, would remain to hold the > secret of the Fidelius and yet even muggles knew the whereabouts > once the deed was served. No one could have found Godric's Hollow > residence if Godric's Hollow were the protected item of the > Fidelius charm. (I admit it doesn't make much sense the way in > which we have been viewing it) Mike: Right, which is why I view the 'secret' as no longer *true* once the Potters are no longer hiding (Lily and James dead, Harry removed). But, I further hypothesized the the Fidelius was cast as a "we are hiding from someone" charm. This would allow Flitwick's presentation to still apply to the Potters scenario and would make sense of the aftermath. If LV was told the 'secret' then the Fidelius is broken, anybody can find the Potters now. It doesn't matter that Peter, the SK, is still around, the Fidelius was already broken. Snow: I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Peter being SK can't tell Voldemort the secret or the Charm will be void? If that were true the SK could not tell anyone the secret. I think I misunderstand. I was saying that the secret does not necessarily have to be connected to a building (Flitwick's example was the use of --- but does not have to include ---; it was nothing more than an example). Peter did not die so therefore the secret did not die with him so why was the Charm lifted? A very redundant question I know > Snow (me) previously: > > But I have to ask before I read on if you feel that the Fidelius > did not protect Harry that night? Mike: Yes, I think the Fidelius included Harry, at least I would hope so. But we must take into account what Flitwick said. That it is an immmensly complex spell and that the Potters may not have cast it correctly. Snow: We are back to the question that I asked myself in reading this response of whom the caster of the Charm would be. Somehow I just don't see the Potters initiating the Charm. It just doesn't make sense to me and I'm not sure how better to explain it. > Snow (me) previously: > This might be were I part company completely because the Potter's > were not only protecting themselves but more so their child. Even > if you take the prophecy out of the equation, you can't dismiss > the protection factor of parents for their child. Especially if > James and Lily were not aware of the prophecy because they would > then be 'thee' intended victims and would want to protect the baby > that much more merely being parents. > > If James and Lily were aware of the prophecy, I don't think much > would have changed except that they would have made alternate > plans for the child's protection separate from their own so Harry > would be that much more protected if Voldemort managed to > infiltrate their own defense. > > Snow, thinking Mike and I may be on the same page but coloring the > picture differently. Mike: I'm not seeing where you and I part company. I don't disagree with anything you say in the above paragraphs and don't see where it's different from what I'm saying. Unless you mean that *bulletproof* crack? ;-) All I'm suggesting there is that the Potters may not have understood all the ramifications of how they worded their spell and/or may not have known what they could or couldn't make a 'secret' of. Maybe I could have added *inexperienced* instead of bulletproof. Snow: Actually I think it was more so the fact that you see the Potters as imprisoned at Godric's Hollow and I don't. The Order came and went at 12 GP. I was also addressing more the issue of what the Potters knew of the Prophecy to date and how that would affect their decision, if at all, on how to proceed and whom to protect in what way. Mike: I don't think DD ever told the Potters about the prophesy per se, only that LV was after them and Harry personally. You have a good idea regarding seperate protection for Harry, but I just don't think they did it. Snow: I'm actually iffy on this one for many reasons. As I said, even if the Potters were unaware of the Prophecy they would have protected their child's life greater than their own but I think separate, as to not put all their eggs in one basket. If they were unaware of the Prophecy then they may have been even more inclined to protect their child from their own possible fate. The only thing that makes me wonder whether they knew or not is what Dumbledore told Harry in the (outhouse) broom shed about who all knew of the Prophecy, "there are only two people in this whole world that know " sounds like two people who now know or the only two people alive who know; he didn't say the only two people who ever knew. Mike: To sum up, IMO there is no longer any Fidelius on the house in Godric's Hollow nor the hiding place of the Potters (all 3 of 'em). Also, IMO, the *whereabouts of the HQ of the OotP* is still a 'secret' and now that DD is dead, nobody new can find the *HQ* location. As to anyone finding the house at 12 GP, I think the protections the Blacks put on it are still in place, independent of the house being the "secret HQ of the OotP. So if the OotP moved out or disbanded, Harry might still have a problem with the Black's protections, or not. Who knows, who cares, it's not going to be a factor, Harry will never live there. Snow: Totally agree with everything you said here except (you knew there would be one) your last little off hand remark that Harry will never live at 12 GP. I have actually had my heart set on it since I mentioned a while back that Harry would have to protect his rotten aunt at `his' house I so hope its true. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 20 03:47:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:47:34 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158499 > Alla: > > so I do not think that Dumbledore had a right or duty to get involved. > Pippin: LOL, but I guess, Alla, you don't have kids? Or you'd be familiar with perfect strangers telling you what ought to be done with them, never mind former headmasters or old family friends :) If Sirius couldn't resist that kind of pressure, he wasn't ready. Not that I'm convinced it *was* Sirius. It's perfectly possible that the black box which holds Dumbledore finding out about GH contains an altered timeline in which Fake!Sirius got there first and baby Harry went missing. That would account for a lot, but it deserves a separate post. Meanwhile, canon that the Order does take responsibility for the orphaned children of its members: "And as for who's going to look after Ron and Ginny if you and Arthur died," said Lupin, smiling slightly, "what do you think we'd do, let them starve?" -OOP ch 9 Pippin From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 03:52:11 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:52:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Sirius, and more Sirius In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0609191605i7ee5a21ch5fc760ce0f6a25fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0609192052u3068ebbfwc7589145138709f4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158500 Sherry: But love is not instinctive among blood kin. I neither like nor love my biological mother or her children from her second husband. I don't hate them either. I simply do not care. But I love as dearly as any daughter, the woman who was my father's second wife and who raised me from when I was 6 to 14. Blood is not thicker than water, but love is most definitely thicker than blood. However, I think it's possible that Petunia may once have loved her sister, and the jealousy only came along after the Hogwarts letter came. Either way, I've always been slightly uncomfortable on the whole thing about the blood magic, because everything else in the books seems to point out how too much emphasis on blood is wrong and leads to the discrimination against Half bloods, Muggle borns, muggles and on. Sherry Lynda: Oh, I was speculating there. I should probably have added that this would be occurring in the world JKR has prepared for the population of the Harry Potter books. I certainly understand about not feeling an amount of love for family, because I have difficult relations with my family as well and am much closer to non-blood "kin" (I refer to friends not inlaws or steps here). I don't say I don't love my family however. As my non-kin sis says. "Of course I love you. I'm commanded to love you" I simply don't always like them. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 03:57:28 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:57:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0609191527v80c9fcbm29a2877484c785d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0609192057y44c9bcaen5b038162eb4c0ecf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158501 Hey Kamil, Your reply makes sense. I just hadn't thought about it in that light. The thing is, when we look in on someone else's stories, we do it with all of our preconceived notions about how it should be and where the story should go. My overcorrection is always to remind myself that I'm just reading someone else's story and that I cannot determine what will happen. So I often don't speculate as much as some others do although I always have internal thoughts. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 03:58:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:58:37 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158502 > Pippin: > Not that I'm convinced it *was* Sirius. It's perfectly possible that the > black box which holds Dumbledore finding out about GH contains > an altered timeline in which Fake!Sirius got there first and baby > Harry went missing. Alla: Not that I am buying another ESE!Lupin evil deed here, but the possibility of altered timeline and Dumbledore somehow learning earlier but under different circumstances that Sirius would be arrested and that is why taking Harry, I can buy. Pippin: > Meanwhile, canon that the Order does take responsibility for the > orphaned children of its members: > > "And as for who's going to look after Ron and Ginny if you and > Arthur died," said Lupin, smiling slightly, "what do you think > we'd do, let them starve?" -OOP ch 9 Alla: I don't remember Molly objecting with saying Sorry, Remus we do have the guardian appointed for our kids if we die. This would be the good will of the friends to do that, IMO. JMHO, Alla From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Wed Sep 20 05:48:53 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:48:53 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158503 Cassy wrote: > It would fit the whole atmosphere of bitter irony > (like Harry forgetting about Sirius's mirror) and also > the thread of father-son tragedies (Riddle Sr. > rejecting his son which leads to him turning evil, > Crouch Sr. doing the same to his own). Abergoat: Loved this.... aussie wrote: > We don't know how much time passed between James dying and the > Longbottoms being attacked. Abergoat: No one ever buys my argument but Dumbledore says they were attacked 'just as people started to feel safe'. I argue that people felt very safe the day Harry was brought to Privet Drive. They are showing themselves to muggles and setting off fireworks... aussie wrote: > Did we hear if they were captured and taken somewhere, or was this a > house break-in and the torture went on in their home. If so, could > Neville have been under James' IC. A last act of Alice's to save her > son from being a part of the attack. Very interesting thought about Neville under the cloak, given Bella's cruelty I always did think it was bizarre she didn't try to torture Neville to get Frank and Alice to talk. Carol wrote: If Barty Jr. was innocent, how do you explain his fanatical loyalty to Voldemort and his frequent, eager use of Unforgiveable Curses, not only on spiders, but on his own students (Imperius curse), on Krum (Imperius curse) and on his own father (Avada Kedavra)? Abergoat: I didn't claim Barty Jr. wasn't a loyal Death Eater, although I'm not sure he was at the age of 19 (Regulus Black seems to have joined without realizing what he was in for..). Thirteen(?) years under Imperius might twist someone's personality quite throughly. And killing his father? No problem, his father's failure to believe him destroyed his life. As for Krum? Why didn't Barty Jr just kill Cedric, Fleur and Krum to ensure Harry got to the cup first? And if they got there first, who cares? Voldemort would just kill them. Everything points to Barty Jr not wanting to kill more people than necessary. Not exactly a Bella duplicate. JKR lays out GoF to suggest that Barty Jr got the strength to throw off Imperius by seeing 'free' Death Eaters parade around at the World Cup. Barty's life has been a tragedy...and I bet he had done a lot less than those people. I found it telling that what Barty Jr wanted from Harry was information on how the Death Eaters were treated by Voldemort - I got the impression he wanted them punished...the punishment that he had received at the hands of his father that these people had not. Abergoat From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Wed Sep 20 05:56:30 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:56:30 -0000 Subject: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158504 houyhnhnm wrote: > I think the Sherlock-Mycroft post was in the back of > my mind. I agree that Albus' questioning whether > Aberforth can read could be taken as an illustration > of his eccentricity only. Abergoat: Oooo, cannot let that one pass. Dumbledore's words: 1) Head held high (ever seen a goat?) 2) MAY not be able to read (McGonagall the cat can, but a goat may not) 3) Went about business as usual (kicking people out if HIS bar? A goat can do that...) And it answers: 1) Why Aberforth isn't in the second Order 2) Why Mundungus will talk to the CURRENT barman without disguise 3) Why no one consoles the CURRENT barman that he funeral 4) How Aberforth avoided conviction for 'inappropriate charms' 5) Why the bar STILL smells of goats 6) Why Voldemort didn't come after him for the prophecy (he did) Abergoat, who will keep it up until book seven comes out and embarrasses her... From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 07:02:14 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:02:14 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060920070214.63574.qmail@web38307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158505 > Abergoat wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised of young DE Barty Jr told the truth at > his trial, he hadn't been anywhere near the Longbottoms. --- justcarol67 wrote: > If Barty Jr. was innocent, how do you explain his > fanatical loyalty to > Voldemort and his frequent, eager use of > Unforgiveable Curses, not > only on spiders, but on his own students (Imperius > curse), on Krum > (Imperius curse) and on his own father (Avada > Kedavra)? Cassy: i think, the point is not if Barty was warm and fuzzy, but that he could have been innocent of that particular crime, torturing Longbottoms. He easily could have been just a supporter before he was send to Azkaban, where he became embittered and started to hate WW, that did that to him, especially his own father, and plot revenge against them. He can even especially hate Neville since if it wasn't for his parents, Barty wouldn't have been sent to Azkaban. (not my opinion, just possible train of thoughts of Crouch Jr.) Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 07:09:49 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:09:49 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158506 > Alla said: > > What you just described is precisely manipulative Dumbledore I > detest so much, **but** it is certainly one of the possibilities, > but then Dumbledore should not have said so many times how much he > loves Harry IMO - not **weapon** Harry, but just Harry. > It is those conflicting messages I get from Dumbledore that > frustrate me so much - if he indeed cares only for Harry as weapon, > come out and say so, the thing is I am not so sure he does. Tonks: I don't see DD's messages as conflicting. I do not see any contradiction between wanting to protect Harry for Harry's sake and protecting Harry for the sake of the world. What I am saying is that Harry is very precious and his safety must take top priority. That is why the Supreme Judge of the Highest Court is the one to make the decision as to where to place him. Just as in the Muggle world a Judge would make that decision. In the middle of the night when a child is found in need the child is taken into protective custody and then a judge determines where that child will stay. I see nothing cold and heartless about DD's decision. It was the ONLY one that was possible. JKR has told us that, through the actions of her most benevolent and loving character. Alla said: As I mentioned before we **do** see Lily's protection working not on Privet Drive. This is the protection given to Harry by her death. This is the protection because of which Quirrell cannot touch Harry. This is not the protection of Petunia as far as I know. Tonks: As I understand the way the Blood protection works is that as long as Harry can call the place where his mother's blood resides `home', the protection exists for him. Not just in the house, but in other places as well. The *reason* that Harry is protected in places outside of the house is because Privet Dr. is his home. The protection travels with him as long as he can call the place where *Petunia* lives his home. As long as he lives there he is protected, period. He doesn't have to sleep there every night, but it has to be "home" to him. Magpie said: But I think the point K is making is that there's all this stuff about how it's love that matters, or who you are that matters, and then Harry has to live with people who don't love him because they happen to share the same blood. Tonks: It is the loving sacrifice of Lily that makes the blood protection strong. It is not the blood in and of itself. And it is not Love by itself. It is both. I think that we are supposed to look at the whole Love-Sacrifice-Blood as one thing. The books stress the fact of Love over *Purity* of blood. Lily was a Muggle born and it was her sacrifice that makes the difference. It is not the sacrifice of a pure blood. So if Lily and Petunia were pure blood, yes, I might agree. But they are of a Muggle family. There is the difference. A Love Sacrifice from a Mud-blood beats a pure blood line. And who knows, maybe it somehow saves all Muggles in the end. Another way of looking at it is that the blood of a Muggle or Muggle born is the lowest thing to many in the WW. So to have that blood be protective because of the Love/Sacrifice is a major idea. A note on the Patronage idea: Thank you Betsy Hp for the link to the essay on the Patronage system and the WW. I think he really has a good handle on it. (He must be a history professor or something.) It makes sense to me. He said that there are powerful people who because of their power and influence can protect those who will show loyalty in return. In DD's case many of those whom he protects are members of the Order and James and Lily were members of the Order. So one could see the patron/client system at work in the events of GH. I personally think it is a combination of patron and his position as leader of the WW. Alla said: > That is actually much easier to swallow for me as metathinking > reason, but Jo specifically said for example that DD is no Christ, > I don't know, I guess I can still consider him to be the **it** in > the general philosophical sense. Tonks: Actually JKR said that "DD is not Jesus". This is a very important distinction. SSS said: I'm just saying that my gut reaction is that *Herself* thinks that this was DD's proper role. He'll make mistakes (not the least of which is just assuming Sirius'guilt), he'll regret how some of it played out (not the least of which is the Dursleys' eventual treatment of Harry), but I think we're supposed to understand that it was DD's place to make the choices here. IOW, I don't think JKR expected quite so many people to think so hard about alternatives to having "Epitome of Goodness" Albus Dumbledore make the call the night of Godric's Hollow. I think it was a "given" in her mind that that's just where the story started. Tonks: I agree. DD is the Main Man. He is *IT*. And IMO there is a very good reason for JKR giving DD this position in the WW. Tonks_op From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 07:36:12 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:36:12 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060920073612.76082.qmail@web38312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158507 --- abergoat wrote: > Oooo, cannot let that one pass. Dumbledore's words: > 1) Head held high (ever seen a goat?) > 2) MAY not be able to read (McGonagall the cat can, > but a goat may not) > 3) Went about business as usual (kicking people out > if HIS bar? A goat > can do that...) > Cassy: Sorry for the off-topic, but I can't help remembering the scene from one Soviet tale, where a head of some Magic Research Institute was accidently turned into a goat. So his deputies were conducting an experiment to determine if he was able to continue to fulfill his duties. They decided to give the goat some cabbage and if he ate it, it would mean that he was just an animal ruled by instincts and if he refused it, it would mean that he can make an "act of will", so to say. The goat ate the cabbage, but the most loyal deputy interpreted it as a token of their leader's despise for their testing methodes. The goat stayed in charge of the Institute. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 11:34:06 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:34:06 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158508 > > a_svirn: > > Actually, I believe we are supposed to think of alternatives. I even > > believe that the whole thing was exactly the monumental mistake > > Dumbledore hinted about when he bragged about his brainpower. > > > Carol responds: > That's possible, of course, but I don't think so. Dumbledore is > confident that the blood protection is in place and will remain in > place until Harry's seventeenth birthday. a_svirn: I never claimed that the blood protection thing isn't working. What I am saying is that it's not the only protection that could have worked. > Carol: Also, although he regrets > Harry's mistreatment at the hands of the Dursleys, he sees that Harry > has suffered no longterm psychological or physical damage from that > treatment. In fact, though this was certainly no part of Dumbledore's > plan, he has developed self-reliance and some degree of indifference > to discomfort as the result of that treatment. He can certainly > tolerate the dislike and suspicion of his schoolmates (in CoS and the > first part of GoF, for example) better than Ron can, and, unlike Ron, > he's not afraid of spiders. a_svirn: Are you saying that it's thanks to Dumbledore's forethought Harry is so well adjusted? I'd say it is a miracle that he didn't end up damaged irreparably. After all, not only he wasn't loved like one Tom Riddle, he was also neglected and abused into the bargain. Could have gown up into quite a monster. > Carol: > I do think that Dumbledore made the best choice available to him at > the time, and I think it would have been irresponsible (or, even, to > use, Lupinlore's favorite word, reprehensible) for him to risk letting > Sirius Black get hold of Baby!Harry when, as far as Dumbledore knew, > Black had just betrayed the Potters to their deaths. Not only Harry's > fate but the fate of the Wizarding World lay in Dumbledore's hands at > that moment, and he couldn't risk giving Harry to a man who might > either murder him on the spot or turn him over to Voldemort. He had to > come up with a plan that would guarantee Harry's safety, and giving > him to Sirius certainly would not have done so. a_svirn: Of course it wouldn't. But having secured Harry's person shouldn't he at least try to establish the truth before making any long-term arrangements? I don't know about reprehensible, but it certainly doesn't do him any credit that he didn't. > Carol: > We don't have the word of anyone other than Sirius himself that the > Potters made him Harry's guardian. We know for a fact only that they > made him Harry's godfather, which is not the same thing. a_svirn: Well, we all of us selective when it comes to suspending disbelief, but between Dumbledore and Sirius I'd rather believe the latter. Dumbledore's "the whole truth is too dangerous thing" attitude is entirely too sneaky for my taste. > Carol: If the > Potters made a will, their copy would certainly have been destroyed > along with the house, and no other copy has been produced. a_svirn: I don't see what is so "certain" about it. It could have been in their Gringotts vault. Or in Sirius's vault. For that matter it could have been in some secret drawer in the Headmaster's office. The same one that contained James's cloak and the key from the Potters' vault. But in the end it doesn't really matter. He sent Hagrid for Harry and dumped him at the Dursleys doorstep. All in all, not the actions of someone concerned about legalities. > Carol: > If Black hadn't gone after Pettigrew, if he had instead gone to > Dumbledore and explained the situation, I could see his having a > claim. As it is, I see nothing wrong with Dumbledore's actions. a_svirn: Dumbledore did not make his decision *after* Sirius went after Pettigrew. He made his decision *before* Sirius had a chance to explain. That's why he went after Pettigrew ? there wasn't anything left to him but his revenge. And if From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 11:49:57 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:49:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158509 > a_svirn: > But the Dursleys do not belong to the WW. And whatever they owe > Harry, they owe Dumbledore nothing. Pippin: They owe Harry a suitable education, something the local comprehensive was not equipped to give a magical child. Certainly they didn't think it was good enough for their own child. And we don't know what, if anything, Petunia owed to Dumbledore, since we haven't seen any of their correspondence. a_svirn: On the other hand, it's perfectly sensible choice for a weirdo who needs to have his weirdness squashed out of him. The Dursleys fear and despise magic so naturally they would see it their duty to make sure Harry is raised "normal". Sending him into a place where his weirdness would be encouraged would certainly defeat that purpose, wouldn't it? It is unreasonable to expect any other attitude from them. Not just unreasonable, it's plain unfair. But then, Dumbledore hardly ever played fair. Pippin: It is like the kindertransport in WW2 where loving German Jewish families sent their children to an uncertain fate in Britain. Most of the children were treated well but some weren't. Still they were safer than they would have been in Germany. a_svirn: And what wizarding equivalent to Auschwitz awaited the boy who lived if it weren't for his aunt? Julie: And even though Sirius argued with Hagrid, he did finally give in. Whether he agreed that Harry would be safer with the Dursleys or he was more intent on finding a certain rat than taking guardianship of his godson, it doesn't really matter much. His agreement sealed the deal, effectively transferring responsibility for Harry to Dumbledore a_svirn: What deal? There was a deal between Sirius and Dumbledore? I wonder whether Dumbledore stuck to his end of the agreement and fulfilled his obligations towards Sirius. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 12:06:40 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:06:40 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158510 > Betsy Hp: > Well, I'm pretty sure Dumbledore's mother was married to his > father... . Seriously, this is where I think Dumbledore's > position as a patron weighs in. > > I'm not sure JKR meant to set up her world this way. (I'm not sure > how much faith I put into her world building skills. I get the > sense she's more a satirist than a world builder.) But I do get the > sense that the WW works on the patron-client system. > [see this fabulous essay here: > http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html ] > > The Potters were Dumbledore's clients. So yeah, Dumbledore had the > right to decide what to do with their son once they were killed. In > such a crisis situation it was Dumbledore's *duty* to get involved. a_svirn: Well, patrons are supposed to have obligations as well as rights, you know. I'd say that a patron definitely has to take his client's Will into consideration. Besides, following this logic, Sirius was also Dumbledore's client, wasn't he? It seems like in his case Dumbledore didn't go out of his way protecting his client's interests. And while we on the subject, there is a salient point in the essay you seem to overlook. Unlike the situation in Ancient Rom, in the WW patron-client relationships ARE NOT LEGAL. Which casts an entirely different light on the whole situation, I'd say. After all, Mafia also functions as a patron-client network. > Betsy Hp: > Is there anything anywhere within the books suggesting that there > was another way of keeping Harry safe? a_svirn: Yes, there is. Harry could have lived with his godfather and legal guardian, who would have loved him and would have done everything in his not inconsiderable power to keep him safe. From littleleah at handbag.com Wed Sep 20 13:24:51 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:24:51 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158511 ?? Carol: If the > Potters made a will, their copy would certainly have been destroyed > along with the house, and no other copy has been produced. a_svirn: I don't see what is so "certain" about it. It could have been in their Gringotts vault. Or in Sirius's vault. For that matter it could have been in some secret drawer in the Headmaster's office. The same one that contained James's cloak and the key from the Potters' vault. But in the end it doesn't really matter. He sent Hagrid for Harry and dumped him at the Dursleys doorstep. All in all, not the actions of someone concerned about legalities. Leah: It doesn??t matter whether the Potters left a will. It wouldn??t have mattered if they??d placed a ten foot neon sign in DD??s office saying ??Sirius is appointed Harry??s guardian in the event of our deaths??. Lily??s loving sacrifice had set up a deep protection for Harry, which would keep him safe provided he could call home the place where his mother??s blood dwelt. For that to happen, Petunia??s home has to be Harry??s home. It??s way beyond legalities. When the White Witch claims Edmund as a traitor in ??The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe??, Aslan can??t point out that this has been overriden by Code 318b of Narnian law or whatever; it is an old and deep magic, which he has to overcome with an older and deeper power. From everything DD tells Harry, this protection of Lily??s is something like this. Julie: And even though Sirius argued with Hagrid, he did finally give in. Whether he agreed that Harry would be safer with the Dursleys or he was more intent on finding a certain rat than taking guardianship of his godson, it doesn't really matter much. His agreement sealed the deal, effectively transferring responsibility for Harry to Dumbledore a_svirn: What deal? There was a deal between Sirius and Dumbledore? I wonder whether Dumbledore stuck to his end of the agreement and fulfilled his obligations towards Sirius. Leah: I agree there wasn??t any deal. Hagrid told Harry he had DD??s instructions to remove Harry and Sirius surrendered Harry to him; Sirius was obeying DD??s instructions, however reluctantly. Betsy Hp: > Is there anything anywhere within the books suggesting that there > was another way of keeping Harry safe? a_svirn: Yes, there is. Harry could have lived with his godfather and legal guardian, who would have loved him and would have done everything in his not inconsiderable power to keep him safe. Leah: Or or course, he could have lived with the Weasleys, with the Bones, with the Abbots or the Macmillans; any wizarding family on the ??right?? side would I??m sure have been delighted to take him in and care for him like one of their own; he could have lived with DD himself. As JKR said once when confirming that DD was not Harry??s grandfather; ??If he was his grandfather, why on earth would Harry have lived with the Dursleys???. None of those homes would have given him the protection conferred on him by Petunia. McGonagall tells DD what the Dursleys are like, and he continues to insist their house is the best place for Harry. It??s inconceivable that he couldn??t have found suitable wizarding guardians for Harry even then if all that was at stake was bringing up a baby. It??s not much good Harry having had a blissful upbringing for a year and then being dead at three. And while I can believe that Sirius would have loved Harry deeply, I??m not too sure about keeping him safe, bearing in mind his disappointment about Harry??s recklessness not living up to James??. But that??s beside the point. Sirius might have been the perfect substitute parent, and it still wouldn??t have given Harry the protection Lily had left for him. Carol: > If Black hadn't gone after Pettigrew, if he had instead gone to > Dumbledore and explained the situation, I could see his having a > claim. As it is, I see nothing wrong with Dumbledore's actions. a_svirn: Dumbledore did not make his decision *after* Sirius went after Pettigrew. He made his decision *before* Sirius had a chance to explain. That's why he went after Pettigrew ?V there wasn't anything left to him but his revenge. Leah: I don??t think Sirius explaining the situation to DD would have meant that he could have kept Harry for the reasons set out above. But I disagree that there was nothing left to him but revenge- how about explaining the situation to DD anyway, so that Pettigrew might have been caught, and then hanging around keeping an eye on Harry. The mere mention of his name is enough to worry Uncle Vernon, so I suspect an occasional visit would have helped. Even if DD wanted Harry kept out of contact of the WW until he was eleven, at least Sirius would have been about two books earlier. Leah From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 13:39:45 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:39:45 -0500 Subject: divide and conquer. potters, sirius and DD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40609200639w2f59e360sad81aad978e0dab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158512 > > Sherry now: > It's an old trick, divide and conquer. One ratty person, or one > completely > unsuspected person could have done this easily with a nasty little > whispering campaign. Just sow some seeds of distrust in the minds of all > the parties involved, and you end up with hopelessly unprotected Potters > and > eventually orphaned Harry. I really like this theory! > montims: And Peter was working for LV - had been his spy for a year. Even if Peter didn't have the skill to invent just the right thing to say, LV could have made some very good suggestions, and coached him on delivery. As could - who better? - Snape, either directly (but we don't know that he was aware of Peter being a spy) or indirectly to LV, without knowing who would be disseminating the false data. Snape would know when DD was away from school, for example, and be able to plant suggestions that he was elsewhere... From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Wed Sep 20 14:11:01 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:11:01 -0000 Subject: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: <20060920073612.76082.qmail@web38312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158513 Cassy wrote: > Sorry for the off-topic, but I can't help remembering > the scene from one Soviet tale, where a head of some > Magic Research Institute was accidently turned into a > goat. So his deputies were conducting an experiment to > determine if he was able to continue to fulfill his > duties. They decided to give the goat some cabbage and > if he ate it, it would mean that he was just an animal > ruled by instincts and if he refused it, it would mean > that he can make an "act of will", so to say. The goat > ate the cabbage, but the most loyal deputy interpreted > it as a token of their leader's despise for their > testing methodes. The goat stayed in charge of the Institute. Abergoat: Ah, someone with a sense of humor! I'm going to squirrel away your message - definitely fun. Given book seven is bound to be dark, humor will be needed. I think the idea that Mundungus is afraid of a goat is hilarious. Almost as good as Vernon and Petunia at Grimmauld Place. No wonder Harry will chose to go back to Hogwarts. Abergoat From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 20 04:34:03 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:34:03 -0400 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158514 Anent the car, how much of its inner workings (as opposed to the outer controls and appearance) was still the original Muggle car that Arthur acquired? It may be that all of the internal workings were magically powered--after all, there is no mention of stopping for 'petrol' (and how would they have bought any; it isn't as though they carry Muggle money, much less a credit card, around!) Hogwarts' express looks like a steam locomotive, but I hardly think that the 'fireman' was really shoving coal into the firebox. Similarly, Slughorn's record player may have looked like a gramophone and the Weasley's wireless set may have looked like a radio, but I hardly think that the really played through friction on the disk by the needle or the other by vacuum tubes. These and other post-Seclusion machines would have been things that the WW learned of through halfbloods and muggleborns and reverse-engineered to do what the muggle contraptions did, and to look like they did (for the benefit of any stray muggles that might see them, or the comfort of muggleborns/halfbreeds), but not WORK like they did. BAW From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Wed Sep 20 14:15:19 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:15:19 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: <20060920070214.63574.qmail@web38307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158515 Cassy wrote: > i think, the point is not if Barty was warm and fuzzy, > but that he could have been innocent of that > particular crime, torturing Longbottoms. He easily > could have been just a supporter before he was send to > Azkaban, where he became embittered and started to > hate WW, that did that to him, especially his own > father, and plot revenge against them. He can even > especially hate Neville since if it wasn't for his > parents, Barty wouldn't have been sent to Azkaban. > (not my opinion, just possible train of thoughts of > Crouch Jr.) Abergoat: Yes, thats the idea (much more succinctly put). Did Barty Jr act like he hated Neville in the book? Its been a while since I read GoF. Abergoat From amanda.fick at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 20 00:05:24 2006 From: amanda.fick at sbcglobal.net (iumuggle) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:05:24 -0000 Subject: Nagini the snake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158516 I have a quick question. In the beginning of Goblet of Fire, Nagini needs to be milked to feed Voldemort? What is that all about? Why does he need to drink Nagini's milk? iumuggle From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 14:41:23 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:41:23 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060920144123.90114.qmail@web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158517 --- abergoat wrote: > Almost as good as Vernon and Petunia at Grimmauld > Place. No > wonder Harry will chose to go back to Hogwarts. > Cassy: Will he? Harry doesn't like Grimmauld Place anyway, so if Dursleys are removed there, he can reside comfortably all alone in Privet Drive house... Anyway I'd love to see screaming competition between Petunia and Mrs. Black's portrait. And Dudley being chased around the house by the goat in question or, probably, Vernon walking on Lupin during transformation. Too bad 7th book will be grim and tragic - so many wasted comic opportunities. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 14:54:01 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:54:01 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060920145401.19873.qmail@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158518 --- abergoat wrote: > > Yes, thats the idea (much more succinctly put). Did > Barty Jr act like he hated Neville in the book? > Cassy: The scene in the movie, where Barty specifically called Neville forward to make him watch Cruciatos's effect on spider more closely, can be interpreted that way, I think. Barty definitely enjoys himself here and, knowing Neville's background, he must realise that Neville would be really bothered by the sight. As for the book, I believe that there Barty didn't pay much attention to the audience during the demonstration and the failure to notice Neville's negative reaction mught be just carelessness on his part, not malice, a mistake that could have been made even by a well-meaning teacher. After all, only Hermione looked at Neville and not on the spider that moment. I can be mistaken though, since I read GoF quite a while ago. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Sep 20 15:30:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:30:08 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158519 Tonks: It is the loving sacrifice of Lily that makes the blood protection strong. It is not the blood in and of itself. And it is not Love by itself. It is both. I think that we are supposed to look at the whole Love-Sacrifice-Blood as one thing. The books stress the fact of Love over *Purity* of blood. Lily was a Muggle born and it was her sacrifice that makes the difference. It is not the sacrifice of a pure blood. So if Lily and Petunia were pure blood, yes, I might agree. But they are of a Muggle family. There is the difference. A Love Sacrifice from a Mud-blood beats a pure blood line. And who knows, maybe it somehow saves all Muggles in the end. Another way of looking at it is that the blood of a Muggle or Muggle born is the lowest thing to many in the WW. So to have that blood be protective because of the Love/Sacrifice is a major idea. Magpie: But I can still easily see people seeing the contradiction because while it's not following the Pureblood Superiority idea it's replacing one way of using blood with another. The Purebloods are Purebloods because they are all family too. Blood does matter. And if it matters on a deep, magical level one way it could matter in others. As to whether DD is being cold-blooded, I don't think we can avoid an element of that given the home he's putting Harry into. Of course he's not putting him there because the Dursleys will be cruel to them; his reasons are about protecting Harry. But he seems to admit that only later do personal warm feelings of affection for Harry begin to alter his choices. Given what we know about child- rearing today, if we're thinking realistically, Dumbledore was taking a big risk by not taking the Dursleys' treatment of Harry into account. The author happened to know that this was a fairy tale and Harry would magically be okay, but in the real world I don't think an abusive environment usually leads to being a stronger person--it leads to quite the opposite. A loving environment, even if it's flawed, seems far more likely to produce a strong person. If his magical blood protection from a dead mother is stronger than an upbringing that might otherwise have led to rage, violence and a lack of connection to people and so a lack of empathy, that could chalk another one up in the "blood matters" column. -m From littleleah at handbag.com Wed Sep 20 16:01:21 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:01:21 -0000 Subject: Nagini the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158520 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "iumuggle" wrote: > > I have a quick question. In the beginning of Goblet of Fire, Nagini > needs to be milked to feed Voldemort? What is that all about? Why > does he need to drink Nagini's milk? > > iumuggle > Voldemort expands on this in the graveyard scene in GOF, describing his initial 'rebirth' in Albania: "Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary weak body of my own.....a spell or two of my own invention, a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided". Presumably, the Voldything that Harry sees in the graveyard, resembling some sort of inhuman child, needs continuing nourishment from the potion. This is why Wormtail has to milk Nagini. As a reptile, Nagini will not actually produce milk, but the term milking is used for the extraction of venom from the fangs (in muggle usage to produce antidotes to the venom). The whole reappearance of Voldemort is presented as a kind of unholy birth. Leah (who wants to know when and where (and how) Voldemort acquired his dear Nagini. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 16:14:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:14:29 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158521 > Magpie: The author happened to know that this was a fairy > tale and Harry would magically be okay, but in the real world I > don't think an abusive environment usually leads to being a stronger > person--it leads to quite the opposite. A loving environment, even > if it's flawed, seems far more likely to produce a strong person. If > his magical blood protection from a dead mother is stronger than an > upbringing that might otherwise have led to rage, violence and a > lack of connection to people and so a lack of empathy, that could > chalk another one up in the "blood matters" column. Alla: Well, I honestly just want to agree with every single word of your post, but besides that I am still not sure that protection from Lily only works if Harry is calling privet Drive home. I mean, doesn't it look to you as blood protection from Petunia ( her sealing the charm that Dumbledore put in place by taking Harry in her home) is still something different, sort of another layer of protection that we still did not see working? I mean, this is just something that keeps bugging me. Not to contradict anything you said by the way. :) Alla From rijl_kent at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 15:42:03 2006 From: rijl_kent at yahoo.com (rijl_kent) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:42:03 -0000 Subject: Grow up Harry! (What HBP was lacking...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158522 I know it's been quite a while since HBP came out, but it still bugs me--the story was good, but there was so much that WASN'T there. Harry seems to get over Sirius's death easier than he did Cedric's. Not that I wanted a lot of angst over it, but I thought he'd still be grieving. Harry is all of sudden "Dumbledore's man" Those two didn't leave book five on great terms, and at the opening of HBP, all is well. I guess there's some male bonding over shared pensieve diving, but that relationship wasn't really explored or explained. Harry and Ginny happened pretty fast. I didn't expect lots of fluff from JKR, but after Harry slowly realizes his feelings, all of sudden they just kiss. It's like a bad movie where the characters just stare smoldering stares and then suddenly are at each other tearing clothes sucking face. Couples getting together in the real world TALK, don't they? And at the end, Harry just throws that away (for Ginny's own good) and she accepts it. WHAT? For a book titled for Snape, we don't learn a whole lot. He's a mean bastard, not much is new. I wish we learned why Dumbledore trusted him. I won't go into the debate on whether DD knew about the Vow and wanted Smape to do it here. I guess we'll find out in 7. One of my biggest gripes is that Harry seems like he didn't grow at all! I was really disappointed that he didn't learn soundless casting. I know Snape is a lousy teacher, but Harry's _good_ at Defense. Harry learned to apparate--did he really learn anything other magic of significance? Harry's supposed to be able to defeat Tom, but his power seemed to be downplayed by Dumbledore. I never expected JKR to give us a Super!Harry, but c'mon! I guess I'm also disspointed with the major plotline, too. The whole book is essentially a prelude to a treasure hunt. I had high expectations for book 6. Now I have low expectations for 7. Maybe that's for the best. -end of rant- Whew! had to get that off my chest. I'll go back lurking now. :) Peace- -Rijl PS I'm writing a story that has all the scenes I imagined could happen 6th year but never did. As you can guess I include the things I complain about JKR not having. Harry will have very different confrontations with Snape, Draco and Voldie, too. If you enjoy fanfiction, give it a look. http://www.fanfiction.net/~rijlkent From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 19:00:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:00:42 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158523 Carol earlier: > If Barty Jr. was innocent, how do you explain his fanatical loyalty to > Voldemort and his frequent, eager use of Unforgiveable Curses, not > only on spiders, but on his own students (Imperius curse), on Krum > (Imperius curse) and on his own father (Avada Kedavra)? > > Abergoat: > I didn't claim Barty Jr. wasn't a loyal Death Eater, > although I'm not sure he was at the age of 19 (Regulus > Black seems to have joined without realizing what he > was in for..). Thirteen(?) years under Imperius might > twist someone's personality quite throughly. And > killing his father? No problem, his father's failure > to believe him destroyed his life. As for Krum? Why > didn't Barty Jr just kill Cedric, Fleur and Krum to > ensure Harry got to the cup first? And if they got > there first, who cares? Voldemort would just kill them. > Everything points to Barty Jr not wanting to kill more > people than necessary. Not exactly a Bella duplicate. > > JKR lays out GoF to suggest that Barty Jr got the > strength to throw off Imperius by seeing 'free' Death > Eaters parade around at the World Cup. Barty's life has > been a tragedy...and I bet he had done a lot less than > those people. I found it telling that what Barty Jr wanted > from Harry was information on how the Death Eaters were > treated by Voldemort - I got the impression he wanted them > punished...the punishment that he had received at the > hands of his father that these people had not. Carol responds: Barty Jr. was under the cloak and under the Imperius Curse for twelve years. He could not have acquired the power and the will to cast Unforgiveable Curses during that time, and the evident enjoyment he receives from Crucioing the spider under Neville's nose suggests to me that he knew exactly what he was doing--he would torture the Longbottom boy, whose parents he had tortured earlier, by making him watch the Crucio'd spider, which would lead to his needing a cup of tea in Crouch!Moody's office later, so he could slip him the waterplants book as an act of "kindness." I forgot to mention that he also enjoyed torturing Draco, transforming him into a ferret and bouncing him on the floor. 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). 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." Carol, who agrees that Barty Jr.'s fate is tragic but thinks he must have been taught the Unforgiveables, probably by Bella, as a young DE From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 18:44:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:44:03 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158524 Snow wrote: > > Then whom ever owned the place where the Potters were hidden in > Godric's Hollow would have had to give permission for someone to put > a Fidelius on it, that much I agree on. However, the owner giving > permission or taking permission away or dieing should have little > bearing on the Fidelius once it was cast. This is why I don't feel > that the residence or address has much to do with the actual Charm > depending I think on who cast the Charm. > > The only circumstance that can eliminate the Charm, imo, would be if > the caster of the charm dissolved it or moved it (like Dumbledore did temporarily). If the secret keeper of the Charm dies, the secret dies with him. The only reason anyone found Godric's Hollow was because the Charm was broken. In both circumstances we know of concerning the Fidelius the secret keeper does not die and yet Godric's Hollow was breached and Grimmald Place was not, why? > > This is why I tend to think that the secret keeper is not always the > caster of the Charm. In the Grimmald Place scene I would expect the > caster to be the same as the secret keeper, which was Dumbledore > since The Order was the elite group of defenders led by Dumbledore; > No one but himself could be entrusted. > > In the Godric's Hollow scene I would lean less towards the secret > keeper also being the one who cast the Charm. Peter, no matter how > much he has been portrayed as competent (later in life), has no skill to the degree of performing complex magic such as the Fidelius. > Someone else had to have performed the spell. Someone who also kept > himself hidden and checked up on the secret keeper, someone who could lift the Charm or move it if need be. > > This was a unique situation where the Potters entrusted Sirius to be > secret keeper over Dumbledore himself and yet at Sirius request > relied on Peter in his stead. What better way to ensure safety than > to elect the caster to be different than the secret keeper? > > The caster of the Charm could reverse it if need be; like if Peter > was found not to be were he should have been found with no evidence > of struggle. That way someone could find the bodies and any evidence > as well as save anyone lucky enough to survive. . If Dumbledore owned the house and died then > there may be a problem with the Fidelius if his elected processor > disputed the Charm but Dumbledore didn't die so who owned the house > because the house was revealed? Did it really matter who owned it in > this case? > > I know I am doing a very bad job at convincing but I don't think the > property has bearing on the Charm to the degree of the occurrence of > GH. I just don't see it in this situation. It isn't about the > location. > > I was saying that the secret does not necessarily have to be > connected to a building (Flitwick's example was the use of --- but > does not have to include ---; it was nothing more than an example). > Peter did not die so therefore the secret did not die with him so > why was the Charm lifted? A very redundant question I know > We are back to the question that I asked myself in reading this > response of whom the caster of the Charm would be. Somehow I just > don't see the Potters initiating the Charm. It just doesn't make > sense to me and I'm not sure how better to explain it. Carol responds: I'm not quite sure that I understand your argument except that you think it doesn't matter who owns the property (I agree) and you point out that the Fidelius charm is broken despite the fact that the SK is still alive, which suggests that the caster is not the same person as the SK. I've never for a moment thought that Peter was the caster of the spell. We're told in SS/PS that Lily's first wand is "a nice wand for Charm work," which suggests that she's good at Charms. Here's what I think happened (and admittedly it's mostly speculative): Dumbledore, the Heir of Gryffindor, offers the Potters his cottage in Godric's Hollow as a hiding place soon after Snape tells him that Voldemort is targeting the Potters and that someone close to the Potters is supplying him with information about them. Some time later, as the danger increases, Dumbledore comes up with the Fidelius Charm idea and offers himself as Secret Keeper. Lily and James accept the *idea* of the Fidelius Charm, and James turns over his Invisibility Cloak and the key to their Gringotts vault to Dumbledore for safekeeping, but Lily insists that she can cast the charm herself and James insists that his best friend, Sirius Black, should be Secret Keeper. He will hear no word against him even though Dumbledore fears that he may be the spy who's revealing the Potters' secrets to Voldemort. Dumbledore leaves and the Potters approach Sirius with the Secret Keeper idea, and he talks them into making Peter Secret Keeper instead. Lily places the secret, "The Potters are hiding in [address] Godric's Hollow," inside Peter. Peter, as Secret Keeper, has to tell the three people present (not counting Baby!Harry) the secret, so the Potters and Sirius Black know it but no one else does. We know that Peter didn't tell Remus Lupin. I doubt that he told anyone else except Voldemort. Even Dumbledore, who I believe lent or gave them the house to hide in, forgets what he knows (which also explains how Bellatrix could forget that Kreacher belongs to 12 Grimmauld Place). A week later, Peter tells Voldemort where the Potters are hiding. (I believe that he accompanied Voldemort to the house, since he wasn't home when Sirius came looking for him, and watched in rat form as the friends he'd betrayed were killed. Or maybe he didn't see Lily die since she was apparently upstairs.) The charm is broken either when he breaks faith (fidelity) by revealing their hiding place to the person they're hiding from, *or* when the hiding place is destroyed and so the secret is no longer true, *or* when Lily, IMO the caster of the charm, is killed. All we know is that the charm *is* broken. Otherwise, neither the ruined house nor Baby!Harry nor the bodies of his parents could have been found. (Were "bits" of Voldemort found? How did anyone besides Dumbledore and Snape (see upthread for my hypothesis regarding his Dark Mark) know that LV was the one who'd killed Lily and James but failed to kill Harry?) Will that work for you? Certainly Dumbledore didn't cast the Fidelius Charm or he'd know who the SK was, but I see no reason why Lily couldn't have done it, and I can't think of anyone else who could have managed it since James and Sirius specialized in Transfiguration, not Charms. You could be right that the death of the caster voided the charm, but I think the other possibilities are equally valid. Carol, agreeing that it's most unlikely that PP cast the Fidelius Charm but not sure who Snow thinks may have done it From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 20 19:00:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:00:08 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158525 > Pippin: > It is like the kindertransport in WW2 where loving German Jewish > families sent their children to an uncertain fate in Britain. Most of > the children were treated well but some weren't. Still they were > safer than they would have been in Germany. > > a_svirn: > And what wizarding equivalent to Auschwitz awaited the boy who lived if it weren't for his aunt? Pippin: You make my point. No death camps existed until long after the kindertransport had ended. Those who were able to post a fifty pound sterling bond and send their children away had obviously so far escaped the worst. They could have chosen to believe that they would continue to do so. Many people at the time saw Hitler as the leader of a clownish band of thugs who would never be able to govern a modern nation or carry out their grandiose plans. I see JKR playing on this psychology in her depiction of Voldemort, inspiring a similar dismissal in her readers. I think we are going to be shocked at the 'grisly' reign of terror predicted for Book 7. Pippin From taguem at jmsearch.com Wed Sep 20 16:35:53 2006 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle A. Tague) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:35:53 -0400 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158526 > Magpie: > The author happened to know that this was a fairy > tale and Harry would magically be okay, but in the real world I > don't think an abusive environment usually leads to being a stronger > person--it leads to quite the opposite. A loving environment, even > if it's flawed, seems far more likely to produce a strong person. If > his magical blood protection from a dead mother is stronger than an > upbringing that might otherwise have led to rage, violence and a > lack of connection to people and so a lack of empathy, that could > chalk another one up in the "blood matters" column. Michelle here: Not every person that starts out in ugly or even not so nice situations turns out messed up. Some of us are stronger for it. More compassionate... more sensitive to feelings and in touch with others weaknesses. Not everyone turns to rage or violence when verbally or physically abused. That's one of the things I connected with most with Harry... he didn't turn dish out what he got... he gave what he lacked. Michelle From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 19:24:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:24:30 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158527 > a_svirn: > Dumbledore did not make his decision *after* Sirius went after > Pettigrew. He made his decision *before* Sirius had a chance to > explain. That's why he went after Pettigrew ? there wasn't anything > left to him but his revenge. > And if Carol responds: As I said, Dumbledore had every reason to believe that Sirius Black was both the Secret Keeper who'd betrayed the Potters and the spy. Sirius did *not* have just one option, to go after Peter. He could have gone to dumbledore and explained his position, even presenting legal proof that he was Harry's guardian if he had any. That he chose revenge instead pretty much demonstrates, to me at least, that he'd have been a very poor choice of guardian. Meantime, Dumbledore had no choice but to take what action he could to protect Harry, and the blood protection that Petunia could provide and Sirius couldn't seemed to him the best possible option. Even if Sirius was innocent (as we know in hindsight that he was), what kind of protection could he have given Harry? He was a twenty-two-year-old bachelor with a reckless personality, no experience in child rearing, and a desire for vengeance against Peter Pettigrew. He didn't trust anybody--not Remus Lupin, not Dumbledore. He was a member of the Order and a friend of the Potters, and if he had run off with Baby!Harry, the loyal DEs would have pursued him. What sort of safety would have been possible for Harry in such a situation? Even if Sirius could prove that he was Harry's legal guardian, surely love for Harry and whatever common sense he possessed would lead him to understand that he could only lead Harry into danger and that Dumbledore could provide protections that he could not. Setting aside the fate of the WW, surely the safety of the child trumps the rights of the appointed guardian (appointed by parents who were young themselves and trusting their affection for their friend over his suitability as guardian)? Again, IMO, Dumbledore provided the best possible protection for Harry, and if Sirius had gone to him instead of chasing after Peter, he would have been persuaded of the necessity to keep Harry safe and the impossibility of his providing the necessary protection himself. Carol, trying to imagine young Sirius Black behaving as a responsible guardian capable of protecting Harry and failing utterly From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 19:40:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:40:47 -0000 Subject: divide and conquer. Potters, Sirius and DD In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40609200639w2f59e360sad81aad978e0dab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158528 montims: > > And Peter was working for LV - had been his spy for a year. Even if Peter > didn't have the skill to invent just the right thing to say, LV could have > made some very good suggestions, and coached him on delivery. As could - > who better? - Snape, either directly (but we don't know that he was aware of > Peter being a spy) or indirectly to LV, without knowing who would be > disseminating the false data. Snape would know when DD was away from > school, for example, and be able to plant suggestions that he was > elsewhere... > Carol responds: Are you suggesting that Snape might have been the spy who was revealing information on the Potters to Dumbledore even though Peter admits to the role in PoA? Surely the spy and the person who spread mistrust among the Order members so that Remus Lupin and Sirius black each thought the other was the spy was the same person as the spy--Peter Pettigrew. It's suggestive to me that he's even sitting between *Lily and James* in the photo Moody shows Harry. Snape could not have spread discord among MWPP because they didn't trust him. Only Peter, whom they thought incapable of treachery and seemed so devoted to James, could have done that. Not to mention that snape was not a member of the Order at that time. He was spying for Dumbledore and posing as a loyal DE. AFAWK, he had no contact with Sirius Black or any of the others at that time. (Black didn't know that he was teaching at Hogwarts, as he must have begun doing as of September 1 the year the Potters were killed, or that he had been a DE, so he could not have known that he was spying on the DEs for Dumbledore, either.) Nope. The person spreading the discord has to be the spy, who is canonically Peter Pettigrew (though I'm sure that Pippin can provide canon for showing that it might have been Lupin). Carol, who thinks that Peter's information led to the deaths of the Prewetts, the Mackinnons, and many others besides the Potters From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 20 19:42:16 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:42:16 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158529 > Carol: > > As we know, Dumbledore mistakenly states in HBP that Voldemort used > Nagini to kill Frank Bryce (unfortunately, Harry never remembers the > dream in which he sees LV AK Frank), but possibly DD isn't entirely > mistaken. In GoF he states that Frank Bryce, like Bertha Jorkins, > *disappeared.* IOW, his body was never found. Since Voldemort planned > to feed first Wormtail (who is reprieved from death by a message from > Crouch!Moody stating that Crouch Sr. is dead) and then Harry (who > escapes from the graveyard using the cup portkey) to Nagini after > killing them, it seems likely to me that Voldemort fed both Bertha > Jorkins and Frank Bryce to Nagini after killing them, partly to reward > or appease Nagini and partly to dispose of the evidence. Ken My how macabre, I love it! Harry wouldn't even have to remember the dream, Frank's "echo" accuses LV of killing him in the graveyard scene. Did Harry mention that detail to DD in the text? Was his report to DD about those events summarized in the text in a way that could have included this detail? I still wonder if that "mistake" on DD's part wasn't an intentional red flag he wanted to plant in Harry's subconscious. I've always wondered if LV was literally threatening to feed Peter and Harry to Nagini or if this was meant to unnerve them with an image that was horrific, even if impossible. I'm never sure just how big Nagini is supposed to be. If Peter had watched Nagini eat Frank's body he would have taken the threat quite seriously, as he seems to do. In Peter's case LV might even have been threatening to feed Peter alive to the snake!! It's possible too that in his weakened state BabyMort could not kill Frank, and just stunned him even though he used an AK. As far as Frank's echo would known LV did kill him but that would mean that DD was literally true, it was Nagini who actually killed him. An even better (from LV's point of view) for Peter to have in mind when LV threatens to feed him to Nagini. If that is true LV must have told Snape quite a bit about his fall and return when they finally met, otherwise how could DD know this? Ken From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Sep 20 19:48:57 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:48:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158530 > Michelle here: > Not every person that starts out in ugly or even not so nice > situations turns out messed up. Some of us are stronger for it. > More compassionate... more sensitive to feelings and in touch with > others weaknesses. Not everyone turns to rage or violence when > verbally or physically abused. That's one of the things I connected > with most with Harry... he didn't turn dish out what he got... he > gave what he lacked. Magpie: That's why I tried to not speak in absolutes. I'm not denying there are plenty of people like that in the world. But I still think it's unlikely someone would suggest that putting a kid in a home where he's despised and made to understand he's considered he's considered less than the biological child of the house is a good thing, or a great way to produce a kind, compassionate or well-adjusted person. Just as there are people who grew up in awful and even abusive situations who grew into loving, successful people, there are plenty of examples of people who were raised in abusive situations and became abusive or self-destructive or despairing. And even for the people who turn out well, that doesn't change the ethical considerations. Whether or not my putting a child in an unhappy situation is going to cause him permenant damage I'd still consider whether it was an okay thing to do. Sure there are times when a tough situation is still the best thing to do, but I'd still be deciding to put the kid in a situation bound to make him unhappy, and that's going to have its own consequences. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 19:55:34 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:55:34 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158531 > > a_svirn: > > And what wizarding equivalent to Auschwitz awaited the boy > who lived if it weren't for his aunt? > > Pippin: > You make my point. No death camps existed until long after the > kindertransport had ended. a_svirn: I am aware of that. Yet the simile isn't really working the way you want it to work. Kindertransport may have ended before Auschwitz and all the other death camps started, but it was already after Kristallnaht and with Hitler in power. The danger was real, it was there. In the WW, however, they only just had celebrated victory over Voldemort. Dumledore knew that it wasn't a final victory, but there wasn't any immediate danger for Harry. From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Wed Sep 20 19:58:33 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:58:33 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158532 wrote: > > I'm intrigued by the clue of the cloak. Invisibility cloaks are supposed to > be really rare, yet we've already seen four of them - Harry's, Barty Crouch > Jr's, - and two belonging to Mad Eye Moody. > Laurawkids: My daughter has JKR's Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. In it it describes the Demiguise. We are toying with the idea ( which you all may have been over before)that Dumbledore, who, "Did things with a wand I'd never seen before..." (Prof. Marchbanks, Transfiguration and Charms Examiner, p711 OotP pb) learned how to transfigure into a demiguise sometime after his trip to give Tom Riddle his letter. -------------------------------------------- Demiguise M.O.M. Classification XXXX [Dangerous/requires specialist knowledge/skilled wizard may handle] The Demiguise is found in the Far East, though only with great difficulty, for this beast is able to make itself invisible when threatened, and can be seen only by wizards skilled in its capture. The Demiguise is a peaceful herbivorous beast, something like a graceful ape in appearance, with large, black, doleful eyes more often than not hidden by its hair. The whole body is covered with long, fine, silky, silvery hair. Demiguise pelts are highly valued as the hair may be spun into Invisibility Cloaks. p. 9, Fantastc Beasts ----------------------------------------------------- If DD did this, it might explain the sudden red to silver hair change without needing the time-turner. It could be why he can be invisible without a cloak. If DD were, he could brush out his hair and keep it to weave into cloaks for his friends. He does walk around with hair down to his waist from beard and hair, normally. I think he would have woven them himself. He expresses an interest in knitting patterns in Slughorn's hideout washroom. He could do it just like Hermione does, only better and faster. This might be contradicted by him yearning for socks, though. Maybe he is sick of making his own socks, or he has to hide the fact that he could make them. I would like Harry to find DD's store of woven fur, and Hermione to make the "invisibility marquee". ; D Note that it says a Demiguise is like a peaceful, graceful ape. That would mean that DD could still control himself well enough to spy without having to contend with a noisy or reactive animal nature. Padfoot invisible would still draw attention to himself by his doggie behavior. I am hoping that DD could also transfigure into other forms. Is there any reason to think that that can't be done? And Abergoat, I like your idea about Aberforth. His bezoars probably save thousands of lives a year. If he is still the bar owner, but is a goat, that would explain why it is so dirty: he doesn't care as a goat, and the barman would rather not clean unless forced, like some men I know. Laurawkids From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 20:15:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:15:02 -0000 Subject: Grow up Harry! (What HBP was lacking...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rijl_kent" wrote: > For a book titled for Snape, we don't learn a whole lot. He's a mean bastard, not much is new. I wish we learned why Dumbledore trusted him. I won't go into the debate on whether DD knew about the Vow and wanted Smape to do it here. I guess we'll find out in 7. > > One of my biggest gripes is that Harry seems like he didn't grow at all! I was really disappointed that he didn't learn soundless casting. I know Snape is a lousy teacher, but Harry's _good_ at Defense. Carol responds: I have to disagree with you here. we actually learn quite a bit about snape--not the answers to the central mysteries, of course, but we see him for the first time as a good teacher who really does know his subject. No one except Harry is complaining about his teaching methods, and Harry is (IMO) doing himself a disservice by not trusting Snape and Snape's teaching, just as he did with the Occlumency lessons. The only reason Harry isn't learning nonverbal defesive spells is that he has a mental block against the teacher. Ironically, he learns a *lot* from Teen!Snape, the HBP, with whom he identifies. He not only develops an interest in Potions (setting aside the ethical problem of taking credit for knowledge that isn't his), he also learns several useful spells, especially Muffliato. And snape the DADA teacher shows the students what they're fighting against and provides an alternate method of dealing with Dementors that may well be effective for those who can't cast a Patronus in the face of a monstrous being bent on sucking out their happiness or their soul. As for what we learn about Snape himself, we see him as he appears to the Death Eaters and see why Narcissa, at least, would trust him--and that Bellatrix doesn't. We see that he apparently really cares about Draco and the Malfoys--enough to endanger himself by taking the Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco. (The reasons for taking the third provision are left mysterious, of course.) We learn that he was at least as gifted a student as James Potter and Sirius Black, despite McGonagall's and Lupin's statements about their abilities, a genius who invented his own Potions improvements and a variety of spells, ranging from imaginative hexes like Levicorpus and the toenail hex to useful charms like Muffliato to one dark spell "for enemies," Sectumsempra. We see the depth of Dumbledore's trust in him (interesting that DD constantly refers to him as "Severus" in the final chapters--does that indicate affection, too?) We see that he really *can* teach DADA and that Dumbledore relies on his knowledge of the Dark Arts as a means of countering Dark spells. We see Snape in a new role as Healer. The HBP's comment, "just stuff a bezoar down their throats," reminds Harry of Snape's very first Potions lesson, in which he told them what a bezoar was. If not for Snape in this dual role, Harry would not have known how to save Ron from the poisoned mead. And Snape acts directly as Healer as well, saving Dumbledore from the ring Horcrux, Katie Bell from the cursed necklace (presumably removing the curse from the necklace as well), and Draco from Sectumsempra. (Who expected to see Snape crooning over the bleeding Draco, chanting a complex incantation in some language Harry doesn't understand? I didn't!) And, of course, we find out that he was the half-blood son of a Muggle father and a witch, just like Tom Riddle, but also just like Seamus Finnegan. We also see that the DEs seem to fear and respect him, and that he's a master duellist, a role that was hinted at in CoS with the short-lived Duelling Club. So, paradoxically, JKR has made Snape still more mysterious by revealing additional information about him. And, of course, she's intensified Harry's hatred of him and his desire for revenge to fever pitch--a situation that will certainly culminate in a climactic scene in Book 7. Carol, believing that Snape will be redeemed and his actions validated in Book 7 and hoping that he'll somehow survive into the epilogue without being sent to Azkaban From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 20:35:54 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:35:54 -0000 Subject: Who is Harry's guardian? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158534 a_svirn: > Dumbledore did not make his decision *after* Sirius went after > Pettigrew. He made his decision *before* Sirius had a chance to > explain. That's why he went after Pettigrew ? there wasn't anything > left to him but his revenge. > And if Carol responds: As I said, Dumbledore had every reason to believe that Sirius Black was both the Secret Keeper who'd betrayed the Potters and the spy. Sirius did *not* have just one option, to go after Peter. He could have gone to dumbledore and explained his position, even presenting legal proof that he was Harry's guardian if he had any. That he chose revenge instead pretty much demonstrates, to me at least, that he'd have been a very poor choice of guardian. Meantime, Dumbledore had no choice but to take what action he could to protect Harry, and the blood protection that Petunia could provide and Sirius couldn't seemed to him the best possible option. a_svirn: And as I said it wasn't *meantime*. It was *before*. Sirius was shattered by grief and he blamed himself for the Potters death. Dumbledore's decision could only mean that Dumbledore blamed him as well and didn't trust him with Hurry's welfare. I think if Sirius had been given a chance to look after Harry, he would have put his safety and his welfare first, and his revenge a distant second. But he wasn't given that chance. Carol: Even if Sirius was innocent (as we know in hindsight that he was), what kind of protection could he have given Harry? He was a twenty-two-year-old bachelor with a reckless personality, no experience in child rearing, and a desire for vengeance against Peter Pettigrew. He didn't trust anybody--not Remus Lupin, not Dumbledore. a_svirn: What do you mean "he didn't trust anybody"? He obviously trusted Pettigrew. He trusted Dumbledore with Harry's welfare. He trusted Hagrid with the same (plus with his motorbike). The only one he didn't really trust was Lupin. But then nobody's perfect ? Dumbledore didn't trust Sirius. Everyone can make an error of judgement. Carol: Even if Sirius could prove that he was Harry's legal guardian, surely love for Harry and whatever common sense he possessed would lead him to understand that he could only lead Harry into danger and that Dumbledore could provide protections that he could not. a_svirn: Good point. And all that plus his being crushed by grief and guilt- ridden must have contributed to his complying with Dumbledore's wishes. Or, rather, with Dumbledore's orders. He opted for giving Harry up, rather then endangering him ? like a mother from that King Solomon story, only with the different ending. Which makes me think that he would have made a much better guardian than the Dursleys. And which makes me doubt Dumbledore's wisdom. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 21:45:37 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:45:37 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > I've always wondered if LV was literally threatening to feed Peter and Harry to Nagini or if this was meant to unnerve them with an image that was horrific, even if impossible. I'm never sure just how big Nagini is supposed to be. Steven1965aaa: In general (and although I'm not an expert and I may be getting the terminology wrong) many snakes are capable of swallowing and eating animals which are relatively large as compared to the snake. They expand their jaws which have special joints to allow this, swallow their prey whole, and then digest. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Sep 20 19:43:13 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:43:13 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158536 > Michelle here: > Not every person that starts out in ugly or even not so nice > situations turns out messed up. Some of us are stronger for it. > More compassionate... more sensitive to feelings and in touch with > others weaknesses. Tesha: It's the eternal nature vs. nurture discussion, right? If someone is beaten as a child they most definitely will be changed by that abuse. But for good or bad? This is dependent on their own intrinsic character, what they were born with (and sometime just plain good luck). Does it say anywhere if DD set other wizzarding folk to watch out for Harry until he came of age? From random832 at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 22:47:59 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:47:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609201547o26295969ha351240f5623103b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158537 > Leah: > Lily's loving sacrifice had set up a deep protection for > Harry, which would keep him safe provided he could call home the > place where his mother's blood dwelt. For that to happen, Petunia's > home has to be Harry's home. Random832: But it is not in any way certain that he will be harmed if not placed with the Dursleys. And why not take Petunia away to live somewhere else? Kill off Vernon "for the greater good". > It's way beyond legalities. Random832: The _fact_ that the protection depends on a particular choice of placement may be "beyond legalities", but Dumbledore does NOT have an absolute right to place Harry under that protection if it requires violating his parents' will. > Leah: > Sirius was obeying DD's instructions, however reluctantly. Random832: And then, later, DD completely screwed him. Sirius made a wrong decision. A wrong decision which was to be the first of several that night. > Leah: > ... None of those homes would have > given him the protection conferred on him by Petunia. Random832: None of which means he would not have otherwise been safe. Any of those other places, he would also not have been abused. Maybe it made sense to place him with the Dursleys for a few years, when there were still many DE's at large and likely to want to take revenge. But once that danger had passed, why not place him with someone who would love him? Which brings us to Dumbledore's _other_ motive, which you so conveniently forget: to keep Harry ignorant of the WW. This goal is stated, IIRC, _before_ we even hear of blood protections. > Leah: > Sirius might have been the perfect > substitute parent, and it still wouldn't have given Harry the > protection Lily had left for him. Random832: And it's not like he would have been completely undefended elsewhere. You have to compare the blood protection to what protection he would have received living with any of the others, _not_ to "no protection at all". The blood protection is not perfect. It did not protect him from whatever "experience" it was that "taught him to stay well out of Vernon's reach". It did not protect him from being portkeyed away and having his arm sliced open by the very man who condemned his parents to death. It has not protected him from Voldemort personally at all since the end of fourth year. Surely he could be better protected at Grimmauld Place once the blood protection was out of the equation. -- Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 22:56:41 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:56:41 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158538 > > Michelle here: > > Not every person that starts out in ugly or even not so nice > > situations turns out messed up. Some of us are stronger for it. > > More compassionate... more sensitive to feelings and in touch with > > others weaknesses. Not everyone turns to rage or violence when > > verbally or physically abused. That's one of the things I connected > > with most with Harry... he didn't turn dish out what he got... he > > gave what he lacked. > > Magpie: I'm not denying there > are plenty of people like that in the world. But I still think it's > unlikely someone would suggest that putting a kid in a home where he's > despised and made to understand he's considered he's considered less > than the biological child of the house is a good thing, or a great way > to produce a kind, compassionate or well-adjusted person. Just as > there are people who grew up in awful and even abusive situations who > grew into loving, successful people, there are plenty of examples of > people who were raised in abusive situations and became abusive or > self-destructive or despairing. Alla: Precisely Magpie. I agree again. To me the question is not whether Harry would or would not turn out relatively well adjusted person, but why would one risk the **possibility** of something to the contrary happening, **especially** seeing the example of Tom Riddle. And Harry of course turned out much more compassionate person than one could expected, but in some situations he reacts as someone who did not have normal family IMO and JKR as much as said that he is damaged ( what else could have damaged him but Dursleys' upbringing IMO). That is why Dumbledore who was hoping that Dursleys would not abuse Harry and would love him ( the way I read DD in that infamous scene :)) works better for me than the one who erm... knew that Harry will have dark and difficult years in front of him. But again, I know that I have to grudgingly accept that Dumbledore is placing Harry with Dursleys for his safety, it is just the things that he seems to coldly take away from Harry while supposedly putting him in the safety of the blood protection makes me want to slap him :) As I said, I would have a bit easier time swallowing it if I would have seen that DD's measures were not in vain. Oh well maybe there would be attack on Privet Drive in book 7 and curse will bounce off Harry or something, one can hope. JMO, Alla From greatraven at hotmail.com Wed Sep 20 23:05:31 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:05:31 -0000 Subject: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Anent the car, how much of its inner workings (as opposed to the outer controls > and appearance) was still the original Muggle car that Arthur acquired? It may > be that all of the internal workings were magically powered--after all, there is > no mention of stopping for 'petrol' (and how would they have bought any; it > isn't as though they carry Muggle money, much less a credit card, around!) > > Hogwarts' express looks like a steam locomotive, but I hardly think that the > 'fireman' was really shoving coal into the firebox. Similarly, Slughorn's > record player may have looked like a gramophone and the Weasley's wireless set > may have looked like a radio, but I hardly think that the really played through > friction on the disk by the needle or the other by vacuum tubes. These and > other post-Seclusion machines would have been things that the WW learned of > through halfbloods and muggleborns and reverse-engineered to do what the muggle > contraptions did, and to look like they did (for the benefit of any stray > muggles that might see them, or the comfort of muggleborns/halfbreeds), but not > WORK like they did. > > BAW > Sue: Interesting discussion. Well, they couldn;t have worked the same at Hogwarts, at least, because Muggle technology just doesn't. It has a sort of magical 'dampener field' against Muggle technology - which is presumably why the car is running wild in the forest, a living thing, and why Sirius's motorbike, apart from flying, can hold a normal-sized person like Sirius and a gigantic one like Hagrid. And if you or I were to turn on the radio, we sure wouldn't hear the Weird Sisters playing! Makes me wonder why, given that they have all this other stuff that resembles Muggle technology, they can't use a Wizard-style phone instead of having to stick their heads into the fireplace to communicate (imagine being a Wizard teenager and not being able to spend hours on the phone... NO ONE could possibly kneel for ages on the edge of the fireplace). And how sad for them that they don't have computers and a Wizard Internet - imagine what Hermione could do with that! :-) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 20 23:33:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:33:55 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158540 > a_svirn: Dumledore knew that it wasn't a final victory, but there > wasn't any immediate danger for Harry. > Pippin: That's where we see things differently. Yes, the danger of a Voldemortist coup would be in abeyance until Voldemort recovered his body and could command his DE's again. Harry would not wake up one day to find dragons circling Trafalgar Square or giants invading Surrey. But-- Dumbledore wasn't only trying to save Harry from living in a world dominated by Voldemort. He was trying to save Harry from being murdered. The number of potential Harry- killers actually increased with Voldemort's loss of power, since besides being in danger from Voldemort himself, Harry was now in danger from suicidal fanatic Death Eaters seeking vengeance on their master's behalf. Voldemort's wand must have been missing from the scene and that would mean at least one of his faithful was at large and knew what had happened. Dumbledore could also reasonably expect that Voldemort himself was still capable of finding ways to kill Harry and still motivated to do so. But Dumbledore couldn't have explained that without explaining about horcruxes or Voldemort's interpretation of the prophecy. He did not want Voldemort to realize how much he knew, so he couldn't alert anyone to the real extent of the danger. Certainly Dumbledore was in no position to explain all this to anyone in the Order when Dumbledore did not yet know which Order member was the spy. Yet they could hardly have been expected to defend Harry adequately without knowing it. Only Petunia could do that. Anyway, things wouldn't have looked very good for Sirius even before the attack on the Muggles. James and Lily had trusted him above all others, Dumbledore believed he had been their secret-keeper, and James and Lily were *dead*. Even if Dumbledore knew that Sirius had been chosen as Harry's guardian, it would've been reckless to hand Harry over to him under the circumstances. Pippin From random832 at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 23:40:58 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:40:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Electronics at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609201640m78bf93d5j7cf1bd54e46c886c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158541 > Sue: > Makes me wonder why, given that they have all > this other stuff that resembles Muggle technology, they can't use a > Wizard-style phone > instead of having to stick their heads into the fireplace to > communicate (imagine being a > Wizard teenager and not being able to spend hours on the > phone... NO ONE could possibly > kneel for ages on the edge of the fireplace). I think the idea is that the chatty wizard/witch teenager goes _through_ the fireplace. Keep in mind what "call" meant in the muggle world before the invention of the telephone. -- Random832 From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 23:44:37 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:44:37 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158542 > > Magpie: > > The author happened to know that this was a fairy > > tale and Harry would magically be okay, but in the real world I > > don't think an abusive environment usually leads to being a stronger person--it leads to quite the opposite. A loving environment, even if it's flawed, seems far more likely to produce a strong person. If his magical blood protection from a dead mother is stronger than an upbringing that might otherwise have led to rage, violence and a lack of connection to people and so a lack of empathy, that could chalk another one up in the "blood matters" column. > > > Michelle here: > Not every person that starts out in ugly or even not so nice > situations turns out messed up. Some of us are stronger for it. > More compassionate... more sensitive to feelings and in touch with > others weaknesses. Not everyone turns to rage or violence when > verbally or physically abused. That's one of the things I connected with most with Harry... he didn't turn dish out what he got... he gave what he lacked. > Tonks: The last thing I wand to do is to start arguing about the Dursleys again. We are all in one camp or another and no one is going to change their mind. But I get the feeling that those on one side of the fence seem to think that there are all these *loving* families out there. I want to ask what fairytale is that? There are a few, very few, mentally healthy families where children get good parenting, feel loved and grow up to be well adjusted. It is a joy to see those families. I wish I had been raised in one like that myself and I was not abused in any way. Most children are lucky if they have one loving parent in their life. I have heard horror stories of the ways most people were raised, even in families with no physically or sexual abuse. The Dursleys are IMO a rather typical family that has taken in a relative's child. They show more love and attention to their own child. Not that it is right, but it is reality. I think it is a very good thing that Harry grew up in the home that he did. Not for Harry's sake, but for the sake of the children who are reading the books. IMO, Harry is in a rather typical family. I think that children can identify with him and learn to cope with the things in their own families by reading about Harry. What a disservice JKR would have done to the children of the world if she has put Harry in some *fairytale* goody, goody family all sweetness and light and kisses and hugs all the time. Most children do not grow up in that type of home. And even those few who do usually have times when they feel misunderstood and unloved. All children can identify with Harry and learn from him, something they might not be able to do if he had been raised by a fairytale family. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 23:44:31 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:44:31 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609201547o26295969ha351240f5623103b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158543 > Random832: > And it's not like he would have been completely undefended elsewhere. > You have to compare the blood protection to what protection he would > have received living with any of the others, _not_ to "no protection > at all". > > The blood protection is not perfect. It did not protect him from > whatever "experience" it was that "taught him to stay well out of > Vernon's reach". It did not protect him from being portkeyed away and > having his arm sliced open by the very man who condemned his parents > to death. It has not protected him from Voldemort personally at all > since the end of fourth year. Surely he could be better protected at > Grimmauld Place once the blood protection was out of the equation. > Alla: Yes, this quote also always frustrates me and makes me think that blood protection is not perfect either. Basically what I am trying to say is that IMO to place Harry with Dursleys was only worth it, if blood protection is iron clad, IF nothing else would have worked and if blood protection works 100%. "For he has been better protected than I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him there. . . . Then, of course, there was the Quidditch World Cup. ... I thought his protection might be weaker there, away from his relations and Dumbledore, but I was not yet strong enough to attempt kidnap in the midst of a horde of Ministry wizards. And then, the boy would return to Hogwarts, where he is under the crooked nose of that Muggle-loving fool from morning until night. So how could I take him? " This is of course Voldemort bragging so we should take it with the grain of salt, I suppose. But what part are we supposed to take with grain of salt? The one where he says that Harry was better protected than he even knows or the part where he says that even he ( Voldemort) cannot touch Harry there. Am I supposed to read that Voldemort's minions indeed could touch Harry there and only his highness himself cannot? I mean, supposedly Voldemort does not understand ancient magic of love but he understands at least on rational level that protection against him worked? Ugh, I so wish JKR would explain the mechanics of blood protection. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 23:56:56 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:56:56 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158544 > >>Betsy Hp: > > This is probably part of the breakdown of our views. For me, in > > the story-book pantheon of "bad parents" the Dursleys just > > aren't that bad. > > > >>Alla: > Yes, this is part of the breakdown of our views - I consider > beating child ( Harry's remark that experience taught him to stay > away from the reach of Vernon's hands - paraphrase) and starving > him to be very high on **horrid scale** of bad parents. Betsy Hp: But since the Dursleys neither beat nor starved Harry, they don't manage to rank, IMO. There needs to be bruising, fainting, etc., to make it into the pantheon for me. Harry doesn't even manage an emotional breakdown because the Dursleys don't love him. If the Dursleys are to rank, Harry needs to bleed. And he doesn't. > >>Betsy Hp: > > (Harry wasn't treated like Cinderella, for example. Washing a > > car and weeding a flower bed does not compare to the drudgery of > > a scullery maid. He was also allowed to keep his name and his > > place in society.) > >>Magpie: > They seem pretty Cinderella-like to me. He doesn't do the same > kinds of tasks as Cinderella but isn't the point that he's shunned > and made to wear rags etc. because he's hated the way she was? He > doesn't keep his place in society. I don't know how much worse the > Dursleys would have to be in order to hit Cinderella level given > Harry is living in a semi-realistic society. > Betsy Hp: I reread the opening to SS just to refresh my memory of how Harry was treated at the Dursleys. Harry suffered from a *lot* of unfairness. And boredom. But that's about it. And it's all relative to Dudley. Harry has chores, Dudley doesn't. Dudley has tons of cool toys, Harry doesn't. Dudley gets an icecream treat, Harry has to make do with a popsicle. Dudley gets taken on fun outings, Harry doesn't. Dudley watches what he wants to on TV, Harry has to make do with watching what Dudley wants to watch. Dudley has *two* rooms, Harry's got a tiny little room under the stairs. Dudley gets up to the minute new fashions, Harry wears badly fitting hand-me-downs. So Harry is not in rags, he's not overworked. I think there are *references* to Cinderella, but they're very, very mild. Harry isn't responsible for keeping the house clean, fixing the meals, keeping the garden in order as I'd expect in a Cinderella mirror. Aunt Petunia does all that. When she needs help, she calls for Harry (not wanting to bother her sweet Dudley), which isn't fair, but it isn't abusive really. Harry isn't even shunned. He exists. His parents exist. (Harry is a Potter, IOWs.) He goes to school with Dudley, he's a part of the Dursley household. When he's about to be whisked away to a world Vernon and Petunia fear, Harry is taken away with the entire family. And he's treated pretty equally. He shares a hotel room with Dudley. He sits with the family for breakfast the next morning. When Vernon buys his pathetic "supplies" for the island, everyone gets one bag of crisps and a bannana. Including Harry. So when Harry is contemplating his empty stomach, the entire Dursley clan is in the same boat. Harry *is* low on the totem pole. e.g. Petunia and Vernon get the bed, Dudley gets the couch and Harry gets the floor. Harry also gets the nastiest blanket. But, again, that's merely unfair. I wouldn't call it abusive. > >>Magpie: > I can deal with Dumbledore doing something kind of brutal because > it was protect his Chosen One. It just makes it a little hard > later when Dumbledore tries to later on fulfill both the role of > fairy godfather and the person who organized the Cinderella > household without, you know, dealing with that. > Betsy Hp: It all goes back to how brutal you think it really is (was) for Harry. I don't think it was all that bad (for story-telling land). I suppose you have to factor in how big of a deal the blood protection is. I think it's huge. I think the story of the Longbottoms is supposed to show what would have happened if Harry hadn't had that protection. (Sirius or whomever totured to insanity. Harry either dead or in Bellatrix's hands.) So for me, the scale tips more towards the protection side. In which case Dumbledore's scene at the end of OotP works as far as dealing with Dumbledore's decision way back when. But I recognize that this is because of how I weigh the two things (Dudley household vs. Blood protection). Mileage may vary, and obviously does. > >>Alla: > > Is the idea that WW works as medieval society? For protection they > give themselves as sort of servants? > Betsy Hp: Definitely not medieval. And not that structured (master and servant). More protector and protected, I think. > >>Alla: > I just don't see any proof that Potters indeed were Dumbledore's > clients. > Betsy Hp: Heh. Well, I could say that Dumbledore's dealing with Harry is a proof, but that would be circular I fear. There's Dumbledore being the keeper of James's cloak and their Gingotts key, I think. There's practicality there. We also have Lily being muggle-born. Dumbledore as a champion for muggle-borns seems an obvious choice for Lily's patron. And for James too, what with his parent's beliefs. There's also their belonging to the Order. > >>Magpie: > It's a great essay--but long, yes. The basic idea is that the > Wizarding World doesn't really have a justice system where people > are really protected by the law. The way it seems to work instead > is that there are certain powerful wizards who can protect others, > and people ally themselves with them. > Betsy Hp: Yay! I'm so glad you answered this. I gulped at the idea of breaking the entire thing down into a sentence or two. While the essay suggests (IIRC) that there's a certain recognized, maybe even codified structure to the patron-client system in the WW, I think it's easier to imagine that it's all based on tradition. That's it's something more quietly done and not fully talked about. Just an underlying understanding that when one takes on, say, Arthur Weasley, Dumbledore will be standing there in the shadows. > >>a_svirn: > Well, patrons are supposed to have obligations as well as rights, > you know. I'd say that a patron definitely has to take his client's > Will into consideration. Betsy Hp: Yes, of course. But if the client's will seems to cause more problems then it solves, the patron is quite able to choose a different direction without getting the MoM up in arms. (And part of Dumbledore's duty as patron for the Potters is to protect their infant son. So he ignores their will to do so.) > >>a_svirn: > Besides, following this logic, Sirius was also Dumbledore's > client, wasn't he? It seems like in his case Dumbledore didn't go > out of his way protecting his client's interests. Betsy Hp: Actually I think the story line points more towards Dumbledore *not* being Sirius's patron. He wouldn't have been naturally. (I don't see the Blacks ever having someone like Dumbledore as a patron.) And based on the lack of interest Dumbledore took in Sirius's "case", it seems more logical to assume Dumbledore never did take on that roll. Not until after the great escape, anyway. (It seems likely a change occured after that. Especially as Dumbledore takes charge of Sirius's will at that point.) > >>a_svirn: > And while we on the subject, there is a salient point in the essay > you seem to overlook. Unlike the situation in Ancient Rom, in the > WW patron-client relationships ARE NOT LEGAL. Which casts an > entirely different light on the whole situation, I'd say. After > all, Mafia also functions as a patron-client network. Betsy Hp: The essayist, Pharnabazus starts off by saying that the WW is "an extremely lawless place". So things are done more on tradition and power (pretty much like the Mob, yeah). In which case *within* the WW, what Dumbledore does is not only allowable, it's expected. Which was my point. I'm not trying to say he followed Muggle laws. And honestly, I doubt there's really any WW law that covers this sort of thing. (Why would there be?) Betsy Hp From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 00:36:39 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:36:39 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Fidelius, GP and Kreacher, GH house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158546 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Before Carol, Snow wrote: > > > > Then whom ever owned the place where the Potters were hidden in > > Godric's Hollow would have had to give permission for someone to > > put a Fidelius on it, that much I agree on. However, the owner > > giving permission or taking permission away or dying should > > have little bearing on the Fidelius once it was cast. > > > > The only circumstance that can eliminate the Charm, imo, would > > be if the caster of the charm dissolved it or moved it (like > > Dumbledore did temporarily). Mike: This Fidelius Charm is a persnickety little bugger, ain't it? Here's my reason why I believe the owner of the property where a Fidelius Charm has been used to hide something matters: "... Dumbledore said calmly. 'The situation is frought with complications. We do not know whether the enchantments {plural} we ourselves have placed upon it, for example making it Unplottable, will hold now that ownership has passed from Sirius's hands. It may be that Bellatrix will arrive on the doorstep at any moment.'..." (HBP, US, p.50) If the Fidelius isn't affected by change of ownership of the property, why would DD be worried that Bella might show up at any moment? She wasn't told the 'secret'. She shouldn't be able to find the HQ. I suppose we could say that she can find *her* house, but she wouldn't be able to see anything of the OotP in *her* house. That really sounds too convoluted for me and I doubt JKR would have set up the magic to act that way. No, I think DD is worried that his Fidelius may be inoperable if Bella has taken ownership of 12 GP and that is why they moved out. DD is worried that the Fidelius, among the "enchantments", won't "hold". I don't think we were told that DD dissolved his Fidelius and I seriously doubt one can "move" a Fidelius. But no matter if he did either, why would he have, unless he thought that new ownership meant that the Charm was inoperable, at least against the new owner? And if it became inoperable against the new owner then, by default, there is no longer a 'secret' that is known only by those told it by the SK, which by my reading would mean the charm would be broken. > > Snow again: > > In both circumstances we know of concerning the Fidelius the > > secret keeper does not die and yet Godric's Hollow was breached > > and Grimmald Place was not, why? Mike again: I'm not sure if you think some of us need convincing of this. IMO, Everyone is pretty sure the 'secret' at GH is dead and gone or Hagrid wouldn't have found Harry. I don't need convincing and I don't think Carol does either. (that is right isn't it, Carol?). We're not against ya on it :-) > > Snow again: > > The caster of the Charm could reverse it if need be; > > We are back to the question that I asked myself in reading this > > response of whom the caster of the Charm would be. Somehow I > > just don't see the Potters initiating the Charm. Mike again: I like the idea that the Fidelius caster could remove the Charm, just like I think the UV bonder can dissolve the UV. But, there is one technical difficulty with this re the Fidelius. If the Charm caster is not the SK, how would they find the place in order to dissolve the spell? "Time and space matter in magic, Potter." (SS, OotP) Alternately, if the Charm caster is not the SK or one of the people the Charm is affecting, would it be technically possible to cast the Charm, given that the secret is already known by an *outsider* before the secret is made? Kinda makes your head swim, doesn't it? It's your idea Snow, I'm gonna let you figure that one out. > > Snow earlier: If Dumbledore owned the house and died > > Carol responds: > > Dumbledore, the Heir of Gryffindor, offers the Potters his cottage > in Godric's Hollow as a hiding place Mike: Why are you both convinced that the Potters don't own the house in GH? James is wealthy, an only child whose parents have passed on. Why couldn't the *house* be his parents house that he inherited? Or a house that he and Lily bought? Did I miss something in a previous thread or possibly in canon? I snipped Carol's laying out of the scenario because I think she hit the nail on the haed. I just have a couple of nitpicks which relate but don't really affect her GH scenario presentation. > Carol, pulled out of the middle: > (which also explains how Bellatrix could forget that Kreacher > belongs to 12 Grimmauld Place). Mike: Kreacher went to see Narcissa, Bella was still in prison during Christmas '95. (Hey, I said it was a nit I was picking ;-)) But while we're on the subject. I think Bella and Cissy both know that Kreacher belongs to the Blacks and are perfectly convinced that Sirius, being that last of 'em, is holed up at 12 GP. I think they can't find the place because of all the protections that were placed on the house by Sirius' ancestors, and Bella and Cissy know that, too. This really has nothing to do with DD's Fidelius for the HQ, and everything to do with the elder Blacks paranoia (which might be well founded, seeing as what happened to 2 of them in '79). > Carol: > *or* when the hiding place is destroyed Mike: This one isn't a nit on you, Carol ;-). I was wondering, are we ever going to get an explanation of why the *house* took a beating? I mean, we saw a thousand year old tunnel cave in when a lousy memory charm backfired because of a faulty wand. Do you suppose that will serve as enough of an explanation for what happened at GH as far as JKR is concerned? Do you think she expects us to extrapolate for an AK, 'Love' magic defense and a house instead of rock and just *get it*? Mike, not convinced that book 7 is going to answer half of our questions unless JKR runs it out to the size of "War and Peace" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 00:31:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:31:37 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158547 > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > This is probably part of the breakdown of our views. For me, > in > > > > the story-book pantheon of "bad parents" the Dursleys > just > > > > aren't that bad. > > > > > > > > > >>Alla: > > > Yes, this is part of the breakdown of our views - I > consider > > > beating child ( Harry's remark that experience taught him to > stay > > > away from the reach of Vernon's hands - paraphrase) and > starving > > > him to be very high on **horrid scale** of bad parents. > > > > Betsy Hp: > > But since the Dursleys neither beat nor starved Harry, they don't > > manage to rank, IMO. There needs to be bruising, fainting, etc., > to > > make it into the pantheon for me. Harry doesn't even manage an > > emotional breakdown because the Dursleys don't love him. If the > > Dursleys are to rank, Harry needs to bleed. And he doesn't. > Alla: So, basically what I hear you saying is that you would need **abuse** more spelled out for you to be convinced that it was indeed abuse? It is fair, after all for me to be convinced that the blood protection is the only possible thing I needed it to be more spelled out as well. But I suppose for me it is spelled out very well. Harry says that experience taught him to stay out of reach of Vernon hands. Um,do you see any other reason for him to stay out of reach of his hands other than that he beat him? Not being sarcastic here. And Harry at the beginning of CoS when he was locked in the room was not starved? And of course JKR said that Harry was abused, Dumbledore as much as says it IMO in this infamous scene. I am telling you - I would not put it past JKR to make me sympathize with Petunia in book 7, after all she made a miracle of making me sympathise with Dumbledore again in book 6 and cry after his death, but so far I consider Dursleys to be monsters, caricature, fictional monsters, but monsters nevertheless and if they all drop dead at the beginning of book 7, I am not anticipating that I would be too upset. This is of course emotional reaction, but I believe reaction based on the textual events. > Tonks: > I think it is a very good thing that Harry grew up in the home that > he did. Not for Harry's sake, but for the sake of the children who > are reading the books. IMO, Harry is in a rather typical family. What a > disservice JKR would have done to the children of the world if she > has put Harry in some *fairytale* goody, goody family all sweetness > and light and kisses and hugs all the time. Most children do not > grow up in that type of home. And even those few who do usually have > times when they feel misunderstood and unloved. All children can > identify with Harry and learn from him, something they might not be > able to do if he had been raised by a fairytale family. > Alla: What I hear you saying is that Dursleys are a typical family and most kids are growing up in families like that? I am really not sure how to respond to this. I will just say that there are many many families which are **not** like Dursleys . I am not sure what is wrong with sweetness and hugs, but there is pretty big road IMO between sweetness and light all the time and locking a kid in the room with locks and starve him and try to hit him with the frying pan. JMO, Alla. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 21 01:06:16 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:06:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry References: Message-ID: <004901c6dd1a$246ded70$c48c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158548 Tonks: I get the feeling that those on one side of the fence seem to think that there are all these *loving* families out there. I want to ask what fairytale is that? There are a few, very few, mentally healthy families where children get good parenting, feel loved and grow up to be well adjusted. Magpie: You're right, I do think there are families out there who are capable of loving their children. Most of the ones I've met in my life, in fact. So I can't pretend the Dursleys' treatment of Harry is "normal" and they're just the typical family just to make Dumbledore look good. I'm not sure what you're describing by "mentally unhealthy" families incapable of being good parents, making their children feel loved and producing well-adjusted people (I know of such situations but it seems like you're stretching it way beyond where I would), but it doesn't seem like canon's so full of them. Luna seems to have nice parents, so did Cedric. The Weasleys care about Harry. I would bet Hermione's parents wouldn't have called him names or given Hermione lots of presents while denying him birthday parties. And most of these families are probably "mentally unhealthy" in one way or another. I think many people are capable of taking in a neice or nephew without every day making sure to bully him and tell him he's a freak and unworthy and unwanted in the house. Tonks: What a disservice JKR would have done to the children of the world if she has put Harry in some *fairytale* goody, goody family all sweetness and light and kisses and hugs all the time. Magpie: JKR DID put Harry in a *fairy tale.* It's called Cinderella and I think most people recognize the opening chapter as such. I don't understand why this thread keeps having to veer into extremes--either you're with the Dursleys or it's sweetness and light and kisses all the time? There's plenty of families in canon that fall in the imo more normal middle. You seem to be the only one equating good parenting with perfect sweetness and light all the time. Tonks: And even those few who do usually have times when they feel misunderstood and unloved. All children can identify with Harry and learn from him, something they might not be able to do if he had been raised by a fairytale family. Magpie: Yesk, they FEEL misunderstood and unloved--that doesn't mean they are. Harry IS misunderstood and unloved every day at the Dursleys. Children like reading about that. I don't think anyone is arguing that *JKR* has done some horrible wrong by putting Harry with the Dursleys. I think everyone gets the appeal of that situation in fiction. I accept that this is a device to get Harry into his fairy-tale (in the bad way) situation and I accept it had to happen as I accept a lot of things that way. I don't have to argue it to myself as if it were real. But if I am going to argue it to myself as if it were real (which is basically what the thread is doing, imagining what options Dumbledore had and which one was best), it's Dumbledore that's going to get tarnished, not the entire rest of reality. Betsy: So Harry is not in rags, he's not overworked. I think there are *references* to Cinderella, but they're very, very mild. Harry isn't responsible for keeping the house clean, fixing the meals, keeping the garden in order as I'd expect in a Cinderella mirror. Aunt Petunia does all that. When she needs help, she calls for Harry (not wanting to bother her sweet Dudley), which isn't fair, but it isn't abusive really. Magpie: References to Cinderella is what I'm talking about. I mean, she's not going to write a brutal abuse novel and no one would want her to. But Cinderella wasn't beaten bloody either. She can't go to the ball, she has to do chores when her step sisters don't, she wears ugly clothes (Harry in broken glasses and Dudley's hand me downs are the modern equivalent). She sits in the ashes, he sits amongst the cobwebs. He has no friends. Dudley gets to hit him. And that's fine because in both cases the fairy godparent arrives and takes him/her away. Only in Harry's case the fairy godmother also caused everything. It's not a horrible abuse situation, but it's an unhappy life. Which we can either accept was necessary for blood protection or not. I can accept it, but it's not really dramatized in the story that I can see. If you tell don't show, people probably question more. -m From dossett at lds.net Thu Sep 21 01:48:39 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:48:39 -0000 Subject: Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158549 > > > Betsy Hp: > > Is there anything anywhere within the books suggesting that there > > was another way of keeping Harry safe? > > a_svirn: > Yes, there is. Harry could have lived with his godfather and legal > guardian, who would have loved him and would have done everything in > his not inconsiderable power to keep him safe. > Pat, delurking to comment: Only problem is, even in the RL they don't allow infants to stay with their *guardians* in prison, which is exactly where Sirius was headed. It seems you are trying to write another story here. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 02:11:07 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:11:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Grow up Harry! (What HBP was lacking...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609201911u78ffd228lffde8046ea14b1bf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158550 Rijl: Harry seems to get over Sirius's death easier than he did Cedric's. Not that I wanted a lot of angst over it, but I thought he'd still be grieving. Harry is all of sudden "Dumbledore's man" Those two didn't leave book five on great terms, and at the opening of HBP, all is well. I guess there's some male bonding over shared pensieve diving, but that relationship wasn't really explored or explained. Harry and Ginny happened pretty fast. I didn't expect lots of fluff from JKR, but after Harry slowly realizes his feelings, all of sudden they just kiss. It's like a bad movie where the characters just stare smoldering stares and then suddenly are at each other tearing clothes sucking face. Couples getting together in the real world TALK, don't they? And at the end, Harry just throws that away (for Ginny's own good) and she accepts it. WHAT? Lynda: I thought Harry not screaming throughout the entire book was a sign of his maturation process...but that's just me. I was also not surprised that he became "Dumbledore's man". Again that maturation process. He was able to grieve without pouring his anger out on all and sundry. As for Harry and Ginny...that was anything but sudden. Harry starts noticing her almost as soon as he arrives at the Dursleys in the summer. And as for Ginny accepting it, well the story isn't finished yet, is it. I'm eagerly awaiting the final installment and I don't think Ginny's given up on Harry. If anything, I thought Harry's maturation was a little too fast in this book. In his time it was a very short time from the end of OOP to the beginning of HBP. And after all, the boy was only 16 throughout the book. 16 year old boys are not known for their maturity as a general rule. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 01:49:32 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:49:32 -0500 Subject: divide and conquer. Potters, Sirius and DD In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40609200639w2f59e360sad81aad978e0dab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40609201849v6237241cr71c846291fb75e32@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158551 > montims: > > > > And Peter was working for LV - had been his spy for a year. Even if > Peter didn't have the skill to invent just the right thing to say, LV > could have made some very good suggestions, and coached him on > delivery. As > could - who better? - Snape, either directly (but we don't know that he > was > aware of Peter being a spy) or indirectly to LV, without knowing who would > be > > disseminating the false data. Carol responds: Are you suggesting that Snape might have been the spy who was revealing information on the Potters to Dumbledore even though Peter admits to the role in PoA? montims: No - we know Snape was a double agent, and I was suggesting that he was feeding LV with information about Dumbledore and the Order which Peter could pass onto the Potters, and generally sow suspicion and dissent. I'm not married to the theory, I just wanted to clarify my previous post. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 02:47:46 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:47:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609201947m6cf23a7bw28e2c268eaea02@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158552 Betsy Hp: But since the Dursleys neither beat nor starved Harry, they don't manage to rank, IMO. There needs to be bruising, fainting, etc., to make it into the pantheon for me. Harry doesn't even manage an emotional breakdown because the Dursleys don't love him. If the Dursleys are to rank, Harry needs to bleed. And he doesn't. Lynda: So I take it Betsy, that the references to Harry being locked in his room into which bowls of soup are pushed through the door-flap and Harry always staying out of the reach of his uncle's grasp/fist do not signify abuse to you either? Because I tend to think that the narrator was not lying to us in the first instance and that Harry probably has learned from experience to stay out of Vernon's reach... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 02:47:24 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:47:24 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158553 > Ken asked: > > I'm never sure just how big Nagini is supposed to be. zanooda: Nagini is described in GoF as "a gigantic snake, at least twelve feet long" ("The Riddle house", p.12 US). > Ken again: > It's possible too that in his weakened state BabyMort could not kill > Frank, and just stunned him even though he used an AK. zanooda: In the same chapter, Frank Bryce's death is described like this:"He was dead before he hit the floor"{p.15). Well, I guess it was LV who killed the old man, but maybe Nagini is large enough to swallow the body. From tjvkartio at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 02:30:02 2006 From: tjvkartio at yahoo.com (tjvkartio) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:30:02 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158554 rkelley at ... wrote: >> I'm intrigued by the clue of the cloak. Invisibility cloaks are supposed to be really rare, yet we've already seen four of them - Harry's,Barty Crouch Jr's, - and two belonging to Mad Eye Moody. and Lily and James knew Voldemort was after them, and either there was something special about the cloak and they did not want it to fall into LV's hands, or else they purposely hid something in it - perhaps for safekeeping. << ----- First time poster - pls forgive any duplicate and/or crazy thoughts. "Your father left this in my possession before he died" JKR noted that there is a significant - even crucial answer. Therefore, I do not think there is any way this was given to DD for even just a mission for the Order. As noted, Mad Eye had two - depending on the length of time owned, the Order would have already had access to them for use. Also, there is no indication that DD ever let the cloak out of his possession. Making a little assumption on my part - I read this literally to mean that James left it with DD specifically, not just any member of the Order or his best friend, Sirius, etc. etc... Since LV was afraid of DD and DD resides within the (almost) impenetrable walls of Hogwarts, the IC was meant to be SAFE. Therefore, James knew this particular IC was special and that the only person who could take care of it was DD. This indicates the cloak is even more important than initially thought. If it was meant to be kept safe, it could only mean that LV was after it for a particular reason. Since he was in the process of creating his Horcruxes - there is the possibility that DD and James discovered that the IC was a relic of the Four Founders. While most of that period of time revolved around the Prophecy and hiding the Potters, DD was aware of the fact that LV was trying to track down relics of the FF. Although DD wasn't 100% sure of the reasoning at the time, he obviously knew it wasn't a good thing and that LV was trying to gain something from finding them. DD and/or James may have stumbled across the knowledge that the IC had belonged to one of the FF and knew that it must be kept extremely safe and secret. In their discussion of the Horcruxes, DD tells Harry that he is unaware if LV ever tracked down a relic of Ravenclaw's and that the only known relic of Gryffindor's, the sword, was safe at Hogwarts. Since we already know LV had items from Hufflepuff and Slytherin, it wouldn't have been very crucial hide those. This could possibly mean the IC belonged to Ravenclaw. Now I know DD was being really open and honest with Harry at that time and there is the question of why he wouldn't have told Harry about the IC if he knew it belonged to a Founder - but we have seen that sometimes DD doesn't impart information until it is absolutely necessary and that he doesn't reveal all his secrets. Besides - How ironic would it be to have Harry have access to the relics of the two founders that LV couldn't get his hands on???? tk From kaylee01 at woh.rr.com Thu Sep 21 02:07:54 2006 From: kaylee01 at woh.rr.com (Stacy Patnode) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:07:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) References: Message-ID: <064a01c6dd22$c00f90f0$0a00a8c0@userqtmj2qaxb3> No: HPFGUIDX 158555 Betsy Hp writes: Harry has chores, Dudley doesn't. Dudley has tons of cool toys, Harry doesn't. Dudley gets an ice-cream treat, Harry has to make do with a popsicle. Stacy now: Hmmm, I believe the only reason Harry was given the cheap lemon lolly was because there wasn't a graceful way for the Dursleys to refuse Harry a treat once the lady asked him what he wanted. He was only given the treat to keep up appearances. Betsy Hp: Dudley gets taken on fun outings, Harry doesn't. Dudley watches what he wants to on TV, Harry has to make do with watching what Dudley wants to watch. Dudley has *two* rooms, Harry's got a tiny little room under the stairs. Stacy now: I believe tiny little room is a generous description, don't you? The "room" is described as a cupboard on numerous occasions. What "normal" family keeps a child in a cupboard? That's abuse and neglect in my book. Betsy Hp: Dudley gets up to the minute new fashions, Harry wears badly fitting hand-me-downs. So Harry is not in rags, he's not overworked. I think there are *references* to Cinderella, but they're very, very mild. Stacy now: Harry doesn't wear rags? PS/SS chapter three Letters from No one There was a horrible smell in the kitchen next morning when Harry went in for breakfast. It seemed to be coming from a large metal tub in the sink. He went to have a look. The tub was full of what looked like dirty rags swimming in grey water. "What's this?" he asked Aunt Petunia. Her lips tightened as they always did if he dared to ask a question. "Your new school uniform," she said. Harry looked in the bowl again. "Oh," he said. "I didn't realise it had to be so wet." "Don't be stupid," snapped Aunt Petunia. "I'm dyeing some of Dudley's old things grey for you. It'll look just like everyone else's when I've finished." Harry seriously doubted this, but thought it best not to argue. He sat down at the table and tried not to think about how he was going to look on his first day at Stonewall High - like he was wearing bits of old elephant skin, probably. JKR clearly wrote the word rags in that scene. The description of the clothing Petunia expects Harry to wear sounds a bit worse to me than badly fitting hand-me-downs. Petunia calls Harry stupid for asking a simple question... a bit extreme, don't you think? Referring to a child as stupid can do terrible things to the child's self-esteem. Betsy Hp : Harry *is* low on the totem pole. e.g. Petunia and Vernon get the bed, Dudley gets the couch and Harry gets the floor. Harry also gets the nastiest blanket. But, again, that's merely unfair. I wouldn't call it abusive. Stacy now: What messages do those actions send to a child? Worst clothes, worst blanket, worst living accommodations until the Dursleys are scared into improving their treatment a fraction by the letters from Hogwarts. I guess we just have different ideas of what constitutes abuse. Harry has been emotionally abused and neglected since he went to live with the Dursleys. There doesn't always necessarily have to be physical scars in abuse cases; emotional scars are hidden. I believe Harry was abused and neglected by the Dursleys. JKR just doesn't get too graphic, because these are children's books after all. Stacy, apologizing for the length of this post From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 06:50:09 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:50:09 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158556 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > ..., Dumbledore mistakenly states in HBP that Voldemort > used Nagini to kill Frank Bryce ..., but possibly DD > isn't entirely mistaken. In GoF he states that Frank > Bryce, like Bertha Jorkins, *disappeared.* IOW, his body > was never found. Since Voldemort planned to feed first > Wormtail ... to Nagini after killing them, > > Carol, ... bboyminn: Correct me if I'm wrong but Dumbledore says he found out about Frank Bryces death by reading it in the muggle newspaper, and when he speaks of Nagini killing, he says 'muggle' but he doesn't specifically mention Frank. If it was in the news, then there must have been a body and Dumbledore doesn't say Nagini killed Frank, just that Nagini killed a muggle. Now it is true, we don't know of any other muggles that I can think of, but we should look carefully before we jump the gun. I suppose it is possible that JKR simply made a mistake in implying that Nagini might have killed Frank, or as others have speculated may be she is dropping a clue that will become important later. Maybe she is dropping a piece of the puzzle that Harry will eventually put together. In the last two books the veil of innocence relative to Dumbledore has been dropping away from Harry's eyes. We see Dumbledore more human and more fallible than ever before. Maybe we are seeing what Harry will eventualy discover was a mistake in Dumbledore's logic. It's the old Student surpasses the Master theme. Or perhaps it is insignificant. But regardless of what it /IS/, we should make sure we are all operating from the same set of proper information. Steve/bboyminn From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 06:55:14 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:55:14 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grow up Harry! (What HBP was lacking...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060921065514.73489.qmail@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158557 --- rijl_kent wrote: > Harry seems to get over Sirius's death easier than > he did Cedric's. Not that I wanted a lot > of angst over it, but I thought he'd still be > grieving. > Cassy: This was already discussed in "Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death" thread (starting with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156599 and so forth) Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From h.m.s at mweb.co.za Thu Sep 21 08:39:58 2006 From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:39:58 +0200 Subject: Time to turn back Message-ID: <019801c6dd59$91fe0750$0200a8c0@Sharon> No: HPFGUIDX 158558 At the end of HBP Hermione emphasises that she & Ron are going with Harry. He had given them a chance before to turn back, but they had made up their minds. Question: when previously did Harry give them a chance to turn back? Sharon From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 09:54:10 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:54:10 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609201947m6cf23a7bw28e2c268eaea02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158559 Lynda: > So I take it Betsy, that the references to Harry being locked in his room into which bowls of soup are pushed through the door-flap and Harry always staying out of the reach of his uncle's grasp/fist do not signify abuse to you either? Because I tend to think that the narrator was not lying to us in the first instance and that Harry probably has learned from experience to stay out of Vernon's reach... Ceridwen: Bowls of soup are certainly not enough for a growing teenaged boy, but it isn't starving him. It's giving him the minimum, or near the minimum, to survive. He is expending less energy being locked in his room. Or, maybe not. Dudley doesn't get a lot of exercise even though he's not locked in his room. Kids don't play outside any more. Pity. What is bothering me about this entire line of thought is the automatic assumption that staying out of reach of Vernon's "grasp/" equals out of reach of Vernon's "/fist". The debate over abuse v. discipline won't be solved by a series of children's books and the discussion over them, but children who are properly spanked (flat of hand across gluteus maximus) will dance out of the way as well, and children who are marched to a corner for "time out" will have learned to avoid that same grasping hand. There is no overt mention of abuse, and to me, no covert mention, either. It is one possibility out of at least two more. And, there's always the famous literary British "cuff on the ear", which hasn't been presented as abuse in most books I've read. I would suggest that a cuff on the ear is more potentially dangerous than a swat on the bottom. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 13:10:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:10:55 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158560 > Ceridwen: > Bowls of soup are certainly not enough for a growing teenaged boy, > but it isn't starving him. It's giving him the minimum, or near the > minimum, to survive. He is expending less energy being locked in his > room. Or, maybe not. Dudley doesn't get a lot of exercise even > though he's not locked in his room. Kids don't play outside any > more. Pity. Alla: I am sorry, but I really don't see much difference. You are arguing that Dursleys are giving him enough in order not to make him die of starvation? Maybe they do, but Harry still feels hungry and it is still starving him maybe not to death, but still starving IMO. And in GoF when Harry sends food to Sirius, he says he knows what it is to feel hungry all summer. I happen to believe him. Ceridwen: > What is bothering me about this entire line of thought is the > automatic assumption that staying out of reach of Vernon's "grasp/" > equals out of reach of Vernon's "/fist". The debate over abuse v. > discipline won't be solved by a series of children's books and the > discussion over them, but children who are properly spanked (flat of > hand across gluteus maximus) will dance out of the way as well, and > children who are marched to a corner for "time out" will have learned > to avoid that same grasping hand. There is no overt mention of > abuse, and to me, no covert mention, either. Alla: The automatic assumption I indeed make that Vernon was hitting ( not properly, no) Harry is because of how I see Dursleys through the entire books. If this was indeed the **one** isolated remark and we would have seen Dursleys act as loving parents do through the entire books, maybe indeed couple other reasons for Harry stay out of Vernon reach would come to mind. Otherwise in line of Vernon and Petunia not stopping Harry hunting, in line of Petunia trying to hit Harry with frying pan, I don't see a possibility that Harry would want to stay out of Vernon reach because Vernon would want punish Harry for proper reasons. Maybe because I don't remember Vernon ever punishing Harry because Harry deserved to be punished. So, yes, to me this means that Harry wanted to stay out of Vernon's hands because Vernon was giving his hands too much freedom. Vernon IMO is depicted as a bully and an abuser and it is no wonder to me that Harry wanted to stay as far away from him as possible. I was also glad to see this remark by the narrator in HBP, because the arguments were made in the past that the older Harry gets the easier it is for him to resist Dursleys and the better his life gets . So, to me that meant that while Harry indeed can threaten them with magic and we see it in the books, his life is still bad enough that he wants to stay out of reach even in HBP. IMO, Alla From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 21 13:37:41 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:37:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158561 > Ceridwen: > Bowls of soup are certainly not enough for a growing teenaged boy, but > it isn't starving him. It's giving him the minimum, or near the > minimum, to survive. He is expending less energy being locked in his > room. Or, maybe not. Dudley doesn't get a lot of exercise even > though he's not locked in his room. Kids don't play outside any more. > Pity. Alla: I am sorry, but I really don't see much difference. You are arguing that Dursleys are giving him enough in order not to make him die of starvation? Maybe they do, but Harry still feels hungry and it is still starving him maybe not to death, but still starving IMO. Sherry now: Just because bowls of soup are passed through a flap in the door everyday, doesn't make it enough to feed a growing child. The descriptions of his time before the Weasleys rescue him speak volumes to me of someone who is going with far too little food for health. Over a period of weeks and months, this could cause serious physical complications. No wonder the poor kid is small for his age! Deliberately not feeding a child enough to meet his body's needs, when you are well able to do so is definitely a form of serious abuse in my opinion. Ceridwen: > What is bothering me about this entire line of thought is the > automatic assumption that staying out of reach of Vernon's "grasp/" > equals out of reach of Vernon's "/fist". The debate over abuse v. > discipline won't be solved by a series of children's books and the > discussion over them, but children who are properly spanked (flat of > hand across gluteus maximus) will dance out of the way as well, and > children who are marched to a corner for "time out" will have learned > to avoid that same grasping hand. There is no overt mention of > abuse, and to me, no covert mention, either. Alla: The automatic assumption I indeed make that Vernon was hitting ( not properly, no) Harry is because of how I see Dursleys through the entire books. If this was indeed the **one** isolated remark and we would have seen Dursleys act as loving parents do through the entire books, maybe indeed couple other reasons for Harry stay out of Vernon reach would come to mind. Otherwise in line of Vernon and Petunia not stopping Harry hunting, in line of Petunia trying to hit Harry with frying pan, I don't see a possibility that Harry would want to stay out of Vernon reach because Vernon would want punish Harry for proper reasons. Sherry now: Also, in HBP, Harry is nearly 16. He's far too old to be worrying about a little swat on the butt or being forced to go stand in the corner. This thought happens when he is well beyond the age for such punishments, and to me, again it makes me believe Harry had a much worse reason for wanting to stay out of Vernon's reach. Yes, we know JKR had to give Harry this miserable background in order to make the transition between the early years of his life and his first intro to the wizarding world, but except in the first book, when the Dursleys were almost comical, I don't think we're supposed to think Harry did not suffer abuse at least at the hands of Vernon Dursley. There's got to be some reason why he's JKR's least favorite character. Now when I read SS/PS I don't find the Dursley stuff very humorous anymore, because the progress of the story, the darkening of the series makes me look at even that somewhat light-hearted book differently. Sherry From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Thu Sep 21 12:59:20 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:59:20 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nagini the snake References: Message-ID: <45128CA8.000001.01428@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 158562 Iumuggle asked: I have a quick question. In the beginning of Goblet of Fire, Nagini Needs to be milked to feed Voldemort? What is that all about? Why does he need to drink Nagini's milk? iumuggle Donna replies: Snakes do not give milk. The term, "milk a snake", refers to the process of extracting the snake's venom. In the real world, the venom is then used to make antivenomwhich is used to treat bites from that type of snake. The impression I got from the book is LV drank Nagini's venom for food which imo, helps explain LV snake like appearance. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 21 14:00:55 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:00:55 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > > Ken asked: > > > > > > I'm never sure just how big Nagini is supposed to be. > > zanooda: > > Nagini is described in GoF as "a gigantic snake, at least twelve feet > long" ("The Riddle house", p.12 US). > Ken: I didn't recall that statement but it doesn't quite answer my real question. Is Nagini big enough to really eat an adult human or not? Length alone doesn't settle the matter although a snake of typical proportions that is 12 feet long would be too small. That is the kind of detail I would not expect JKR to have a firm grasp of, she thought constrictors were venomous after all. I saw a TV show about King Cobras recently and the "big" male in that show was about 15 feet long. It only weighed 19 pounds though, so it wasn't nearly big enough to eat an adult human. Oh it could kill you with its venom, it just couldn't eat you. The biggest constrictors, Reticulated Pythons and Anacondas, are 20-30 feet in length but weigh hundreds of pounds. These are much bigger animals and they do prey on other animals that are as large as humans. Apparently there are reports that they have eaten humans but these reports have not been "verified", whatever that means. > > Ken again: > > > It's possible too that in his weakened state BabyMort could not kill > > Frank, and just stunned him even though he used an AK. > > > zanooda: > > In the same chapter, Frank Bryce's death is described like this:"He > was dead before he hit the floor"{p.15). > > Well, I guess it was LV who killed the old man, but maybe Nagini is > large enough to swallow the body. > Ken: I guess that nails the lid on that coffin. DD was just wrong, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or the victim of the author's sloppiness. Steve remembers DD as saying simply that Nagini killed a Muggle, without specifiying that it was Bryce. I remember him saying that LV used Nagini to kill the old Muggle caretaker. I don't have the books in front of me but if it was the latter, it was pretty clearly Bryce's death that DD was talking about. I do have to agree that if Frank's death was reported in a Muggle newspaper there most likely was a body found and it probably would not have been left for Nagini to eat. If Frank had just disappeared, fate unknown to the Muggles, then he most likely would have been reported as missing. Of course our author is not perfectly consistent, we may later learn that Nagini does eat LV's victims whether that squares with previous statements or not. Ken From littleleah at handbag.com Thu Sep 21 14:17:30 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:17:30 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609201547o26295969ha351240f5623103b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158564 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Leah: > > Lily's loving sacrifice had set up a deep protection for > > Harry, which would keep him safe provided he could call home the > > place where his mother's blood dwelt. For that to happen, Petunia's > > home has to be Harry's home. > > Random832: > But it is not in any way certain that he will be harmed if not placed > with the Dursleys. > > And why not take Petunia away to live somewhere else? Kill off Vernon > "for the greater good". Leah: So it's not alright for DD to place a child in the safest place that very wise person can think of, however otherwise imperfect it is, but it is perfectly Ok for him to kidnap one muggle and kill off another who is rather inconvenient? This is DD making the arrangements, not Voldemort. > > The _fact_ that the protection depends on a particular choice of > placement may be "beyond legalities", but Dumbledore does NOT have an > absolute right to place Harry under that protection if it requires > violating his parents' will. Leah: We don't know that, because we don't know how the wizarding legal system operates. Even in the muggle world, it would be possible for others, the state or other family members to challenge arrangements for guardianship, if these were felt to be unsuitable. And perhaps James and Lily would have agreed with DD if they had known the full situation. A will is an imperfect document made in circumstances known to the testator at the time. If I'd appointed X guardian of my children and X then murdered me, I might have a fleeting moment of regret for my appointment. > > Leah: > > Sirius was obeying DD's instructions, however reluctantly. > > Random832: > And then, later, DD completely screwed him. Sirius made a wrong > decision. A wrong decision which was to be the first of several that > night. And in what way was DD responsible for that wrong decision? Your words 'completely screwed him' suggest that DD reneged on some promise or deal. No one thought fit to tell DD that Sirius was no longer Secret Keeper; Snape had apparently tried to change James' mind about the appointment of Sirius without success- no doubt DD knew of that. The Potters must have been betrayed by their Secret Keeper, and as far as the vast majority of the WW knew, that was the man whose brother was a DE, and whose parents were dark wizards. Where exactly is any of this DD's fault? > > > Leah: > > ... None of those homes would have > > given him the protection conferred on him by Petunia. > > Random832: > None of which means he would not have otherwise been safe. Any of > those other places, he would also not have been abused. (snipped) > The blood protection is not perfect. It did not protect him from > whatever "experience" it was that "taught him to stay well out of > Vernon's reach". It did not protect him from being portkeyed away and > having his arm sliced open by the very man who condemned his parents > to death. It has not protected him from Voldemort personally at all > since the end of fourth year. Surely he could be better protected at > Grimmauld Place once the blood protection was out of the equation. Leah: As Alla has pointed out in her reply to your post, we do not know the full meaning of the blood protection. Stepping outside canon for a moment, I imagine the thing to be a bit like being pursued by Dracula. The best thing to do is to festoon yourself and your room with garlic and crucifixes. Those will not of course protect you from from being assaulted, even from abuse from your relatives; they will not protect you from falling ill or being hit by a train. All of those are part of the hazards of living. They will protect from a particular and horrifying evil. I think we will see just what this is when Harry turns 17. Leah From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 14:14:12 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:14:12 -0500 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore Message-ID: <8ee758b40609210714s616e7c7ay3969c5ee5e07da8e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158565 So the impression I am getting, as a newbie to this list, and I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong (!) is that we are generally convinced that Dumbledore, while being the greatest wizard of his time, was also arrogant in his decision making, particularly with regard to the placement of Harry with the Dursleys. I think this is a correct assessment, and as I mentioned before, I think he simply used Harry as a pawn in his longterm game plan (possibly assisted in this game by his numerous silver instruments). I am happy with this assessment, and am in awe of JKR's writing which at first reading convinces us that Dumbledore is a Fairy Godfather type of wizard. This, of course, is because we see him through student Harry's eyes, when he is twinkling, and a little anarchic, as well as letting rule infractions pass unpunished. But DD at the time of Harry's AKing is not like this. (And I know you all reached this point a long time ago - please bear with me while I catch up...) We know he is more than equal to LV, and that he heads the Order. We don't see him (as far as I know) in relation to any student other than Tom. (Well, there is Lupin, but he may have weighed up the merits of having a werewolf on his side, rather than agin, and made a dispassionate decision, although Lupin's gratitude sees it differently). His office is up in the tower and requires a password to reach it. I would imagine (and this is where I stray into supposition) that he was a fairly solitary person, unapproachable to most, and singlemindedly dedicated to defeating LV and the DEs as he had Grindelwald. We have no knowledge that he had much, if any, contact with the Marauders or Lily before they left school and joined the Order. We don't know if he had any contact with them even then. I am thinking of Tonks - she is young and takes a fairly active part in the new Order, but what real contact does she have with DD? I can see him as the lofty head of the school and the Order, approached only by his most senior Order members, and McGonagall with regard to school business. Actual school discipline and Order duties are left to those lower in the chain. I would imagine that he appreciated and benefitted from the bravery of James and Lily, the Longbottoms, etc, but would think he always kept in mind the Marauders' recklessness and sheer stupidity (the Sirius/Snape episode, for example) and hence had not yet developed any real respect for them. When LV was defeated, he placed Harry with the Dursleys for a number of reasons, all leading to the same purpose - that of raising DD's champion against LV, as the prophecy had now been seen to apply to Harry, through LV's choice. Harry was removed from the wizarding community (and nobody at that time really knew who was secretly sympathetic to LV), and then there was that "blood protection" - valid or not. Plus, leaving Harry with Sirius would remove Harry from DD's influence. He must have known that the Dursleys would raise a Tom Riddle type character - in fact he may have instructed the Dursleys to do so - *the point being that he would be DD's Tom Riddle*, and therefore his knight to set against LV. As to those instructions - I do believe he told them Harry was not safe in, and should no longer be part of, the wizarding world - that they should raise him perfectly normally, if brutally (he may have supplied the car crash cover story), and that with LV gone there was no need for him to ever know the truth. (Hence their shock when the owls started arriving...) Then, if any wizard did spot him in the street and greet him (such as Dedalus Diggle), Harry would have had no idea what he was talking about... Where his grand plan went wrong, I think, was that he grew fond of Harry, which he had never expected to, and that totally changed things - he could no longer expose Harry and stake him out as bait to bring LV into the open to be despatched by DD, for example. (As maybe he did with others in the past - James and Lily, for example... Maybe he had believed secretly that Neville was the chosen one, being from a solid wizarding family, and although he suggested the fidelius charm, was not scrupulous to ensure it was performed correctly, or that the Potters' safety was assured). And maybe, seeing the good qualities of Harry, he looked back and realised he should not have dismissed James, Sirius, etc, in the way that he did. Nothing that hasn't been said before, but just trying to pull it together... montims [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From CliffVDY at juno.com Thu Sep 21 15:00:02 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:00:02 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158566 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > What I hear you saying is that Dursleys are a typical family and > most kids are growing up in families like that? I am really not sure > how to respond to this. > > I will just say that there are many many families which are **not** > like Dursleys . > > I am not sure what is wrong with sweetness and hugs, but there is > pretty big road IMO between sweetness and light all the time and > locking a kid in > the room with locks and starve him and try to hit him with the > frying pan. > > JMO, > > Alla. Cliff here: This reminds me too much of the current debate over raising kids in a germ free home only to have them develop the children's diseases as adults. Mumps is a disease which on a ten yore old boy isn't dangerous, but to a boy over 14 can be a lifetime sexual disability. Learning to ride a bicycle at less than age five is fraught with scraped knees, but at age fourteen, when I finally learned to ride a bike, it was pure murder when I fell. So let kids learn to cope with bad situations when they learn quickly and can adapt and/or heal quickly. So Harry leans to adapt and cope. He used his wits to save the Sorcerers Stone, to fight the basilisk, etc. at ages 11 and 12. Put your average kid of 11 or 12 who grew up in a safe, loving home into those situations and you'll have a disaster. SS would have been a horror story. I was given a lot of freedom as a kid (stay within a half mile of home) so I learned to identify and stay away from child molesters, but to trust anyone else. I had free access to two manufacturing shops (OSHA would have a fit with a four year old in a iron casting firm), so I learned many different manufacturing techniques before age ten. Don't wrap kids in plastic bubbles. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Sep 21 12:59:16 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:59:16 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158567 > > Tonks: > > > I think it is a very good thing that Harry grew up in the home > that > > he did. Not for Harry's sake, but for the sake of the children who > > are reading the books. IMO, Harry is in a rather typical family. > Tesha: oh, my Tonks - you are sooo right. A lot of people grow up believeing that they got the raw end of the deal, and how great to have a hero that you can feel akin to - bonds you right to him, doesn't it? > Alla: > > What I hear you saying is that Dursleys are a typical family and > most kids are growing up in families like that? I am really not sure > how to respond to this. > > I will just say that there are many many families which are **not** > like Dursleys . > Tesha: and Alla, the abuse Harry lives through is not that far off center. Families go through tough times, tempers get short, dad takes up drinking when he looses his job, mom is frazzled with a job the housework and the kids. Harry isn't tortured, he's simply "a problem" for his caretakers. If you never felt this as a kid, not even once, then you're really very lucky. JKR was brilliant to have Harry placed with the Dursley's, I felt empathy for him almost immediately and it drew me right in.... From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 15:14:10 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:14:10 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609201947m6cf23a7bw28e2c268eaea02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158568 > Betsy Hp: > But since the Dursleys neither beat nor starved Harry, they don't > manage to rank, IMO. There needs to be bruising, fainting, etc., to > make it into the pantheon for me. Harry doesn't even manage an > emotional breakdown because the Dursleys don't love him. If the > Dursleys are to rank, Harry needs to bleed. And he doesn't. > > > Lynda: > > So I take it Betsy, that the references to Harry being locked in his room into which bowls of soup are pushed through the door-flap and Harry always staying out of the reach of his uncle's grasp/fist do not signify abuse to you either? Because I tend to think that the narrator was not lying to us in the first instance and that Harry probably has learned from experience to stay out of Vernon's reach... > Tonks: I think that people can read different things into those scenes. I see the scene with the frying pan as just Petunia making a point without any *real* intent to hit him. If Vernon were really abusive of Harry, Harry staying just out of his reach would not protect him. Vernon would go after Harry and grab him and beat him. So to me Harry `staying out of Vernon's reach" could just mean that Vernon would grab him by the scuff of the neck or something. I have never identified with Harry, so I have not seen some things from his POV, and therefore I have never read the Dursley's as all that abusive. And as I have said before, I saw the scene with Vernon locking Harry in his room as humor. I think that JKR meant for it to convey just how much off the deep end Vernon had gone. IMO, it was written that way to exaggerate a point, not to show real abuse. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 15:27:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:27:36 -0000 Subject: How being with Dursleys influenced Harry's character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158569 > Cliff here: So let kids learn to cope with > bad situations when they learn quickly and can adapt and/or heal quickly. Alla: Sure, sometimes learn to cope with bad situations is good, I just disagree that being with Dursleys is the bad situation kids should be placed into in order to learn to adapt and cope. Cliff: > So Harry leans to adapt and cope. He used his wits to save the > Sorcerers Stone, to fight the basilisk, etc. at ages 11 and 12. Put > your average kid of 11 or 12 who grew up in a safe, loving home into > those situations and you'll have a disaster. SS would have been a > horror story. Alla: How do we know that SS would have been a horror story? Is the argument that unless kids grows up in home like Dursleys then kid cannot adapt and cope? I am sorry, but I cannot buy it. It is quite possible to raise strong kid without doing what Dursleys did to him IMO. If memory serves me correctly there were three of them going after the Stone and while it fallen upon Harry to fight Quiirrelmort at the final stage, Ron and Hermione also did quite a few very difficult tasks and as far as we know they grew up in normal, loving homes. I thought they did pretty well under circumstances. > Tesha: > oh, my Tonks - you are sooo right. A lot of people grow up believeing > that they got the raw end of the deal, and how great to have a hero > that you can feel akin to - bonds you right to him, doesn't it? Alla: I am going to refer you to this part of Magpie's post. She said it so much better than I ever could. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/158548 Magpie: Yesk, they FEEL misunderstood and unloved--that doesn't mean they are. Harry IS misunderstood and unloved every day at the Dursleys. Children like reading about that. I don't think anyone is arguing that *JKR* has done some horrible wrong by putting Harry with the Dursleys. I think everyone gets the appeal of that situation in fiction. I accept that this is a device to get Harry into his fairy-tale (in the bad way) situation and I accept it had to happen as I accept a lot of things that way. I don't have to argue it to myself as if it were real. But if I am going to argue it to myself as if it were real (which is basically what the thread is doing, imagining what options Dumbledore had and which one was best), it's Dumbledore that's going to get tarnished, not the entire rest of reality. Alla: Just as Magpie, I **get** the fictional appeal of the situation, I really, really do. But when we are arguing as if it is **real**, then I really don't. > Tesha: > and Alla, the abuse Harry lives through is not that far off center. > Families go through tough times, tempers get short, dad takes up > drinking when he looses his job, mom is frazzled with a job the > housework and the kids. Harry isn't tortured, he's simply "a problem" > for his caretakers. If you never felt this as a kid, not even once, > then you're really very lucky. Alla: Harry is never tortured indeed, the point I am making is that he is suffering enough without being tortured IMO. And I am not sure I understand your question correctly. Are you asking whether my parents ever behaved like Dursleys? I mean close enough? Erm.... NO. Not once and I know many families who do not behave like them. Oh, and I don't remember experiencing too many hugs and kisses either - my parents both worked and I was indeed given enough freedom as a teen, but they always always found time to talk to me, even if it was not much during the day, pay attention to what is going on in my school and my brother's school, etc. And they never called us names, **ever** and I resent the argument which was made earlier that it means that they were mentally unhealthy too. Raising voices sometimes? Sure, but without cursing us. There is plenty of good parents who fall in the normal middle ground, IMO. Plenty. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 21 15:38:40 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:38:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158570 Alla: > I am not sure what is wrong with sweetness and hugs, but there is > pretty big road IMO between sweetness and light all the time and > locking a kid in the room with locks and starve him and try to hit him with the frying pan. Pippin: This is a selective reading of canon, IMO. In PS/SS Harry has never yet been starved and is not afraid to be handled by Vernon, even roughly. He makes more effort to stay out of Dudley's clutches than Vernon's. In the course of chapter 3, Vernon grabs Harry and Dudley by the scruff of their necks, Harry grabs Vernon around the neck from behind, and Vernon seizes Harry by the waist and throws him out of a room. In all of this Vernon is often angry with Harry but never tries to hit him, nor does Harry appear to fear being hurt. However it is undeniable that the Dursleys do starve Harry in CoS and by HBP Harry has learned that he should stay out of Vernon's reach. If those forms of abuse are the worst that Harry endured, and they only occurred between the end of PS/SS and the beginning of HBP, how can we conclude that increased contact between the WW and the Dursleys made things better for Harry at Privet Drive? I think we have seen the blood protection in action, we just don't realize it yet. Harry, in the house where he and his mother lived, and she died to save him, survived an explosion that ripped Voldemort from his body and destroyed the entire building. Was it because that was where his mother's blood dwelt? If so, then even if Petunia were killed, even if number 4 were torn down brick by brick, Harry could not be harmed by Voldemort while he was there, as long as he was able to return there once a year. Neither Sirius nor Dumbledore himself could do anything close to that. Of course it's possible to think of compromises that would have maintained the protection and yet allowed Harry more comfort. But the problem with compromises is not usually thinking of them, it's getting the warring parties to agree. Sure, it would be rational for the Dursleys to make whatever concessions Dumbledore asked, but who ever said the Dursleys were rational? We have also seen that choice made the magic of Lily's sacrifice more powerful. That could well apply to Petunia's choice as well -- if she is coerced into providing protection for Harry, that might weaken the protection itself. Pippin From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 15:40:44 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:40:44 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158571 > > Betsy Hp: > But since the Dursleys neither beat nor starved Harry, they don't > manage to rank, IMO. There needs to be bruising, fainting, etc., to > make it into the pantheon for me. Harry doesn't even manage an > emotional breakdown because the Dursleys don't love him. If the > Dursleys are to rank, Harry needs to bleed. And he doesn't. wynnleaf In PS/SS we are told that Harry often is confined to the cupboard for many days at a time. For instance, after the zoo insident, Harry is thrown into the cupboard and doesn't get out until summer holidays have already started. Now we don't know how long that was, but the implication is much longer than any other instance except possibly the time Harry ended up on top of the roof at school. Confining a person to a small cupboard for days, or even weeks at a time, *is* physical abuse, even though there are no physical scars. But OOTP has the biggest evidence of physical abuse. In the first chapters there we see Vernon literally choking Harry for an incredibly trivial thing. Both of Vernons hands were tightly around Harry's throat. Now -- do we truly believe that a person goes from no physical abuse, to suddenly choking a kid with two hands for something trivial? That's just not the kind of progression abuse takes. Later in OOTP, Harry considers that a necessary skill around Vernon is how to duck well. Why would Harry need to duck around Vernon? What's the necessity of ducking, if Vernon didn't hit him? I don't think JKR wanted to get too into the physical abuse problem, because then she'd be forced to address it more directly. But I do think she wanted to imply it. The strangling episode is, in my opinion, a clear indication that Vernon must have hit Harry. It's far to aggressive and harmful a physical action for it to be the first physically harmful thing that Vernon had ever done to Harry -- or even one of a few. For Vernon to so quickly choke Harry over a triviality, he had to have regularly been willing to use physical force on Harry. wynnleaf, who if she ever heard of an adult choking a child with two hands, would immediately assume that the adult had a history of physically abusing the child. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 21 15:53:31 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:53:31 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158572 > > Alla: > > > > What I hear you saying is that Dursleys are a typical family and > > most kids are growing up in families like that? I am really not sure > > how to respond to this. > > > > I will just say that there are many many families which are **not** > > like Dursleys . > > > > Tesha: > and Alla, the abuse Harry lives through is not that far off center. > Families go through tough times, tempers get short, dad takes up > drinking when he looses his job, mom is frazzled with a job the > housework and the kids. Harry isn't tortured, he's simply "a problem" > for his caretakers. If you never felt this as a kid, not even once, > then you're really very lucky. > > JKR was brilliant to have Harry placed with the Dursley's, I felt > empathy for him almost immediately and it drew me right in.... Magpie: But you're still talking about two different things. One is *JKR's* placing Harry with the Dursleys and how appealing that is for us readers because we can empathize with his OTT situation. Just as people write fanfics where Harry's abuse at the Dursley's hands reaches Marquis de Sade proportions so that we can enjoy the hurt/comfort. The other is people thinking of this world as real and considering *Dumbledore's* placing Harry with these actual real people. Harry is in no way a kid in a normal family because Harry is considered an outsider in the family, is openly rejected by everyone in the family while they cling to each other. This is not my attempt to drum up more hatred for the blood protection idea; I'm just saying I don't see how anyone could see Harry's relationship with the Dursleys as standing in for "normal family relations" in a literal way. There are some aspects of it that speak to families, but for goodness sake, Harry doesn't love this people! Does it really seem like that's JKR's idea of a normal family? She who's given us so many examples of actual families like the ones you describe, where family members sometimes hurt each other (but not to the point of Dad strangling Junior over a trivial offense) or mistreat each other but who underneath clearly love each other? Hogwarts is the first home Harry has ever known, by his own admission. Clifford: So Harry leans to adapt and cope. He used his wits to save the Sorcerers Stone, to fight the basilisk, etc. at ages 11 and 12. Put your average kid of 11 or 12 who grew up in a safe, loving home into those situations and you'll have a disaster. SS would have been a horror story. Magpie: To us as *readers* Harry is *symbolically* learning to handle himself early in life, which is fine. We meet him as a sarcastic 11- year-old confident in his own self-worth handling the Dursleys like the crazy charicatures they are. But I really don't think you can literally compare this situation if it were real to the reality of a kid learning to ride a bike at 5 intead of 14 or getting mumps. I really don't think it is an empowering thing to raise a child without love. Like, literally withold all affection from a 4-year- old? There's very little strength to build on there if you're not valued by anyone at all. Harry himself, after all, has been given his gift of love "magically." We're not talking about something positive like giving Harry freedom or encouraging him to do things on his own. We're talking about giving him as little as possible and tearing him down. I think we all know Harry's situation isn't supposed to be strictly realistic. The Dursleys may, as is said above, symbolically represent the way kids who have normal lives sometimes feel put- upon. He may also appeal to kids who tragically really do lead horrific lives since remember, we're reading wish-fulfillment here. And that's great. I don't think anyone's disagreeing on that or having a problem with JKR choosing this for her story. But I assume people aren't really arguing that witholding all love and affection from toddlers is a good thing. Being loved by your family doesn't make you a sissy. I'd also challenge the idea that Harry would have fallen apart in PS/SS if he'd had a normal family. It just frankly feels like in order to defend Dumbledore's decision as a good thing we're tearing down normal families in a way that's a little strange. Harry has two sidekicks who have both *chosen* to stand by him and have shown plenty of courage and resourcefulness themselves, and they were both raised in normal homes. And even if the Dursley's cruel treatment of Harry did ultimately have advantages to his character, that wouldn't make it right. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 15:58:26 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:58:26 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158573 wynnleaf, who if she ever heard of an adult choking a child with two hands, would immediately assume that the adult had a history of physically abusing the child. Tonks: I wouldn't want you on the jury at my trial. ;-) I would assume that the adult had lost control in that moment. It may or may not be an indication of prior abuse. Things may have come to this. This may be the first time. There are parents who have never touched their child and who under stress and a kid acting out, go off the deep end and hit the kid for the first and only time in their relationship. Tonks_op From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 15:58:36 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:58:36 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158574 > Ceridwen: > > What is bothering me about this entire line of thought is the > > automatic assumption that staying out of reach of > Vernon's "grasp/" > > equals out of reach of Vernon's "/fist". The debate over abuse v. > > discipline won't be solved by a series of children's books and the > > discussion over them, but children who are properly spanked (flat > of > > hand across gluteus maximus) will dance out of the way as well, > and > > children who are marched to a corner for "time out" will have > learned > > to avoid that same grasping hand. There is no overt mention of > > abuse, and to me, no covert mention, either. > > > Alla: > > The automatic assumption I indeed make that Vernon was hitting ( not > properly, no) Harry is because of how I see Dursleys through the > entire books. If this was indeed the **one** isolated remark and we > would have seen Dursleys act as loving parents do through the entire > books, maybe indeed couple other reasons for Harry stay out of > Vernon reach would come to mind. Otherwise in line of Vernon and > Petunia not stopping Harry hunting, in line of Petunia trying to hit > Harry with frying pan, I don't see a possibility that Harry would > want to stay out of Vernon reach because Vernon would want punish > Harry for proper reasons. wynnleaf, In addition to the staying out of Vernon's reach, we have Harry in OOTP, Career Advice, "You'd need more than a good sense of fun to liaise with my uncle," said Harry darkly, "Good sense of when to duck, more like..." "When to duck" implies hitting, not spanking or grabbing by the collar. As I said in my other post about this, Vernon also choked him, which makes it almost certain that Vernon's physical abuse must have been regular enough for him to become willing to choke Harry for something trivial, even out of the window in the possible view of neighbors. > > Sherry now: > > Also, in HBP, Harry is nearly 16. He's far too old to be worrying about a > little swat on the butt or being forced to go stand in the corner. This > thought happens when he is well beyond the age for such punishments, and to > me, again it makes me believe Harry had a much worse reason for wanting to > stay out of Vernon's reach. wynnleaf, Yet in OOTP he sees there's a need to "duck" around Vernon, and Vernon has choked him. By the way, the choking seemed to have brought out some protective magic in Harry. Sherry > Yes, we know JKR had to give Harry this miserable background in order to > make the transition between the early years of his life and his first intro > to the wizarding world, but except in the first book, when the Dursleys were > almost comical, I don't think we're supposed to think Harry did not suffer > abuse at least at the hands of Vernon Dursley. There's got to be some > reason why he's JKR's least favorite character. Now when I read SS/PS I > don't find the Dursley stuff very humorous anymore, because the progress of > the story, the darkening of the series makes me look at even that somewhat > light-hearted book differently. wynnleaf I agree with this. When I read the first two books, I thought of things in a sort of comic way, and didn't look at the Dursley's actions the same way I would if it were what I might consider a true-to-life story. But since the later books came out, I view the Dursleys quite differently. And I think that JKR wanted us to see them differently, especially when I felt she made the physical abuse aspect clear in OOTP. I'm often surprised that I don't see people mention the choking episode very often. Do readers tend to pass over that as an example of abuse, simply because Harry is a little older? To me, it speaks of a long history of abuse. wynnleaf From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 16:13:24 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:13:24 -0000 Subject: Time to turn back In-Reply-To: <019801c6dd59$91fe0750$0200a8c0@Sharon> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158575 --- "H.M.S" wrote: > > At the end of HBP Hermione emphasises that she & Ron > are going with Harry. He had given them a chance before > to turn back, but they had made up their minds. >Question: when previously did Harry give them a chance >to turn back? > > Sharon > bboyminn: I speculate this occurred during the quest for the Stone. --- Quote: SS/PS, PB, Am Ed, pg 342 --- Seeing the open door somehow seemed to impress upon all three of them what was facing them. Underneath the cloak, Harry turned to the other two. "If you want to go back, I won't blame you," he said. "You can take the cloak, I won't need it now." "Don't be stupid," said Ron. "We're coming," said Hermione. Harry pushed the door open. - - - end quote - - - It may have occurred in other places as well, but this is the one I remember. Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 16:56:36 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:56:36 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158576 > Magpie: > > > I don't think anyone's disagreeing on that or having a problem with JKR choosing this for her story. But I assume people aren't really arguing that witholding all love and affection from toddlers is a good thing. Being loved by your family doesn't make you a sissy. > It just frankly feels like in order to defend Dumbledore's decision as a good thing we're tearing down normal families in a way that's a little strange. Tonks: True. We are IMO, all over stating our positions in the extreme. And it does seem that some here see Harry as a real child in a real family and are approaching the discussion from that POV. If I had that POV, I would see everything differently. But I don't see Harry as a real person. On the other hand, I see DD as a real person. ;-) Weird I know. Tonks_op From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Thu Sep 21 17:04:54 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:04:54 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158577 > > Random832: > > But it is not in any way certain that he will be harmed if not > placed > > with the Dursleys. Laurawkids: I'd like to note that it is in no way certain that Harry would be hurt by the Dursleys (in any of the abusive ways that we see later) at the time that DD and McG are waiting for Hagrid to arrive with Harry. At this point, they are bad in the attitudes they hold about how to live, what treasures to strive for in life, that they don't like the WW, and certainly Vernon was a bully when young. These traits do not automaticly lead to abuse. I think fear added to these with Harry's arrival and turned the tide. I have a feeling that DD gave them the benefit of the doubt and hoped that sweet baby Harry's situation of having his parents murdered would soften their hearts toward Harry. By the time the situation at the Dursley's got bad, Sirius was indeed in Azkaban. This can still be one of DD's regrets. I still fancy that when DD says he's watched Harry more that he knows, it means that he was popping in on the household and doing damage control in Harry's heart to ease his pain. The whole situation with DD putting Harry in a bad place often reminds me of my Christian God who does indeed allow children to be born to losers, but still has His eye on the situation, always offering that idea and nudge to change to the parents, or kids to be strenghtened by bad events, or just calming the pain, but trying the whole while to influence all to accept that gift of grace and change their fear and hatred into faith and love and keep thir souls safe. Harry has a damaged psyche, but a whole, untarnished soul. > > Random832 It has not protected him from Voldemort personally at all > > since the end of fourth year. Laurawkids: Harry is not dead, yet! ; ) I think the protection simply keeps LV from killing Harry. LV seems to think that, while he cannot kill Harry in the MOM, DD can. I'm thinking that Privet Dr. is protected from the DE's and LV by other methods. Fidelius, perhaps? Laurawkids, who want lunch From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 17:14:30 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:14:30 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > wynnleaf, who if she ever heard of an adult choking a child with two > hands, would immediately assume that the adult had a history of > physically abusing the child. > > > Tonks: > > I wouldn't want you on the jury at my trial. ;-) > > I would assume that the adult had lost control in that moment. It may > or may not be an indication of prior abuse. Things may have come to > this. This may be the first time. There are parents who have never > touched their child and who under stress and a kid acting out, go off > the deep end and hit the kid for the first and only time in their > relationship. wynnleaf I note you took my example of Vernon choking Harry and switched to explaining it via the possibility of a parent *hitting* a child for the first time. You further included the possible circumstance of parents under stress and a kid acting out. My point first was that choking is different from hitting. It is extreme. Further, Vernon went from watching television, to choking Harry because of practically nothing. Vernon was not noticably under any particular stress nor was Harry acting out. Vernon just did it over a triviality. Because two-handed choking is an extreme method of physical aggression, I find it highly unlikely that someone would do that over a triviality without having first progressed through things like hitting -- enough to be likely to hit someone with little provocation. I am rather appalled that anyone would consider Harry's situation within the bounds of normal. I don't know a single family that would keep a child in a cupboard, nor especially confine them for days or weeks on end. I don't know any family that would put bars on the window of a child in order to keep them *in* during any sort of normal circumstances. I currently have a 13 year old son and 13 year old boys need *far* more than a can of soup to be healthy. In the real world, abuse is not defined as "what kills the kid." Just because Harry wasn't in immediate danger of dying at the Dursley's hands doesn't mean he wasn't being abused. wynnleaf From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Sep 21 16:05:35 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:05:35 -0000 Subject: How being with Dursleys influenced Harry's character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158579 > Alla: > > Are you > asking whether my parents ever behaved like Dursleys? Tesha: No insult was implied, it sounds like you had an excellent childhood. I did too, but I remember crying on the porch once for being scolded for something I didn't do. I probably remember it becasue it was so rare. When Harry gets told off for doing something he never did, I feel closer to him, and maybe I feel a little lucky. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 18:02:55 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:02:55 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40609210714s616e7c7ay3969c5ee5e07da8e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158580 --- Janette wrote: > > So the impression I am getting, as a newbie to this > list, and I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong > (!) is that we are generally convinced that Dumbledore, > while being the greatest wizard of his time, was also > arrogant in his decision making, particularly with > regard to the placement of Harry with the Dursleys. > > I think this is a correct assessment, ... Harry as a > pawn in his longterm game plan ... > > But DD at the time of Harry's AKing is not like this. > ... His office is up in the tower and requires a > password.... I would imagine ... that he was a fairly > solitary person, unapproachable to most, and > singlemindedly dedicated to defeating LV and the DEs > as he had Grindelwald. > bboyminn: I think one of the reason that the discussions of Dumbledore and his actions becomes so polarized is because we each see an aspect of him, but refuse, for what ever reason, to see the whole. Is Dumbledore manipulative and calculating? Certainly, partly because that is the position that is thrust on him by circumstances. He is the living genius in the Wizard World, and like it or not, that puts great responsibility on him. So, he does ...because he must. But that doesn't define him in totality, he is still human and quite capable of being very fond of Harry and concerned for his safety and well-being. >From another perspective, he is all-knowing and all-seeing. Yet, again he is human, he makes mistakes, he is as prone as anyone to misjudgements and miscalculation. And yes, he is solitary. JKR said in an interview that Dumbledore is truly a genius, talented beyond measure, he is /without peer/, and that is the problem. Where is Dumbledore's equal, where is his confidant, where are the people, or even the person, who can understand things at the level that Dumbledore does? Where is the person he can trust with absolute certainty? There are none. So, he goes it alone. He makes his decisions in an intellectual vacuum. He does the best he can with the resources he has. I think it is unreasonable to think that Dumbledore didn't weigh all the possibilities when determining Harry's fate. He could have been left with a loving wizarding family, but there are problems, as Dumbledore points out, with Harry continued existance in the British Wizarding World. If nothing else, his exposure and the mass awareness of his location compounded by his fame. He could have been placed with a wizard family in say Austrailia, but that places him very far away from the protection of Dumbledore and those who care about his fate, and doesn't really guarantee his anonymity and therefore doesn't guarantee his safety. He could have been place in some muggle institution; orphanage, foster care, adoptive parents. But those too have their drawbacks. Yes, they do have some advantages, but they also have drawbacks. The choice he made was a terrible choice, but in Dumbledore's mind the advantges out weighed the disadvanteages, and can we ever hope for more than that in real life. Dumbledore was under time pressures. Harry needed to be safe NOW, and as the Longbottom attack proved Harry needed to be safe for a long long time. It seems that some wizards were generally aware of Harry's location; note I said generally aware. Also note that one of the wizards who interacted with Harry was Dedalus Diggle, a Dumbledore supporter and member of the Order who may have been guarding Harry as he shopped with the Dursleys. True, he may also have just been a fan of 'The Boy Who Lived' and wanted to honor him by bowing to him in a shop. On another occassion, a witch waved to Harry on a bus. Again, that could have been an Order member sent to guard Harry as he traveled. But again, it could have merely been a fan who recognised him. But I think it is significant that the one person who bowed to Harry was a member of the Order. Further note that Voldemort himself comment on the absolute nature of the protection Harry has at the Dursleys. Voldemort seems to recognise the wizdom of Dumbledore's choice even if the readers do not. My point in all this, is that while it was generally known in the Wizard World that Harry was with his muggle relatives, it was only specifically known by a very small few exactly where those muggles lived. Is there anyone out there who truly lives a 'Happily Ever After' fairytale life? Life is struggle, life is pain, you can deny that and thereby compound your misery, or you can accept it, and instead of fighting the inevitable, you can seek out what good you can find in life and accept the limited happiness that results. Harry seems to have found his happiness where ever he could, perhaps only is his dreams of giants on flying motorcycle, but none the less, he found his bliss in something besides his living environment. Harry does show sign of his mis-treatment at the Dursley. He doesn't have a lot of friends, he doesn't socialize a lot, he doesn't turn to adults (or friends) for help, he stays within a small tight knit group of people that he feels he can trust with absolute certainty, but even among them, he is withdrawn. He is independant and self-reliant to the point of being dangerous. There are many things he still hasn't told Ron and Hermione. He is concerned with what the Twins will think of him, he is self-conscious of his image, not in a glory seeking way, but in a way that shows insecurity. These in my mind are all residual signs of the environment he grew up in. > Janette: > > We have no knowledge that he (Dumbledore) had much, if > any, contact with the Marauders or Lily before they > left school and joined the Order. We don't know if he > had any contact with them even then. > bboyminn: I understand your point, but I'm not sure how true it is. Certainly there is an element of truth, but we know from the text that Dumbledore had conversations with James and Lily, we know he assisted them, we know they were in the Order, we know that Dumbledore himself says he was very fond of them. So, he certainly had some association with them. But again, in his knowledge and responsibility, he is above everyone else, carrying burdens that few other would or could carry. That makes him very isolated. > Janette: > > I am thinking of Tonks - she is young and takes a fairly > active part in the new Order, but what real contact does > she have with DD? bboyminn: I believe that Harry meets Tonks in the hallways and she is either just coming from talking to Dumbledore or just on her way to attempt to talk to Dumbledore, and my sense is that these were personal conversations, not strictly business. But still, I think she goes to him as a wise advisor, and not as a friend. As I've already acknowledged, Dumbledore has few social friends. He has few people he can confide in partly because the things he would need to discuss would be of a nature too sensitive to reveal to others, and partly because he has no peer who can analyse things on the intellectual level that Dumbledore is capable of. JKR said this very thing in her interview. >Janette: > > ... When LV was defeated, he placed Harry with the > Dursleys for a number of reasons, all leading to the > same purpose - that of raising DD's champion against LV, > as the prophecy had now been seen to apply to Harry, > through LV's choice. > > Harry was removed from the wizarding community ... then > there was that "blood protection" - valid or not. Plus, > leaving Harry with Sirius would remove Harry from DD's > influence. He must have known that the Dursleys would > raise a Tom Riddle type character - in fact he may have > instructed the Dursleys to do so - *the point being that > he would be DD's Tom Riddle*, and therefore his knight > to set against LV. > bboyminn: Yes, to all those things, but I don't think their truth is all-defining. Dumbledore can't function in a vacuum, he knows things that can't be revealed to others; the Prophesy for example. Harry's fate is sealed, Voldemort is determined to kill him. Dumbledore feels that while Voldemort is presently gone, he is not truly gone, and one day he will be a threat again; a threat to both Harry and the Wizard World. So, Dumbledore must consider many many things; many things I'm sure he wishes he didn't have to consider, but none the less, the burden in on him, and he must make the best decision he can in a very short time, and to the greatest long term benefit. > Janette: > > Where his grand plan went wrong, I think, was that he > grew fond of Harry, which he had never expected to, and > that totally changed things - he could no longer expose > Harry and stake him out as bait to bring LV into the > open to be despatched by DD, for example. ... > > Nothing that hasn't been said before, but just trying > to pull it together... > montims > bboyminn: Dumbledore even acknowledges that his fondness for Harry lead him to mistakes, but he also acknowledges that those mistakes were impossible to avoid. Anyone who watch Harry and saw what an outstanding person he was couldn't help but grow fond of him. Dumbledore has the fate of the Wizard World thrust on to him, and burden he can't ignore, nor one that he can trust to self-serving polticians. So, like it or not, Dumbledore is pulled in two (at least) directions. One on hand he must be a cold calculating bastard, because that is what must be done if he is to win the terrible battle ahead. But on the otherhand, he is intrusted with the fate of a sweet innocent boy, who turns out to be brilliant; brave, courageous, and self-less. So, again Dumbledore is torn by the fate of the world and the fate of an individual. He is force to make terrible decision, decisions that he can't pawn off onto others. Dumbledore has terrible responsibilities that he can't escape, that he can't avoid. He must make terrible decision because there is no peer he can trust to make them for him. It is a situation I would not want to be in. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 19:16:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:16:34 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158581 tk wrote: > > First time poster - pls forgive any duplicate and/or crazy thoughts. > > "Your father left this in my possession before he died" > > JKR noted that there is a significant - even crucial answer. > Therefore, I do not think there is any way this was given to DD for > even just a mission for the Order. As noted, Mad Eye had two - > depending on the length of time owned, the Order would have already > had access to them for use. Also, there is no indication that DD > ever let the cloak out of his possession. > > Making a little assumption on my part - I read this literally to mean that James left it with DD specifically, not just any member of the Order or his best friend, Sirius, etc. etc... Since LV was afraid of DD and DD resides within the (almost) impenetrable walls of Hogwarts, the IC was meant to be SAFE. Therefore, James knew this particular IC was special and that the only person who could take care of it was DD. This indicates the cloak is even more important than initially thought. > > If it was meant to be kept safe, it could only mean that LV was after it for a particular reason. Since he was in the process of creating his Horcruxes - there is the possibility that DD and James discovered that the IC was a relic of the Four Founders. Carol responds: Hi, tk, and welcome to the group. I agree that James left the cloak with Dumbledore for safekeeping though I'm not going to join the discussion about the cloak being "special." I don't think voldemort knew about the cloak, and I think the Gryffindor relic he was after is the Sword of Gryffindor, which could only be obtained by killing Dumbledore. (We know that James is not descended from Godric gryffindor, but JKR has said that we ought to be looking at Dumbledore's family, which, along with his owning Fawkes, leads me to believe that *he's* the Heir of Gryffindor--and the owner of the cottage in Godric's Hollow.) I do want to point out, however, that the real Alastor Moody probably didn't have two cloaks when he was working for the Order the first time around. In OoP, he owns a second Invisibility Cloak because Barty Jr. left his (the one that was used to conceal him for twelve years and that he used to hide his father's body before he Transfigured it into a bone) in the real Moody's magical trunk. Harry sees it there when Dumbledore is opening the seven levels of the trunk in GoF. (Of course, Sturgis Podmore is arrested and Moody's better cloak iss confiscated, so he's back down to one rather quickly.) Still, I agree that the original Order wouldn't have needed James's cloak if they had Moody's and that it probably never left Dumbledore's possession once James left it with him. I'm guessing that he was keeping it safe for Harry--or for James, if he survived. Possibly Dumbledore was trying to be sure that James stayed hidden once he had suggested the Fidelius Charm idea. (He didn't know that James was an Animagus, of course, or no doubt he'd have advised James not to sneak out as a stag, either--though probably James would realize on his own that it was unwise to call attention to himself by appearing as a stag anywhere in modern Britain. His Animagus form, unlike Padfoot's and Wormtail's, was rather conspicuous.) Carol, not denying that the cloak could be special but not convinced that it is, either From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 19:33:03 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:33:03 -0000 Subject: Speculation: Blood Protection and 12 Grimmauld Place Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158582 An interesting thought came to me while reading the current thread on Harry and the Dursleys, as well as the, threads on Dumbledore's choices and responsibilities. It's common knowledge that a certain number of us in fandom have speculated a battle at Privet Drive in the next and final book. The extension of that is, Harry will then take the Dursleys into his protective custody. Which mean the very likely comedic circumstance of the Dursleys taking up residence at 12 Grimmauld Place. But if that happens, Harry will still call home, the place where his mother's blood dwells. The Dursleys dwell at Grimmauld Place and that is the place Harry now calls home. The rub; Dumbledore said that the protection would end when Harry turned 17, that is, became an adult in the wizard world. But why? Is it because as an adult Harry is no longer under anyone's protection; he must fend for himself? Is it because it is assumed that once Harry turns 17, he will leave the Dursleys, and make a home of his own; that they will go their separate ways? Was the spell originally cast with that provision? Is that just how the spell happens to work? I speculate that some residual protection could carry over to Grimmauld Place if the Dursleys come to live there, and that protection could somehow become significant to the story. Perhaps in turning the table, and offerring the Dursleys sanctuary, Harry has somehow renewed the spell. The only problem I have with this, is that it seems like a plot sidetrack, as do so many suggested plot lines for the next book. Do we really have enough time in only one remaining book for an attack on Privet Drive, an attack on Grimmauld Place, a likely attack on Hogwarts, and to somehow pull everyone together at the Ministry so that we can bring the Veil back into the story for the final battle? To the side topic of whether Harry will return to 12 Grimmauld Place or not. I don't think he has a choice. He has to have a base of operation, and he needs a place where he can operate independantly without Molly's interference. Also, assume the Order doesn't fall apart from not having Dumbledore to guide them, they will need a place to meet. Yes, they can meet other places, but for what purpose? Everyone in the Order took their assignments from Dumbledore based on a plan known only to Dumbledore. Without those assignments and without Dumbledore's plan, does the Order really have any purpose any more? I think, though it might take time, Harry's needs and his central task will give the Order their new purpose. Without really meaning to, and perhaps without officially taking the position, Harry will become the de facto leader of the Order. So, yes, Harry will definitely return to Grimmauld Place. Enquiring minds want to know. Steve/bboyminn From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 20:06:11 2006 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:06:11 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak & Dobby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158583 Re: More thoughts on the Cloak - tk wrote: JKR noted that there is a significant - even crucial answer. (snip) Making a little assumption on my part - I read this literally to mean that James left it with DD specifically> Carol responded: Hi, tk, and welcome to the group. I agree that James left the cloak with Dumbledore for safekeeping though I'm not going to join the discussion about the cloak being "special." (snip) but JKR has said that we ought to be looking at Dumbledore's family, which, along with his owning Fawkes, leads me to believe that *he's* the Heir of Gryffindor--and the owner of the cottage in Godric's Hollow.) Carol, not denying that the cloak could be special but not convinced that it is, either. KathyO responding to both: First, Carol, I have to say I LOVE your theory that Godric's Hollow is actually Dumbledore's. That leads into an idea I had that's way left field but what the heck. I think the cloak is only special because it belonged to Harry's father. However, I don't really think that Dumbledore was given it by James directly. I really think the reason the House Elves are in the books, is to show us their loyalty, whether sick or not, to their `family'. This being said my supposition is that Dobby was the Potter's House Elf. He didn't go to Godric's Hollow. He stayed at the Potter's home to take care of it, while they were sequestered ? as you suggested ? in Dumbledore's home. When Dobby was told that the Potter's were dead, he gave Dumbledore the Invisibility Cloak ? and possibly other things James and Lily may have left ? to give to Harry when Dumbledore saw fit. How do I come to this theory? Simple. Winky is so loyal to her family, that once dismissed, she becomes a little drunken elf. She would have done anything for her master. Kreacher ? well, you know all about him but we definitely know how loyal he is to his `chosen' family. So why do I believe that Dobby belonged to the Potters? Mainly because he could leave the Malfoys to warn Harry, and the way he protected Harry at the end of COS when Malfoy threatened him. We have been given no canon that suggests a House Elf can leave their family, or would even think of doing so. Dobby has no reason to warn Harry, unless he had been a part of the Potter household first. With Harry living with the Muggles, Dobby could not follow him. So Dumbledore suggested that he could take care of Harry another way, by joining a Death Eater's family as their House Elf. Doesn't that tie things up a bit? KathyO From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 20:17:31 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:17:31 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158584 Carol earlier (quoted by Steve): > > ..., Dumbledore mistakenly states in HBP that Voldemort > > used Nagini to kill Frank Bryce ..., but possibly DD > > isn't entirely mistaken. In GoF he states that Frank > > Bryce, like Bertha Jorkins, *disappeared.* IOW, his body > > was never found. Since Voldemort planned to feed first > > Wormtail ... to Nagini after killing them, Carol again: The partially snipped sentence, which you've left incomplete, should read: "Since Voldemort planned to feed first Wormtail . . . and then Harry . . . to Nagini after killing them, it seems likely to me that Voldemort fed both Bertha Jorkins and Frank Bryce to Nagini after killing them, partly to reward or appease Nagini and partly to dispose of the evidence." I've restored the sentence since it states the point I'm making, or rather the speculation I'm presenting for consideration. Steve (bboyminn) responded: > > Correct me if I'm wrong but Dumbledore says he found out > about Frank Bryces death by reading it in the muggle > newspaper, and when he speaks of Nagini killing, he says > 'muggle' but he doesn't specifically mention Frank. > > > If it was in the news, then there must have been a body > and Dumbledore doesn't say Nagini killed Frank, just that > Nagini killed a muggle. Carol again: Actually, you *are* wrong, but it's my fault for not quoting the relevant passage in the first place. I'm not "jumping the gun," to quote a snipped part of your post. I'm only offering a suggestion, which you are of course free to argue against or counter with other canon. Note the word "possibly" in the passage you quoted from my post and "seems likely that" in the portion I've restored. Here's the canon paragraph that alerted me to the *possibility* that Frank Bryce and Bertha *may* have been fed to Nagini: "'The years of Voldemort's ascent to power,' he [Dumbledore] said, 'were marked with disappearances. Bertha Jorkins has vanished without a trace in the place where Voldemort was certainly known to be last. Mr. Crouch too has disappeared . . . within these very grounds. And there was a third disappearance, one which the Ministry, I regret to say, do not consider of any importance, for it concerns a Muggle. His name was Frank Bryce, he lived in the village where Voldemort's father grew up, and he has not been seen since August. You see, I read the Muggle newspapers, unlike most of my Ministry friends" (GoF Am. ed. 601). So, Steve, there wasn't a body--just a "disappearance"--and Dumbledore does specifically mention Frank Bryce, who "has not been seen since August." We know what happened to Mr. Crouch's body, which was Transfigured into a bone by his dear son, but Mr. Crouch wasn't murdered by Voldemort (or by Wormtail, using Voldemort's wand) like the other two. Both Bertha and Frank were AK'd, as we know because their "echoes" came out of Voldemort's wand and because we see the green flash when Frank is killed, but neither body is ever found. Bertha remains unaccounted for until Barty Jr. makes his confession, and even then, there's no body to be discovered. Voldemort himself says in the graveyard that when she was no longer of use to him, he "disposed of her" (655). What better way to "dispose" of her than to feed her to the same twelve-foot snake that circles the graveyard waiting to be fed Harry's body, the same snake that has been promised, and then denied, the treat of eating Wormtail? "'Nagini,' said the cold voice, 'you are out of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you, after all . . . but never mind. . . there is still Harry Potter. . .' (GoF 576, ellipses in original). The more I think about it, the more I'm persuaded that Frank Bryce's and Bertha Jorkin's "disappearances" are best accounted for by their bodies being fed to Nagini. The juxtaposition of their disappearances with those of people from Voldemort's reign of terror *suggests* --perhaps misleadingly, perhaps not--that other people (Caradoc Dearborn, for example) who disappeared without a trace may have suffered the same fate. And, as I noted in my original post, at least two people have disappeared without a trace in HBP. It's possible that Florian Fortescue, at least, suffered the same fate as Bertha Jorkins--tortured for information, killed, and, if I'm right in my speculation, fed to Nagini to dispose of the body. Carol, who is only presenting this idea for consideration, not presenting it as "fact" From caaf at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 19:52:24 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:52:24 -0000 Subject: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158585 Cyril... Steve wrote: > As to your parting comment, I definitely agree. Snape was > the best DADA teacher Harry ever had, but Harry resisted > that knowledge because it came from Snape. Snape classes > dealt with things that are critical for Harry to know. He > presented alternative ways to deal with Dementors, which > Harry rejected. He taught non-vebal magic which is > criticial to dueling, but which Harry was terrible at. Hi Steve - can you refresh me as to canon where Snape shows Harry (or the DADA classes) alternative way to deal with Dementors? I am not able to locate the same. I do remember Snape setting them an essay on Dementors - but I do not recollect him presenting any alternate ways to deal with Dementors... Thanks in advance, Cyril. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 20:58:25 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:58:25 -0000 Subject: Nagini the snake In-Reply-To: <45128CA8.000001.01428@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > > Iumuggle asked: > > I have a quick question. In the beginning of Goblet of Fire, Nagini > Needs to be milked to feed Voldemort? What is that all about? Why > does he need to drink Nagini's milk? > > iumuggle > Donna replied: > > Snakes do not give milk. The term, "milk a snake", refers to the process of extracting the snake's venom. In the real world, the venom is then used to make antivenom which is used to treat bites from that type of snake. > > The impression I got from the book is LV drank Nagini's venom for food which imo, helps explain LV snake like appearance. Carol responds: Yes and no. Yes, Wormtail "milks" Nagini to feed her venom to Baby!mort in GoF, and it does appear to sustain him while he's in fetal form. Her venom, along with unicorn blood, is also an ingredient in the potion that creates this rudimentary body. (As I noted in an earlier post, she seems like an evil caricature of a mother here since her venom gives life to this revolting "fetus" and she sustains it with her "milk.") The use of her venom could account for the snakelike appearance of Voldemort's fetal form except for one thing--he already has the red eyes, flat face and slitlike nostrils when Harry sees his face sticking out the back of Quirrell's head. And since the Death Eaters express no surprise or revulsion at his appearance in the graveyard, it seems likely that he appears there as he did at Godric's Hollow. We see that the creation of Horcruxes alters his appearance. In the DADA interview, when he's probably created about four Horcruxes (diary, ring, cup, locket), his features are blurred. Harry sees them as slightly snakelike, but that may be hindsight. By the time of SS/PS, where he can only reveal a face by using another's body, they're fully snakelike. Some posters suggest that the creation of Horcruxes in and of itself makes him more snakelike. Certainly it makes him less human, literally and figuratively, as reflected in his appearance. I've suggested (in a hypothesis that rivals abergoat's Aberforth-is-a-goat theory in unpopularity) that perhaps Nagini was made a Horcrux *before* Godric's Hollow, which would account for Voldemort's snakelike appearance at that time. (I think we can at least safely speculate that he made at least one more Horcrux between the DADA interview and Godric's Hollow, regardless of what that Horcrux is.) Dumbledore accounts for the affinity between Nagini and Voldemort by her being a Horcrux, but his suggestion that LV used Frank Bryce's death to make that Horcrux is problematic for a number of reasons discussed in earlier posts and does not account for the affinity between them when LV is possessing her in OoP, which occurs before Frank Bryce's murder. There is unquestionably some bond between Voldemort and Nagini that enables her venom to sustain him and to be used in the potion that created his fetal form, and enables him to possess her without shortening her life. He seems to love "[his] dear Nagini" in a way that he loves no human being. And she is somehow different from the snakes that died when he possessed them as Vapor!mort. Even if she's not a Horcrux (and I still think she is), she appears to be powerfully magical. She doesn't fit the description of any of the magical snakes in FBAWT, but I don't think she's just an ordinary (if large) snake that he met and befriended on his travels. I've suggested (with a resounding silence in response) that she may be his familiar (in the sense of an evil spirit in animal form, cf. Grimalkin and Paddock in the "Macbeth" scene, not in the sense of a pet like Trevor the toad). All of this to say that, yes, Wormtail "milks" her and feeds her venom to Baby!mort, but, no, that's not what makes him snakelike! Carol, predicting (again) that Harry will slay Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor in the library, I mean, in Book 7 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 21:11:01 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:11:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and dementors Was Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158587 > Cyril: > Hi Steve - can you refresh me as to canon where Snape shows Harry > (or the DADA classes) alternative way to deal with Dementors? I am > not able to locate the same. > > I do remember Snape setting them an essay on Dementors - but I do > not recollect him presenting any alternate ways to deal with > Dementors... zgirnius: I'll just jump in, shall I? > HBP, p. 448 US Hardcover > "...Ron was now struggling to finish a viciously difficult essay for Snape that Harry and Hermione had already completed. Harry fully expected to receive low marks on his, because he had disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle dementors, but he did not care..." A later comment by Hermione confirms the topic of the essay was how to deal with dementors, so Harry was not expecting to be graded down for some irrelevant argument he has with Snape. Since Harry presumably suggested the use of the Patronus Charm, which he has used to good effect in the past and also taught to the DA, his disagreement with Snape means Snape must have suggested something else. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 21:44:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:45 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158588 wynnleaf wrote: > > In PS/SS we are told that Harry often is confined to the cupboard for > many days at a time. For instance, after the zoo insident, Harry is > thrown into the cupboard and doesn't get out until summer holidays > have already started. Now we don't know how long that was, but the > implication is much longer than any other instance except possibly the > time Harry ended up on top of the roof at school. > > Confining a person to a small cupboard for days, or even weeks at a > time, *is* physical abuse, even though there are no physical scars. > > But OOTP has the biggest evidence of physical abuse. In the first > chapters there we see Vernon literally choking Harry for an incredibly > trivial thing. Both of Vernons hands were tightly around Harry's > throat. Now -- do we truly believe that a person goes from no > physical abuse, to suddenly choking a kid with two hands for something > trivial? That's just not the kind of progression abuse takes. > > Later in OOTP, Harry considers that a necessary skill around Vernon is > how to duck well. Why would Harry need to duck around Vernon? What's > the necessity of ducking, if Vernon didn't hit him? > > I don't think JKR wanted to get too into the physical abuse problem, > because then she'd be forced to address it more directly. But I do > think she wanted to imply it. The strangling episode is, in my > opinion, a clear indication that Vernon must have hit Harry. It's far > to aggressive and harmful a physical action for it to be the first > physically harmful thing that Vernon had ever done to Harry -- or even > one of a few. For Vernon to so quickly choke Harry over a triviality, > he had to have regularly been willing to use physical force on Harry. > > wynnleaf, who if she ever heard of an adult choking a child with two > hands, would immediately assume that the adult had a history of > physically abusing the child. > Carol responds: I'm not going to criticize anyone else's reading of these scense, but I take them much less literally, just as I don't take the statement that Dudley was as broad as he is tall literally. (Other examples of exaggeration include Madame Maxime's shoes being the size of a child's sled and Hagrid's handkerchiefs being the size of tablecloths.) If Harry had been kept day and night in his cupboard, he could not have attended school and the authorities would have come after the Dursleys. I think that he was probably sent there immediately after school or as soon as he came home. And he was certainly given something to eat and allowed to use the bathroom just as he was when he was confined to his room (an actual bedroom at that point). Possibly the references to spending time in a cupboard are exaggerated for the Cinderella effect of the first book. We don't actually see Harry being treated much worse than the rest of the family; as BetsyHP pointed out, everybody, not just Harry, has to eat a bag of crisps and a banana, and Vernon is trying to keep Harry from being sent to a wizarding school run by what he considers to be an old crackpot. They're trying to keep Harry from becoming magical for what they (wrongly) consider to be his own good. I think that their methods are old-fashioned (a more lenient version of spare-the-rod, spoil-the-child) but not as outright abusive as other fictional parents and stepparents--Pap in "Huckleberry Finn" or Mr. Murdstone in "David Copperfield," for example. As for the incident in which Vernon attempts to choke Harry, I think that's the first and only time he does so. Both he and Harry are surprised by an electric shock that causes Vernon to drop Harry--the blood protection in action? And the reference to Harry knowing what it felt like to go without food all summer, mentioned by Alla, refers to the grapefruit and "rabbit food" diet on which Petunia places the whole family because Dudley can no longer fit in his school uniform, not to any punishment inflicted on Harry. It's interesting that Harry says somewhere that the Dursleys haven't given him pocket money since he was five, which indicates that at one time, probably before the outbursts of accidental magic, they treated him somewhat normally. At any rate, with the exception of putting bars on Harry's window and feeding him only cold soup through a cat flap, I'm not sure that we see many examples of actual physical abuse. Neglect, certainly. Absence of love, certainly. But, as Dumbledore says, their overindulgence of Dudley is actually a far worse form of abuse even though they do it unintentionally. Silly question for those of you who live in the UK--do English houses still have bedrooms that lock with a key from the outside? In the U.S., bedrooms lock from the inside, and teenagers have been known to lock their parents out of their rooms for "privacy." Carol, who grew up at a time when most parents spanked their children and sending kids to bed without supper was a common punishment but understands that the parents were doing what they thought was best From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 21:53:46 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:53:46 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158589 > > a_svirn: > Dumledore knew that it wasn't a final victory, but there > > wasn't any immediate danger for Harry. > > > > Pippin: > That's where we see things differently. Yes, the danger of a > Voldemortist coup would be in abeyance until Voldemort > recovered his body and could command his DE's again. > Harry would not wake up one day to find dragons circling > Trafalgar Square or giants invading Surrey. > > But-- > > Dumbledore wasn't only trying to save Harry from living in > a world dominated by Voldemort. a_svirn: Where did this "only" come from? He wasn't trying to save Harry from living in the world dominated by Voldemort period. And since this world wasn't dominated by some magical equivalent of Hitler, why should Harry have sought a political asylum in the muggle world? > Pippin: >He was trying to save Harry > from being murdered. The number of potential Harry- > killers actually increased with Voldemort's loss of power, > since besides being in danger from Voldemort himself, Harry was > now in danger from suicidal fanatic Death Eaters seeking > vengeance on their master's behalf. Voldemort's wand must > have been missing from the scene and that would mean at > least one of his faithful was at large and knew what had > happened. a_svirn: Well, I am not quite sure where in canon all those suicidal death eaters are mentioned, but in any case it's different kind of danger that requires different kind of solution. Take your own simile ? in the real world refugees fleeing from genocide and some VIPs targeted by criminals usually take different routs. For the former ? emigration and political asylum on the lousiest possible terms, for the latter bodyguards, high-tech security, witness protection programs and such. Dumbledore could have taken this route too. He wasn't a stranger to such ticks; in fact, he offered something like that to Draco. He could even have declared Harry dead and let him live under assumed identity with someone who loved him (with Sirius). Instead he forced Harry onto the Dursleys and simultaneously sold the-boy-who-lived story to the wizarding community. And had the gall to use it as another argument in favour of the muggle world. > Pippin: > Dumbledore could also reasonably expect that > Voldemort himself was still capable of > finding ways to kill Harry and still motivated to do so. a_svirn: The only thing Voldemort was capable at the time is sustaining his vapoury essence. And for all Dumbledore knew he could continue in this pitiful state for another quarter of the century. It's not like the prophecy contained any specific dates to work with. > Pippin: > But Dumbledore couldn't have explained that without explaining > about horcruxes or Voldemort's interpretation of the prophecy. > He did not want Voldemort to realize how much he knew, so he > couldn't alert anyone to the real extent of the danger. > > Certainly Dumbledore was in no position to explain all this to > anyone in the Order when Dumbledore did not yet know which > Order member was the spy. Yet they could hardly have been > expected to defend Harry adequately without knowing it. > Only Petunia could do that. a_svirn: I got the impression that no one in the Order ever demanded explanations from Dumbledore. He gave orders, others obeyed. > Pippin: > Anyway, things wouldn't have looked very good for Sirius even > before the attack on the Muggles. James and Lily had trusted > him above all others, Dumbledore believed he had been their > secret-keeper, and James and Lily were *dead*. Even if Dumbledore > knew that Sirius had been chosen as Harry's guardian, it would've > been reckless to hand Harry over to him under the circumstances. a_svirn: Which is why he should have acquainted himself with the true circumstances before making a decision of this magnitude. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 22:02:03 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:02:03 -0000 Subject: Time to turn back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158590 > --- "H.M.S" wrote: > > > > At the end of HBP Hermione emphasises that she & Ron > > are going with Harry. He had given them a chance before > > to turn back, but they had made up their minds. > >Question: when previously did Harry give them a chance > >to turn back? > > > > Sharon > bboyminn: > > I speculate this occurred during the quest for the Stone. > > --- Quote: SS/PS, PB, Am Ed, pg 342 --- > Seeing the open door somehow seemed to impress upon all > three of them what was facing them. Underneath the cloak, > Harry turned to the other two. > > "If you want to go back, I won't blame you," he said. > "You can take the cloak, I won't need it now." > > "Don't be stupid," said Ron. > > "We're coming," said Hermione. > > Harry pushed the door open. > > - - - end quote - - - > > It may have occurred in other places as well, but this is > the one I remember. > Steven1965aaa: Yes, that was the way I read it too. It tied the end of HBP to SS in a way which I felt was very meaningful. From caaf at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 21:13:57 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:13:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158591 Cyril: Just my 2 knuts on this topic... When DD made a decision that Harry was to be placed at A Petunia's.. he did so because: a) That was the strongest *magical* protection he could provide Harry. Hence - DD had probably evaluated the options and then taken this decision... Even if DD decided to mke Harry unplottable or use the Fidelius (are they the same thing?) that would not be the highest level of protection. Part of the reason that it the the best option is becuase it also uses LV lack of understanding of LOVE as a critical component... b) At the time DD made the decision - he did not expect the Dursely's to be so abusive.. Even with McGonagall's worries at PS/SS. He felt that the option of staying away from the WW was better for HP at that time... He has even informed the Dursley's about the Potter's death, and requested that they take care of Harry as his own, through the letter 15 years ago... c) He did not forget about Harry - he kept an eye on him thru Mrs Figg (and maybe even other means) to see if Harry was doing decently ok. Sure - he is not happy about the way the Dursely's treat him - but at that time - he still requires them to provide the "home" for a few years. It is still his best option. As he remarks in OoTP The Lost Prophecy - Long extracts... "Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well - not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years. ... You might ask - and with good reason - why it had to be so.... My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone for ever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.... 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 despises, 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 veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative... She doesn't love me,' said Harry at once. `She doesn't give a damn - `But she took you,' Dumbledore cut across him. `She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you --- End of extracts--- d) He does inform them about his disappointment in the HBP visit to the Dursley's house, and again reiterates his hope that they will allow him houseroom for another year - still the best option for Harry until he turns 17. Even now DD has no better way to protect Harry's life. More than I planned to earlier write... Hopefully 2 Sickles worth :) Cyril From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 22:08:37 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:08:37 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0609201947m6cf23a7bw28e2c268eaea02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158592 > >>Betsy Hp: > > But since the Dursleys neither beat nor starved Harry, they don't > > manage to rank, IMO. There needs to be bruising, fainting, etc., > > to make it into the pantheon for me. Harry doesn't even manage an > > emotional breakdown because the Dursleys don't love him. If the > > Dursleys are to rank, Harry needs to bleed. And he doesn't. > >>Lynda: > So I take it Betsy, that the references to Harry being locked in > his room into which bowls of soup are pushed through the door-flap > and Harry always staying out of the reach of his uncle's > grasp/fist do not signify abuse to you either? > Betsy Hp: Not enough to get the Durselys into the pantheon of bad parents, no. Harry doesn't drink some of his own blood in order to get the energy to break out of his room and search for food. He hasn't had his ear burned into a mangled ruin by Vernon. He hasn't had a mental breakdown from engineered isolation and stress. IOWs, as far as "bad parents" go in books I've read, Harry's not in the most dire of situations. And I've not even brought up Charles Dickens' little tots. > >>Ceridwen: > > What is bothering me about this entire line of thought is the > automatic assumption that staying out of reach of Vernon's "grasp/" > equals out of reach of Vernon's "/fist". > Betsy Hp Personally, I think Harry was more thinking about Vernon man- handling him. Like when Vernon grabbed both Harry and Dudley and threw them out of the kitchen in PS/SS. Since we've never seen Vernon spank Harry, let alone punch him, it seems a bit of a leap, IMO, to conclude that physical abuse has actually occured. Even if JKR wanted to down play it (as Mark Twain does with Huckleberry Finn and his father, IIRC) she could have merely refered to bruises appearing now and again. > >>Alla: > So, basically what I hear you saying is that you would need > **abuse** more spelled out for you to be convinced that it was > indeed abuse? > > And of course JKR said that Harry was abused, Dumbledore as much > as says it IMO in this infamous scene. > Betsy Hp: I'm not saying Harry wasn't abused to some extent. (He was treated very unfairly.) I'm not saying the Dursleys were good parents to him. I'm not saying Harry doesn't suffer under their care. What I'm saying is that compared to other books I've read where children suffered under bad parents, Harry doesn't have it so bad. I'm saying that weighing Harry's treatment under the Dursleys against the blood protection they offer, I think Dumbledore made as good a call as he could under the circumstances. > >>Betsy Hp: > > So Harry is not in rags, he's not overworked. I think there are > > *references* to Cinderella, but they're very, very mild. Harry > > isn't responsible for keeping the house clean, fixing the meals, > > keeping the garden in order as I'd expect in a Cinderella > > mirror. Aunt Petunia does all that. When she needs help, she > > calls for Harry (not wanting to bother her sweet Dudley), which > > isn't fair, but it isn't abusive really. > >>Magpie: > References to Cinderella is what I'm talking about. I mean, she's > not going to write a brutal abuse novel and no one would want her > to. But Cinderella wasn't beaten bloody either. She can't go to > the ball, she has to do chores when her step sisters don't, she > wears ugly clothes (Harry in broken glasses and Dudley's hand me > downs are the modern equivalent). Betsy Hp: I guess where I see the Cinderella parallel breakdown is in the intensity. Harry does chores (from time to time, IIRC nothing is set routine), but it's Petunia working and sweating to keep her house and garden in tip-top condition. If JKR were truly trying to parallel Cinderella I'd have expected Harry to wake up first, get breakfast going, start on a long list of chores to do before going to school. Meanwhile Petunia should be lounging about, watching soaps and eating bon-bons. And there certainly shouldn't have been any worries about leaving Harry home alone. He'd have either been locked in his closet, or had enough work to keep him occupied. Instead, the Dursleys seem more intent on keeping Harry bored. > >>Magpie: > She sits in the ashes, he sits amongst the cobwebs. > Betsy Hp: Except Harry also goes to school and he spends his free time wandering the neighborhood. Unless he's been grounded. He's not trapped amongst the cobwebs to the extent that Cinderella is trapped in her ashes. Again, there is a *flavor* of Cinderella to Harry's life at the Dursleys. But it's not a direct re-telling of the tale. Petunia just isn't mean enough to play the wicked step-mother. (Aunt Marge is a different story.) We also have the "hidden prince" flavor going on too. (I made that term up. Feel free to replace it with an official term if there is such. ) And I think that's as important, if not more so, to the Cinderella flavor. Throughout the opening of PS/SS, when JKR is establishing what life is like for Harry at the Dursleys, there are references to there being something special about this kid (oddly behaving strangers, odd memories and dreams, odd happenings). Something beyond the rather boring and drab life of the Dursleys. It's important that Harry holds himself as above the Dursleys (more quick witted, more imaginative) because he'll soon be shown to be above them. I see the Cinderella element, but I don't think it's the determining element. Or at least, I don't think JKR was intending for it to be. > >>Magpie: > > And that's fine because in both cases the fairy godparent arrives > and takes him/her away. Only in Harry's case the fairy godmother > also caused everything. Betsy Hp: Only, I think Hagrid fulfills the role of Cinderella's fairy godmother (down to punishing the step-brother). Dumbledore is the guy who hid the prince. So yes, Dumbledore caused everything. But he never played the role of rescuer really. He's pretty much been the protector from the beginning. (e.g. We see him place Harry at the Dursleys. Something Cinderella's fairy godmother does not do with her young charge.) > >>Magpie: > It's not a horrible abuse situation, but it's an unhappy life. Betsy Hp: I agree. > >>Magpie: > Which we can either accept was necessary for blood protection or > not. I can accept it, but it's not really dramatized in the story > that I can see. If you tell don't show, people probably question > more. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I don't want to try and argue that JKR did a great job showing us the blood protection in action. I agree that she's not really done it. (Or if she has she's not drawn our attention to it as perhaps she should have.) I think she may have thought that merely having Dumbledore (and Voldemort, IIRC) *tell* us that it's so should have been enough (ooh, dangerous trying to read someone's mind!). I do agree that showing works so much better. I *am* taking the blood-protection on faith. I realize that. Since there isn't anything in the text that questions the power and necessity of that protection I take it as a given. Like electrical stuff not working at Hogwarts. Damn the logic, full speed ahead? Betsy Hp From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 22:14:10 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:14:10 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158594 Janette wrote: > > Janette: > > > > We have no knowledge that he (Dumbledore) had much, if > > any, contact with the Marauders or Lily before they > > left school and joined the Order. We don't know if he > > had any contact with them even then. > > > bboyminn: > > I understand your point, but I'm not sure how true it is. > Certainly there is an element of truth, but we know from > the text that Dumbledore had conversations with James and > Lily, we know he assisted them, we know they were in the > Order, we know that Dumbledore himself says he was very > fond of them. So, he certainly had some association with > them. But again, in his knowledge and responsibility, he > is above everyone else, carrying burdens that few other > would or could carry. That makes him very isolated. > Steven1965aaa: Steve, I agree with your point about Dumbledore's isolation. But I think we do have some indication from canon that he knew James well. At the end of POA doesn't Dumbledore say something like this to Harry: I knew your father well, both at Hogwarts and after. I'm certain he would have spared Peter as well ... ? Dumbledore very understandably has a sense of intellectual superiority, which is part of the "isolation" point. Related to this, I think that he demonstrated how "age errs when it underestimates youth" by fsiling to take heed of Harry's warnings about the "whooping", in the scene in his office just before he and Harry set off to the cave. From random832 at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 22:18:42 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:18:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609201547o26295969ha351240f5623103b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609211518j2bd6999dp186c6b26883def5a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158595 Leah: > Leah: So it's not alright for DD to place a child in the safest > place that very wise person can think of, however otherwise > imperfect it is, but it is perfectly Ok for him to kidnap one muggle > and kill off another who is rather inconvenient? This is DD making > the arrangements, not Voldemort. Random832: I think there's a lot that DD is capable of if he believes it's "for the greater good" > Leah: We don't know that, because we don't know how the > wizarding > legal system operates. Even in the muggle world, it would be > possible for others, the state or other family members to challenge > arrangements for guardianship, if these were felt to be unsuitable. > And perhaps James and Lily would have agreed with DD if they had > known the full situation. Random832: But we have no reason to think that there was any process beyond "sirius was thrown in azkaban with no trial, so the fact that maybe that wouldn't have happened if he'd gotten harry is water under the bridge - he's obviously guilty anyway so it's a good thing DD did that. Let's offer to make him MoM again." Leah: > A will is an imperfect document made in > circumstances known to the testator at the time. If I'd appointed > X guardian of my children and X then murdered me, I might have a > fleeting moment of regret for my appointment. Random832: I think that it's very likely that they would _not_ have had the secret keeper in their will at all, because if anything happens it would mean that he was most likely responsible. Which means that a reasonable person would think "hey, if he's in the will, maybe that means he wasn't the secret keeper. I wonder why Pettigrew doesn't get anything? hmm..." Leah: > And in what way was DD responsible for that wrong > decision? Random832: I'm saying that _sirius_ made a wrong decision in trusting DD. Leah: > Your > words 'completely screwed him' suggest that DD reneged on some > promise or deal. Random832: No, it doesn't. It means that by DD's direct actions, Sirius ended up completely screwed. He did "give evidence" against him, after all. Leah: > Where exactly is any of this DD's fault? Random832: It's his fault that Sirius never got questioned under veritaserum. > Leah: > > As Alla has pointed out in her reply to your post, we do not know > the full meaning of the blood protection. Random832: Clearly it didn't work well enough. Since it's clearly not perfect, we have to weigh what it _does_ do with whatever defences anyone else (the weasleys, the longbottoms, sirius, DD) could have provided. Voldemort was gone (not for good, but he was gone for the next decade). By a year after the Godric's Hollow incident, there was very little threat to Harry. So why not move him? For that, we need to remember the reason we were given for his placement with the Dursleys before we'd ever heard of blood protection: to keep him ignorant of the wizarding world. I think one reason it's often overlooked is because it's a lot less noble a purpose than protecting him from harm, so it doesn't fit with the "epitome of goodness" thing. But it was something that DD was trying to do, and it might well have been a significant factor in his decision. -- Random832 From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 22:23:15 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:23:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and dementors Was Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158596 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > I'll just jump in, shall I? > > > HBP, p. 448 US Hardcover > > "...Ron was now struggling to finish a viciously difficult essay > for Snape that Harry and Hermione had already completed. Harry fully expected to receive low marks on his, because he had disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle dementors, but he did not care..." Steven1965aaa: IMO Snape would not be as effective at dealing with Dementors through the Patronus charm because his "happy memory" would not have the same power as Harry's. IMO the patronus charm is a "love" charm and that's why Harry's is so powerful. I don't mean "love" charm in the sense of love potion --- I mean that the swelling of emotion and feeling associated with a happy memory would make the spell powerful, just like Harry's swelling of feeling made Voldemort's possession of him in the ministry intolerable for Voldemort. Just a guess of course, and I don't mean to say that Snape would not be capable of generating some measure of positive emotion, but this would explain why Harry is so good at this particular charm. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 22:27:46 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:27:46 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158597 > Betsy Hp: > Actually I think the story line points more towards Dumbledore *not* > being Sirius's patron. He wouldn't have been naturally. (I don't > see the Blacks ever having someone like Dumbledore as a patron.) > And based on the lack of interest Dumbledore took in > Sirius's "case", it seems more logical to assume Dumbledore never > did take on that roll. Not until after the great escape, anyway. > (It seems likely a change occured after that. Especially as > Dumbledore takes charge of Sirius's will at that point.) > a_svirn: Um, no. While I agree that Sirius's family couldn't have possibly been Dumbledore's clients (more likely they were patrons themselves), Sirius himself is another matter altogether. As soon as he joined the Order (and, by the way, those private armies do make it look more like bastard feudalism, than like Ancient Rom, despite what the essayist says), anyway, from the time Sirius switched his allegiance to Dumbledore he had claim on his patronage as well. That's how the system works ? allegiance in exchange for patronage. So the lack of interest on Dumbledore's part suggests just that ? lack of interest. > > >>a_svirn: > > And while we on the subject, there is a salient point in the essay > > you seem to overlook. Unlike the situation in Ancient Rom, in the > > WW patron-client relationships ARE NOT LEGAL. Which casts an > > entirely different light on the whole situation, I'd say. After > > all, Mafia also functions as a patron-client network. > > Betsy Hp: > The essayist, Pharnabazus starts off by saying that the WW is "an > extremely lawless place". So things are done more on tradition and > power (pretty much like the Mob, yeah). In which case *within* the > WW, what Dumbledore does is not only allowable, it's expected. > Which was my point. I'm not trying to say he followed Muggle laws. > And honestly, I doubt there's really any WW law that covers this > sort of thing. (Why would there be?) a_svirn: Who says anything about muggle laws? We were discussing different social models, making parallels with the real world. The essayist says the WW looks like Ancient Rom because of the client-patron networks. I am saying that the fact that these networks are illicit in the WW makes it look more like Mafia. And I have trouble looking at the good guys from this angle. Kind of different to distinguish them from the bad ones. Especially is the best of the good guys is a local Don Corleone. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 22:36:48 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:36:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and dementors Was Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158598 > Steven1965aaa: > > IMO Snape would not be as effective at dealing with Dementors > through the Patronus charm because his "happy memory" would not have > the same power as Harry's. IMO the patronus charm is a "love" charm > and that's why Harry's is so powerful. I don't mean "love" charm in > the sense of love potion --- I mean that the swelling of emotion and > feeling associated with a happy memory would make the spell > powerful, just like Harry's swelling of feeling made Voldemort's > possession of him in the ministry intolerable for Voldemort. Just a > guess of course, and I don't mean to say that Snape would not be > capable of generating some measure of positive emotion, but this > would explain why Harry is so good at this particular charm. zgirnius: I think Snape is definitely capable of casting the charm. There's just too much indication he's a crackerjack DADA wizard. (Not to mention, I doubt he would badmouth Tonks' Patronus as 'weak' if his own was). But I agree that you are probably right about Harry and the charm. I would not be surprised if it turned out he's better than anyone at it, as part of having 'the power the Dark Lord knows not'. Snape, however, seems to have some mysterious other way of dealing with them. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 22:46:41 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:46:41 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609211518j2bd6999dp186c6b26883def5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158599 > Leah: > > A will is an imperfect document made in > > circumstances known to the testator at the time. If I'd appointed > > X guardian of my children and X then murdered me, I might have a > > fleeting moment of regret for my appointment. a_svirn: Or you'd feel nothing at all if X did a clean job of it. But your example does not apply since Sirius was innocent. > Random832: > > For that, we need to remember the reason we were given for his > placement with the Dursleys before we'd ever heard of blood > protection: to keep him ignorant of the wizarding world. I think one > reason it's often overlooked is because it's a lot less noble a > purpose than protecting him from harm, so it doesn't fit with the > "epitome of goodness" thing. But it was something that DD was trying > to do, and it might well have been a significant factor in his > decision. a_svirn: Exactly. Especially since Dumbledore went to considerable lengths to plant that boy-who-lived image. It was thanks to his skilful PR campaign Harry became a celebrity; and he used the fact as another justification for his decision. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 23:06:25 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:06:25 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158600 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Actually I think the story line points more towards Dumbledore > > *not* being Sirius's patron. > > > >>a_svirn: > Um, no. While I agree that Sirius's family couldn't have possibly > been Dumbledore's clients (more likely they were patrons > themselves), Sirius himself is another matter altogether. As soon > as he joined the Order (and, by the way, those private armies do > make it look more like bastard feudalism, than like Ancient Rom, > despite what the essayist says), anyway, from the time Sirius > switched his allegiance to Dumbledore he had claim on his > patronage as well. That's how the system works ? allegiance in > exchange for patronage. So the lack of interest on Dumbledore's > part suggests just that ? lack of interest. Betsy Hp: I'm not sure I'd say that being in the Order makes one automatically Dumbledore's client. Are there other patrons within the Order, for example? What about some of the more undercover members? But I think we're trying to find an exactness in something that I personally see as pretty foggy. (In the end, much as I wish it were so, I do doubt JKR put enough thought into her world to set up a logical governing system.) Going with the patron-client idea, Sirius is such an independent person that I think, newly freed from his parent's influence, he'd have resisted coming under anybody else's. So I do think he was a free agent. Which is why no one spoke for him when he was arrested. Also, Dumbledore was obviously convinced of Sirius's guilt (which is interesting in and of itself). He gives evidence that helps put Sirius away, so he doesn't appear to have a reason to feel any lingering loyalty towards a man who appears to have been betraying him for some time. > >>a_svirn: > Who says anything about muggle laws? Betsy Hp: Sorry. I thought you were trying to find a legal basis for Dumbledore's taking the placement of infant Harry upon himself. Since the WW seems to have only the bare minimum of laws, most bent towards keeping their world hidden from the muggle world, I take it as a given that there isn't any actual law governing the placement of orphaned children. > >>a_svirn: > We were discussing different social models, making parallels with > the real world. The essayist says the WW looks like Ancient Rom > because of the client-patron networks. I am saying that the fact > that these networks are illicit in the WW makes it look more like > Mafia. Betsy Hp: I don't think we've got any facts to work from, though. I think there's a heavy *implication* that power and influence weigh quite heavily in the WW, which would logically give rise to a patron- client set up. And there are things that point to Dumbledore being a patron to various characters within the series. But since we've not got anything saying "yes, this is so", it's hard to decide whether or not that system is legal within the WW. I do think there is nothing pointing to it being *illegal*. > >>a_svirn: > And I have trouble looking at the good guys from this angle. Kind > of different to distinguish them from the bad ones. Especially is > the best of the good guys is a local Don Corleone. Betsy Hp: Well, I'm not sure there is all that much distinguishing the good guys from the bad guys. That's the beauty (and frustration) of the series. Other than Voldemort and some of the more over the top Death Eaters, the shading between the black hats and the white hats is a nicely complex shade of grey. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 23:07:31 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:07:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and dementors Was Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158601 Steven1965aaa wrote: > > IMO Snape would not be as effective at dealing with Dementors > through the Patronus charm because his "happy memory" would not have > the same power as Harry's. IMO the patronus charm is a "love" charm > and that's why Harry's is so powerful. I don't mean "love" charm in > the sense of love potion --- I mean that the swelling of emotion and > feeling associated with a happy memory would make the spell > powerful, just like Harry's swelling of feeling made Voldemort's > possession of him in the ministry intolerable for Voldemort. Just a > guess of course, and I don't mean to say that Snape would not be > capable of generating some measure of positive emotion, but this > would explain why Harry is so good at this particular charm. > Carol responds: Whether that's true for snape or not, the point is that he presented an alternative protection against Dementors to the students in his NEWT DADA class. Harry rejected the idea, whatever it was, because the Patronus works for him. Harry practiced on a Boggart!Dementor, failed to use the charm correctly when confronted with a large number of real Dementors, then succeeded in casting against Dementors who were attacking his PAST self because he had seen his FUTURE self doing it. After that experience, dealing with two Dementors attacking him and Dudley wasn't all that difficult. However, the other students in Snape's DADA class have learned, at most, how to cast a Patronus in the Room of Requirement faced with nothing more threatening than each other. They haven't even practiced it against a Boggart (which wouldn't conveniently turn into a Dementor for them, anyway). It's one thing to think of a happy memory in the RoR and quite another to think of one when you're facing a Dementor intent of sucking out your happiness and your soul. And the students who weren't in the DA (including Draco Malfoy and the other Slytherins) don't have even that much experience with casting a Patronus. If, as Snape's assignment suggests, there's more than one way to deal with a Boggart, then it was quite reasonable and sensible of him to teach that method. And Harry is only assuming that he'll get a low mark on the essay for disagreeing with Snape. We have no indication that that really happened. At any rate, if you're right that Snape would have trouble conjuring up a happy memory, then he'd be likely to know--or discover--an alternate method. (I imagine that Occlumency would protect him personally from Dementors, but I doubt that it's his alternate method or the narrator would have mentioned it.) IMO, HBP shows that Snape really is a DADA expert. Too bad Harry doesn't realize that and cooperate in learning nonverbal defensive spells. Carol, hoping that Hermione, who fainted when she faced multiple Dementors in PoA, will demonstrate Snape's alternative method for dealing with them in Book 7 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 21 23:40:14 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:40:14 -0000 Subject: Disappearances and Nagini In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158602 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > ... > > Carol again: > The partially snipped sentence, which you've left > incomplete, should read: > > "Since Voldemort planned to feed first Wormtail ... and > then Harry ... to Nagini after killing them, it seems > likely to me that Voldemort fed both Bertha Jorkins and > Frank Bryce to Nagini after killing them, partly to > reward or appease Nagini and partly to dispose of the > evidence." > > I've restored the sentence since it states the point I'm > making, or rather the speculation I'm presenting for > consideration. > > Steve (bboyminn) responded: > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but Dumbledore says he found > > out about Frank Bryces death by reading it in the > > muggle newspaper, and when he speaks of Nagini killing, > > he says 'muggle' but he doesn't specifically mention > > Frank. > > > > > > If it was in the news, then there must have been a > > body .... > > Carol again: > Actually, you *are* wrong, ... > > Here's the canon paragraph that alerted me to the > *possibility* that Frank Bryce and Bertha *may* have > been fed to Nagini: > > "'The years of Voldemort's ascent to power,' he > [Dumbledore] said, 'were marked with disappearances. ... > And there was a third disappearance, one which the > Ministry, I regret to say, do not consider of any > importance, for it concerns a Muggle. His name was > Frank Bryce, ..." (GoF Am. ed. 601). > > So, Steve, there wasn't a body--just a "disappearance" > --and Dumbledore does specifically mention Frank Bryce, > ... bboyminn: I stand corrected, one of the hazards of working from memory, especially when it is a memory like mine. As to my version of your quote, I assume people are following along and only need a reminder of the salient points being made by the pervious poster, and to keep my quotes as lean as possible. > Carol: > > ... > > What better way to "dispose" of her than to feed her to > the same twelve-foot snake that circles the graveyard > waiting to be fed Harry's body, the same snake that has > been promised, and then denied, thetreat of eating > Wormtail? "'Nagini,' said the cold voice, 'you are out > of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you, after > all... but never mind... there is still Harry Potter...' > (GoF 576, ellipses in original). > bboyminn: What better way to get rid of a body? Oh... I don't know, perhaps a simple vanishing spell? Transfigure the body into say a bone or a rock or a twig? Magically transferring it six feet underground? Disintigrate it with several well placed Reductor spells, and leave the /dust/ to the creatures of the forest to clear up. I don't take Voldemort literally when he says he is feeding people to his snake, not in the sense that most snakes feed anyway. Which, for the record, usually involves swollowing it's prey whole. However, we don't really have a /normal/ snake. I don't think Nagini parallels any known snake in the muggle world; not a King Cobra, not a Black Adder, not a Black Mamba. To eat a person, in the normal snake sense, she would have to have the body of a giant python or anaconda. But those snakes aren't poison, and Nagini clearly is. So, I think JKR has created a fictional magical world snake in Nagini with unique properties that can't be derived from normal muggle snakes. Note Nagini's attack on Arthur Weasley, she has powerful jaws capable of snapping bones; probably rib bones, but still that's no small feat. She has powerful poisonous fangs with a poison that is very difficult to counter. So, I think it would be possible for Nagini to feed on the body of a person, but not eat it in the normal sense of a snake. That is, she could gnaw on the (pardon me) carcass the way a dog, wolf, or lion might eat a dead animal. But even with her very large size, I don't see her eating a full human body, unless it was done over the course of several weeks. Also, note that since normal snakes are cold-blooded, after they eat, they normally lay down and go to sleep. That's pretty much a snakes life; eat, sleep, eat, sleep. Nagini seems far to active to be eating huge heavy meals of dead bodies. So, in the context I have layed out, I can see an unique snake like Nagini snacking on the flesh of a dead body, but not eating it whole, and not eating all of it unless she had a tremendous amount of time to do so. I think when Voldemort speaks of feeding people to Nagini, it is somewhat metaphorical. He uses the image as an intimidation tactic. He tries to terrify people with the image of a snake feeding on their flesh. But I think that's all it is, intimidation. In a way, he mocks Harry and degrades his corps with the idea of a lowly snake feeding upon it; it's a mark of distain. Not to say that Nagini wouldn't enjoy the snack. Just saying that I seriously doubt that it is a practical or effective way of disposing of bodies. Of course, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn Who is off to have a nice hot bowl of homemade Chili. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 00:03:31 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:03:31 -0000 Subject: How being with Dursleys influenced Harry's character/Blood protection LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158603 > > Alla: > > > > Are you > > asking whether my parents ever behaved like Dursleys? > > > Tesha: > No insult was implied, it sounds like you had an excellent > childhood. I did too, but I remember crying on the porch once for > being scolded for something I didn't do. I probably remember it > because it was so rare. When Harry gets told off for doing something > he never did, I feel closer to him, and maybe I feel a little lucky. > Alla: Oh, none is taken; I was indeed just trying to clarify the question and as I said earlier, I don't question JKR decision to place Harry with Dursleys inside the story, I only question it if I start evaluating it "as if it is real". > Pippin: > This is a selective reading of canon, IMO. In PS/SS Harry has never > yet been starved and is not afraid to be handled by Vernon, even > roughly. Alla: Um, yes, he was starved in PS/SS, IMO. Harry sneaks for food, yes, but it does not make the Vernon's intention different IMO. "Uncle Vernon waited until Piers was safely out of the house before starting on Harry. He was so angry he could hardly speak. He managed to say, "Go?cupboard?stay?no meals," before he collapsed into a chair and Aunt Petunia had to run and get him a large brandy. Harry lay in his dark cupboard much later, wishing he had a watch. He didn't know what time it was and he couldn't be sure the Dursleys were asleep yet. Until they were, he couldn't risk sneaking to the kitchen for some food." - PS/SS, chapter Two. And as we see in CS, Vernon corrects his mistakes by putting locks and Harry cannot sneak out for food anymore. > Betsy Hp > Personally, I think Harry was more thinking about Vernon man- > handling him. Like when Vernon grabbed both Harry and Dudley and > threw them out of the kitchen in PS/SS. Since we've never seen > Vernon spank Harry, let alone punch him, it seems a bit of a leap, > IMO, to conclude that physical abuse has actually occurred. Even if > JKR wanted to down play it (as Mark Twain does with Huckleberry Finn > and his father, IIRC) she could have merely referred to bruises > appearing now and again. > Alla: As Wynnleaf pointed out Vernon chokes Harry, over nothing basically. If this is not a physical abuse, I don't know what is. I certainly don't want graphic abuse descriptions in the series, but to me JKR put enough references there to have no doubt that Harry was not just neglected but also physically abused. She shows it once or twice, Harry knows that he needs to duck from Vernon; Harry wants to stay out of Vernon's reach. To me it is very clear, it is staring in my face, but as I said I understand if it is not staring in yours, since I have same problem with blood protection, you seem to have with physical abuse. I need more **showing** of how it works, to be fully convinced that Harry's sufferings were not in vain, that blood protection where Lily's blood dwells specifically is what protects him from dying, so I guess I can understand that you want more showings of physical abuse to be convinced that Harry was indeed physically abused. I am convinced as it is. > Betsy Hp: > I'm not saying Harry wasn't abused to some extent. (He was treated > very unfairly.) I'm not saying the Dursleys were good parents to > him. I'm not saying Harry doesn't suffer under their care. What > I'm saying is that compared to other books I've read where children > suffered under bad parents, Harry doesn't have it so bad. Alla: Um, okay. As long as we agree that Harry's treatment on his own was bad, I can certainly agree that there are fictional kids that had it worse. The impression I got from your previous post, sorry if I misunderstood you that it somehow exonerates Dursleys. IMO on their own without comparing it to Dickens or anybody else characters, Harry is hurt by Dursleys plenty. Betsy Hp: > I'm saying that weighing Harry's treatment under the Dursleys > against the blood protection they offer, I think Dumbledore made as > good a call as he could under the circumstances. Alla: It is certainly a possibility, as I said before I just want to see what exactly blood protection offers (for now I have seen Lily protection working nicely **not** in the place where her blood dwells, you know) > > >>Magpie: > > > > And that's fine because in both cases the fairy godparent arrives > > and takes him/her away. Only in Harry's case the fairy godmother > > also caused everything. > > Betsy Hp: > Only, I think Hagrid fulfills the role of Cinderella's fairy > godmother (down to punishing the step-brother). Dumbledore is the > guy who hid the prince. So yes, Dumbledore caused everything. But > he never played the role of rescuer really. He's pretty much been > the protector from the beginning. (e.g. We see him place Harry at > the Dursleys. Something Cinderella's fairy godmother does not do > with her young charge.) Alla: I rearranged the bits of your post around, Betsy. Sorry. That is actually interesting. Of course any parallel can be made only to the certain extent, but just as Magpie I always saw DD as fairy godmother that caused everything, even though technically you are correct - Hagrid comes to take Harry. But the reason I could never seen him as Godmother is because I found that the agency between him and DD is so strong. He keeps saying that DD sent him, how much he respects DD, etc, etc, so even though technically Hagrid comes to me it is the same as if DD himself would have come. wynnleaf: > In the real world, abuse is not defined as "what kills the kid." Just > because Harry wasn't in immediate danger of dying at the Dursley's > hands doesn't mean he wasn't being abused. Alla: Precisely, since my post is soo long, just wanted to stuck the agreement with yours :) Great post. > > Random832: > > > > For that, we need to remember the reason we were given for his > > placement with the Dursleys before we'd ever heard of blood > > protection: to keep him ignorant of the wizarding world. I think > one > > reason it's often overlooked is because it's a lot less noble a > > purpose than protecting him from harm, so it doesn't fit with the > > "epitome of goodness" thing. But it was something that DD was > trying > > to do, and it might well have been a significant factor in his > > decision. Alla: Well, yeah, but I get the sense that JKR had been backtracking from this reason for placing Harry with Dursleys as much as possible in the later books. Because you are absolutely correct, I agree with you - this reason does **not** fit with epitome of goodness nickname (oh boy, sometimes even me who loves JKR interviews and considers them to be very much canonical most of the time wishes that she would never called DD that, it would have been much easier for me to swallow his actions), because any reason to put Harry with Dursleys except survival, well is not what **epitome of goodness** does in my book. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 22 00:04:59 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:04:59 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158604 > a_svirn: > Where did this "only" come from? He wasn't trying to save Harry > from living in the world dominated by Voldemort period. And since > this world wasn't dominated by some magical equivalent of Hitler, > why should Harry have sought a political asylum in the muggle world? Pippin: Er, the Order exists to keep Voldemort from taking over. Dumbledore is trying to save everyone, Harry included, from that. If he had a right and a duty to interfere, it was for that. What's analogous is that Sirius agreed to send Harry away from a loving home in what was not yet obviously mortal danger to a future where he might face cruelty and neglect but at least would be protected from the danger Dumbledore foresaw. I was pointing out that far from being a fairytale contrived dilemma that no one would face in real life, there were and are many parents who have had to make such choices. > a_svirn: > Well, I am not quite sure where in canon all those suicidal death > eaters are mentioned, Pippin: In GoF, where we learn that Rosier, for one, forced Moody to kill him. There were two other empty places in the circle where DE's had died in the Dark Lord's service. a_svirn > that requires different kind of solution. Take your own simile ? in > the real world refugees fleeing from genocide and some VIPs targeted > by criminals usually take different routs. For the former ? > emigration and political asylum on the lousiest possible terms, for > the latter bodyguards, high-tech security, witness protection > programs and such. Dumbledore could have taken this route too. Pippin: There's canon that these methods did not work for those victims whom Voldemort had decided to kill personally. Otherwise the Potters would still be alive. The means of protection you suggest work because they make the target too expensive and dangerous, but they would not work against Voldemort, whose power is free and who no longer needs to fear that he will lose his life. Fake death would not work. Voldemort *knew* Harry had survived, as did whoever took his wand away. Voldemort would suspect a trick. > > Pippin: > > Dumbledore could also reasonably expect that > > Voldemort himself was still capable of > > finding ways to kill Harry and still motivated to do so. > > a_svirn: > The only thing Voldemort was capable at the time is sustaining his > vapoury essence. Pippin: He was capable of seducing Quirrell. As Dumbledore was not looking over JKR's shoulder as she wrote, he had no way of knowing that a Quirrell would not show up for ten years. He knew that Voldemort's memory and will would survive within the maimed soul fragment that was his spectral self. He knew that Voldemort would seek to return to power and would never give up his obsession with destroying Harry. As you say, there was no timetable. > > Pippin: > > But Dumbledore couldn't have explained that without explaining > > about horcruxes or Voldemort's interpretation of the prophecy. > > He did not want Voldemort to realize how much he knew, so he > > couldn't alert anyone to the real extent of the danger. > > > > Certainly Dumbledore was in no position to explain all this to > > anyone in the Order when Dumbledore did not yet know which > > Order member was the spy. Yet they could hardly have been > > expected to defend Harry adequately without knowing it. > > Only Petunia could do that. > > a_svirn: > I got the impression that no one in the Order ever demanded > explanations from Dumbledore. He gave orders, others obeyed. Pippin: How are they supposed to guard Harry if they don't know what they're guarding against? It didn't work very well in OOP, did it. It's not merely a question of demanding explanations. If Harry is kept under heavy guard while everyone else in the WW relaxes and goes about their business, that alone will be proof of what Dumbledore knows. But the strength of the power that protects Harry at Privet Drive can be concealed until Voldemort attempts to penetrate it since he does not like thinking about love magic and what it can do. > > Pippin: > > Anyway, things wouldn't have looked very good for Sirius even > > before the attack on the Muggles. James and Lily had trusted > > him above all others, Dumbledore believed he had been their > > secret-keeper, and James and Lily were *dead*. Even if Dumbledore > > knew that Sirius had been chosen as Harry's guardian, it would've > > been reckless to hand Harry over to him under the circumstances. > > a_svirn: > Which is why he should have acquainted himself with the true > circumstances before making a decision of this magnitude. > Pippin: I'm not sure what you mean. Say Dumbledore does not immediately assume that Sirius is the spy. In that case he doesn't know who the spy is, right? He'd spent a whole year hunting for the spy in vain, so why should he suddenly think he was going to be able to solve the problem, or that Voldemort would refrain from attacking Harry until he did? Pippin From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 00:52:01 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:52:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and dementors Was Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >> Whether that's true for snape or not, the point is that he presented an alternative protection against Dementors to the students in his NEWT DADA class. Harry rejected the idea, whatever it was, because the Patronus works for him. > >[snip] > At any rate, if you're right that Snape would have trouble conjuring up a happy memory, then he'd be likely to know--or discover--an alternate method. Steven1965aaa: No no, I wasn't suggesting that Snape is incapable of conjuring a happy memory or producing a patronus. In fact, we know that Snape can produce a patronus because that's the way Order members communicate with one another. I was just saying that imo Harry can probably cast a stronger patronus than Snape. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't know that Harry necessarily rejected Snape's alternate method. The fact that he disagrees with Snape on the best way does not necessarily mean that he did not pay attention to and learn Snape's method. It just means that he thinks "Lupin's" method is superior to"Snape's". I think the whole point of that was to introduce to the reader that there is an alternative method, and we may see that alternate method being used in book 7 --- by someone who might lack the ability to produce a memory with powerful positive emotional force. Only one person comes to mind and its not Snape. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 00:59:54 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:59:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609211759n62deef81w6d590c93ef264894@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158606 > Pippin: > I'm not sure what you mean. Say Dumbledore does not immediately > assume that Sirius is the spy. In that case he doesn't know who the > spy is, right? Once he establishes (veratiserum or whatever) that Sirius is not the spy, the manner in which that _must_ be established will reveal that Peter is. -- Random832 From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Sep 22 01:52:13 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:52:13 -0000 Subject: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: <20060920144123.90114.qmail@web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158607 Cassy wrote: > > Will he? Harry doesn't like Grimmauld Place anyway, so > if Dursleys are removed there, he can reside > comfortably all alone in Privet Drive house... Abergoat responds: Possibly, but the reason the Dursleys were told the location of Grimmauld Place twice is for safety. Dumbledore made clear the protection of Privet Drive ends for everyone when Harry turns 17, Petunia included. So I suspect that Hermione will suggest they do their horcrux investigating from a safe location, and my guess is only two places qualify: Hogwarts and Grimmauld Place. The goat moving to Grimmauld Place is a fun idea though... Abergoat From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Sep 22 01:59:14 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:59:14 -0000 Subject: Scrimgeour a DE (was More thoughts on the Cloak) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158608 Tonks wrote: > This plays into my theory that Scrimgeour is a DE. I have suggested > that he was the 4th DE on the tower. But even if it was not him on > the tower, I do think that he is in league with the DE and in the > best place to help with the plot to take over the WW. Abergoat writes: Tonks, I think that is a fun idea. I wouldn't be surprised if Scrimgeour is closely connected to DEs whether he is marked or not. HBP Ch 1 makes it very clear that Voldemort was killing muggles because Fudge refused to step aside. That stopped when Rufus moved into his place. That if nothing else, is very suggestive that Voldemort is quite satisfied with Rufus. But I am curious about Rufus's interest in the prophecy. Was he gathering information for himself or does he see Harry as a potential exit ramp for Voldemort? I think a number of DEs liked life better when Voldemort was gone. Abergoat From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 02:08:10 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 02:08:10 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158609 > >>Alla: > Um, yes, he was starved in PS/SS, IMO. Harry sneaks for food, yes, > but it does not make the Vernon's intention different IMO. > Betsy Hp: It does mean though, that Harry was't starved. To be starved, one can not have access to food. Harry gets food. He eats. Ergo, he is not starving. Plus, I think this was more a case of Harry being sent to bed without dinner. Not the best way to discipline a child, I grant you. But hardly monsterous. Or abusive. > >>Alla: > And as we see in CS, Vernon corrects his mistakes by putting locks > and Harry cannot sneak out for food anymore. Betsy Hp: Right. And Aunt Petunia brings him food. So again, Harry isn't starving. > >>Alla: > As Wynnleaf pointed out Vernon chokes Harry, over nothing > basically. If this is not a physical abuse, I don't know what is. > I certainly don't want graphic abuse descriptions in the series, > but to me JKR put enough references there to have no doubt that > Harry was not just neglected but also physically abused. > Betsy Hp: You really think JKR is being that subtle? She has Harry carving words into his own hand, and you think she'd shy away from showing Vernon land a blow? Harry mentioning a beating? Bruises? Why? Basing an entire history of abuse on one instance of a panicked man grabbing Harry briefly by the neck (which, yes, isn't good behavior) seems quite a stretch, IMO. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm not saying Harry wasn't abused to some extent. (He was > > treated very unfairly.) I'm not saying the Dursleys were good > > parents to him. I'm not saying Harry doesn't suffer under their > > care. What I'm saying is that compared to other books I've read > > where children suffered under bad parents, Harry doesn't have it > > so bad. > >>Alla: > Um, okay. As long as we agree that Harry's treatment on his own > was bad, I can certainly agree that there are fictional kids that > had it worse. The impression I got from your previous post, sorry > if I misunderstood you that it somehow exonerates Dursleys. IMO on > their own without comparing it to Dickens or anybody else > characters, Harry is hurt by Dursleys plenty. Betsy Hp: Hmm, no I really don't think Harry has it so bad. I mean, he doesn't have it *great* by any stretch, but he's not got it that bad. I think he's more bored than anything else. Now, I don't know if it's a current trend in children's books to suggest that boring a child or refusing them an icecream treat is abuse. But from my reading experience, I wouldn't label Harry an abused child. He's... put upon, I guess. (As per real life, I wouldn't call Harry abused either, really. The only hinky thing is the closet bedroom.) > >>Alla: > I rearranged the bits of your post around, Betsy. Sorry. Betsy Hp: No worries, I do it all the time. > >>Alla: > That is actually interesting. Of course any parallel can be made > only to the certain extent, but just as Magpie I always saw DD as > fairy godmother that caused everything... Betsy Hp: But in the Cinderella story the fairy godmother doesn't *cause* anything. As soon as she shows up she starts Cinderella on the road to escape. That's not Dumbledore's role at all. And we see that straight off when we see him actually place Harry at the Dursleys. So I don't think you can parallel Dumbledore to the fairy godmother. > >>Alla: > ...even though technically you are correct - Hagrid comes to take > Harry. > But the reason I could never seen him as Godmother is because I > found that the agency between him and DD is so strong. > He keeps saying that DD sent him, how much he respects DD, etc, > etc, so even though technically Hagrid comes to me it is the same > as if DD himself would have come. Betsy Hp: Well frankly, I think this points to how weak or faint the Cinderella parallel actually is. There isn't a real fairy godmother parallel, because that's not Harry's story. The Cinderella angle is a spice, but it ain't the meat and potatoes. > >>Random832: > > For that, we need to remember the reason we were given for his > > placement with the Dursleys before we'd ever heard of blood > > protection: to keep him ignorant of the wizarding world. > > > >>Alla: > Well, yeah, but I get the sense that JKR had been backtracking > from this reason for placing Harry with Dursleys as much as > possible in the later books. Betsy Hp: But, if JKR were honestly trying to play a backtracking game, why wouldn't she *improve* Harry's treatment at the Dursleys? Instead, all the evidence given for abused!Harry comes from later books. I also think it's odd that we're supposed to think Dumbledore gave a straight forward answer to McGonagall. She wasn't even supposed to be there. And when does Dumbledore *ever* give a straight answer? I'm more inclined to think that Dumbledore did like the idea of Harry not being raised as the hero of the WW, but that's not why he chose the Dursleys. Sirius or Mrs. Figg could have easily raised Harry away from the WW. Only they'd have been killed fairly early on. That was the Dursley advantage, and that's why Dumbledore put Harry with them. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 02:38:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 02:38:50 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158610 > > >>Alla: > > Um, yes, he was starved in PS/SS, IMO. Harry sneaks for food, yes, > > but it does not make the Vernon's intention different IMO. > > > > Betsy Hp: > It does mean though, that Harry was't starved. To be starved, one > can not have access to food. Harry gets food. He eats. Ergo, he > is not starving. > > Plus, I think this was more a case of Harry being sent to bed > without dinner. Not the best way to discipline a child, I grant > you. But hardly monsterous. Or abusive. Alla: Erm, I was talking about Vernon's intention to starve him whether it was succesful or not IMO does not matter to evaluate his intention. And sending to bed without dinner and breakfast and lunch is starving IMO. > > >>Alla: > > And as we see in CS, Vernon corrects his mistakes by putting locks > > and Harry cannot sneak out for food anymore. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. And Aunt Petunia brings him food. So again, Harry isn't > starving. Alla: One cane of soup a day is starving in my book. I am wondering what condition Harry would be in if Twins would not have saved him. > > >>Alla: > > As Wynnleaf pointed out Vernon chokes Harry, over nothing > > basically. If this is not a physical abuse, I don't know what is. > > I certainly don't want graphic abuse descriptions in the series, > > but to me JKR put enough references there to have no doubt that > > Harry was not just neglected but also physically abused. > > > > Betsy Hp: > You really think JKR is being that subtle? She has Harry carving > words into his own hand, and you think she'd shy away from showing > Vernon land a blow? Harry mentioning a beating? Bruises? Why? > > Basing an entire history of abuse on one instance of a panicked man > grabbing Harry briefly by the neck (which, yes, isn't good behavior) > seems quite a stretch, IMO. Alla: Well, yeah. She shows Harry's wanting to stay of his reach and she shows that Vernon was not panicking there, he just choked Harry out of the blue. People who do that are abusers in my book, sorry. And about being subtle - I meant that to me it is clear enough what she shows without showing it many times. I was trying to say that maybe it is subtle if you don't see it as clear case, if it makes sense. > Betsy Hp: > Hmm, no I really don't think Harry has it so bad. I mean, he > doesn't have it *great* by any stretch, but he's not got it that > bad. I think he's more bored than anything else. > > Now, I don't know if it's a current trend in children's books to > suggest that boring a child or refusing them an icecream treat is > abuse. But from my reading experience, I wouldn't label Harry an > abused child. He's... put upon, I guess. > > (As per real life, I wouldn't call Harry abused either, really. The > only hinky thing is the closet bedroom.) Alla: They refuse him enough food, not just refuse him desserts. And you compare it to refusing icecream? "He has known nothing than neglect and often cruelty at your hands" What can I say? Sounds to me that JKR disagrees and thinks that Harry was not just **bored** child. Moreover in the interview JKR called Harry **damaged** and **abused**. JMO, Alla. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 02:49:50 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 02:49:50 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > I think it is unreasonable to think that Dumbledore > didn't weigh all the possibilities when determining > Harry's fate. He could have been left with a loving > wizarding family, but there are problems, as Dumbledore > points out, with Harry continued existance in the British > Wizarding World. If nothing else, his exposure and the > mass awareness of his location compounded by his fame. > He could have been placed with a wizard family in say > Austrailia, but that places him very far away from the > protection of Dumbledore and those who care about his > fate, and doesn't really guarantee his anonymity and > therefore doesn't guarantee his safety. He could have > been place in some muggle institution; orphanage, foster > care, adoptive parents. But those too have their > drawbacks. Yes, they do have some advantages, but they > also have drawbacks. > And therein is exactly the problem, isn't it? JKR wants us to believe that Dumbledore is the "epitome of goodness." Frankly, given his decision to place Harry with the Dursleys and his failure to intervene firmly to stop their abuse of him (and other things not pertinent to this thread) a lot of us just don't buy it. Indeed, I think if DD did consider all the options and the Dursleys was the best he could come up with *for Harry*, then he is the very definition of an incompetent old fool. And if finding the best *for Harry* was not his primary goal, if he in any way allowed Harry to be abused for the "sake of the wizarding world" or any other such utilitarian nonsense, then I think he is the very definition of an ignoble old moron, not to mention an abusive monster. Lupinlore, who really is mystified how JKR thinks she can sell that epitome of goodness line in the face of DD's repeated failure to protect Harry from abuse From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 04:30:47 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:30:47 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158612 > > Because two-handed choking is an extreme method of physical > aggression, I find it highly unlikely that someone would do that over a triviality without having first progressed through things like > hitting -- enough to be likely to hit someone with little provocation. > > I am rather appalled that anyone would consider Harry's situation > within the bounds of normal. I don't know a single family that would keep a child in a cupboard, nor especially confine them for days or weeks on end. I don't know any family that would put bars on the window of a child in order to keep them *in* during any sort of normal circumstances. I currently have a 13 year old son and 13 year old boys need *far* more than a can of soup to be healthy. > > In the real world, abuse is not defined as "what kills the kid." Just because Harry wasn't in immediate danger of dying at the Dursley's hands doesn't mean he wasn't being abused. > Tonks: The *only* thing that I was responding to was you assertion that one act of physical aggression (in this case choking) is a *definite* indication that the person has a history of physical aggression. I am saying that you can not assume that. You can not assume someone's past history by one observation of one act. You said that if you "ever heard of an adult choking a child with two hands, would immediately assume that the adult had a history of physically abusing the child". In fact, you have said that you did not even need to see it yourself, you only needed to hear about it and that person is branded in your mind as someone who has been abusing that child. All I am saying is that is it not fair to assume something about someone that, 1. You did not witness yourself and, 2. When you do not know the past history. Things are not always what they appear to be. I am not arguing for or against the Dursleys. I am arguing against the *idea* that you can know for certain about someone's, anyone's, prior history by one act. And I do not agree that choking someone is a higher form of abuse that hitting someone. One is as bad as the other in my book. So it does not follow that there can have been prior abuse by just looking at one act. Again, I am not talking about just Vernon here, I am talking about anyone. Tonks_op From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 04:30:59 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:30:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] looong - musings on Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40609210714s616e7c7ay3969c5ee5e07da8e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ee758b40609210714s616e7c7ay3969c5ee5e07da8e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0609212130i429b7aaepd979bc51d046166b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158613 Montims: Where his grand plan went wrong, I think, was that he grew fond of Harry, which he had never expected to, and that totally changed things - he could no longer expose Harry and stake him out as bait to bring LV into the open to be despatched by DD, for example. (As maybe he did with others in the past - James and Lily, for example... Maybe he had believed secretly that Neville was the chosen one, being from a solid wizarding family, and although he suggested the fidelius charm, was not scrupulous to ensure it was performed correctly, or that the Potters' safety was assured). And maybe, seeing the good qualities of Harry, he looked back and realised he should not have dismissed James, Sirius, etc, in the way that he did. Nothing that hasn't been said before, but just trying to pull it together... montims Lynda: In reply to you lengthy but well put together post, firstly, I am not nearly as certain as some want to be that DD was quite as arrogant as some have concluded, simply because I haven't read the whole story yet. None of us have...at least I don't think anyone on this list has snuck into JKR's house, grabbed the manuscript of the final book, read and replaced it...and since I am not positive that DD has made mistakes due to his arrogance, etc. I cannot assume that his plan went wrong. Neither am I sure that he dismissed the Marauders or that he has always remained aloof from students since becoming headmaster. We are, after all, as readers of this story, see only a very tiny part of DD or of the Wizarding World for that matter. And certainly DD seemed to be on good terms with people of every variety. Also, I would think that in his position as headmaster of a school, DD's daily interaction with students would be limited--that this would indeed be normal for the headmaster of a school. I don't remember that as a child, any of my classmates were chummy with the school principal. In fact, as an educator, I'm not chummy with the principal of the school I work at. We converse in the break room, are pleasant to each other, he sometimes asks my perceptions on particular students. (As a substitute I can see changes in students throughout the school year that regular staff might miss), but I would not say we are chummy. So I don't have a problem with DD's behavior toward others. I'm willing to let the story play out and not judge ahead. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Fri Sep 22 05:03:08 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:03:08 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158614 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > I think it is unreasonable to think that Dumbledore > > didn't weigh all the possibilities when determining > > Harry's fate. He could have been left with a loving > > wizarding family, but there are problems, as Dumbledore > > points out, with Harry continued existance in the British > > Wizarding World. If nothing else, his exposure and the > > mass awareness of his location compounded by his fame. > > He could have been placed with a wizard family in say > > Austrailia, but that places him very far away from the > > protection of Dumbledore and those who care about his > > fate, and doesn't really guarantee his anonymity and > > therefore doesn't guarantee his safety. He could have > > been place in some muggle institution; orphanage, foster > > care, adoptive parents. But those too have their > > drawbacks. Yes, they do have some advantages, but they > > also have drawbacks. > > Lupinlore: > And therein is exactly the problem, isn't it? JKR wants us to > believe that Dumbledore is the "epitome of goodness." Frankly, given > his decision to place Harry with the Dursleys and his failure to > intervene firmly to stop their abuse of him (and other things not > pertinent to this thread) a lot of us just don't buy it. Indeed, I > think if DD did consider all the options and the Dursleys was the > best he could come up with *for Harry*, then he is the very > definition of an incompetent old fool. And if finding the best *for > Harry* was not his primary goal, if he in any way allowed Harry to be > abused for the "sake of the wizarding world" or any other such > utilitarian nonsense, then I think he is the very definition of an > ignoble old moron, not to mention an abusive monster. Julie: Dumbledore allowed Harry to be abused to a *degree*--and yes, it is about degrees of abuse, not just a matter of "abused" as a catchall for everything from sleeping in a closet to cigarette burns and sodomy and what all else--to keep Harry ALIVE. Go figure, Dumbledore decided an alive-if-mildly-damaged Harry was better than a dead-but- had-a-great-childhood-while-it-lasted Harry. Thanks to the prophecy (or should I say, Voldemort's interpretation of the prophecy), Harry's fate *is* the Wizarding World's fate and vice-versa. As far as "all the options" go, we have no evidence that any other option would have kept Harry alive, from the angry Death Eaters to start, or from Vapormort as he eventually found ways to regain and use his power. Yes, you can say we also don't have concrete examples of how the blood protection actually works--except that we do have one. Against all odds, Harry is still alive. Like most of the debates here, we are working again with few facts and lots of assumptions. Some fans take Dumbledore and his words about blood magic as the truth, others think he is obfuscating at the very least, outright lying at the most. And I don't see many opinions changing in the near future. It's all a matter of faith, or lack thereof, I suppose ;-) > Lupinlore, who really is mystified how JKR thinks she can sell that > epitome of goodness line in the face of DD's repeated failure to > protect Harry from abuse Julie: Maybe because of DD's success in keeping Harry alive so we can all read The-Boy-Who-Lived's story? Seriously, what tips the scale for me toward a Dumbledore caught between a rock and a hard place but acting with the best intentions *is* JKR's "epitome of goodness" line. I believe this is Dumbledore as JKR sees him, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Julie From dsueiro at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 04:56:53 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:56:53 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why does Dumbledore make Snape DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8de2fdd80609212156r53d98517u2e919f14d3c7473c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158615 Cyril: > I do remember Snape setting them an essay on Dementors - but I do > not recollect him presenting any alternate ways to deal with > Dementors... > Diego: In chapter 21 of HPB (The Unknowable Room), while referring to said essay, JKR implied that their opinion (Snape's and Harry's) on the subject (of dealing with dementors) differ: "Having wasted a lot of time worrying aloud about Apparition, Ron was now struggling to finish a viciously difficult essay for Snape that Harry and Hermione had already completed. Harry fully expected to receive low marks on his, because he had disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle dementors, but he did not care: Slughorns memory was the most important thing to him now." Diego From littleleah at handbag.com Fri Sep 22 08:08:27 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:08:27 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609211518j2bd6999dp186c6b26883def5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: >> Random832: > But we have no reason to think that there was any process beyond > "sirius was thrown in azkaban with no trial, so the fact that maybe > that wouldn't have happened if he'd gotten harry is water under the > bridge - he's obviously guilty anyway so it's a good thing DD did > that. Let's offer to make him MoM again." Leah: JK Rowling's website makes it perfectly clear (see under FAQS:Books) that she views Barty Crouch Snr as the person responsible for sending Sirius to Azkaban- and that he did so with regard to the testimony of many reliable witnesses (ie not just DD). > Random832: > I think that it's very likely that they would _not_ have had the > secret keeper in their will at all, because if anything happens it > would mean that he was most likely responsible. Which means that a > reasonable person would think "hey, if he's in the will, maybe that > means he wasn't the secret keeper. I wonder why Pettigrew doesn't get > anything? hmm..." Leah: I don't think we can blame DD for not noticing something which is purely your suppostion. > Random832: > I'm saying that _sirius_ made a wrong decision in trusting DD. Leah: Had Sirius and James fully trusted DD they would have told him of the change in Secret Keeper. > > Leah: > > Where exactly is any of this DD's fault? > > Random832: > It's his fault that Sirius never got questioned under veritaserum. Leah: Again see the same section of JKR's website where she gets out of the wh not use veritaserum question, by stating that it is unreliable when used in a situation such as a trial where the 'victim' will be prepared for its use. > > Leah: > > > > As Alla has pointed out in her reply to your post, we do not know > > the full meaning of the blood protection. > > Random832: > Clearly it didn't work well enough. Since it's clearly not perfect, we > have to weigh what it _does_ do with whatever defences anyone else > (the weasleys, the longbottoms, sirius, DD) could have provided. > Voldemort was gone (not for good, but he was gone for the next > decade). > > By a year after the Godric's Hollow incident, there was very little > threat to Harry. So why not move him? Leah: To repeat: we don't know exactly what blood protection is protecting against, so we don't know that it hasn't worked. And we know that VM is VapourMort in Albania; at that point, DD didn't. > > For that, we need to remember the reason we were given for his > placement with the Dursleys before we'd ever heard of blood > protection: to keep him ignorant of the wizarding world. I think one > reason it's often overlooked is because it's a lot less noble a > purpose than protecting him from harm, so it doesn't fit with the > "epitome of goodness" thing. But it was something that DD was trying > to do, and it might well have been a significant factor in his > decision. Leah: It is certainly a perfectly sensible reason; not only does it stop Harry becoming 'a pampered little prince', but it allows him to see the WW afresh. I don't think it weighed with DD as the blood protection weighed with him, otherwise Harry could leave the Dursleys at 11. Leah From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 10:38:46 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:38:46 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time to turn back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060922103846.68879.qmail@web38307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158617 --- steven1965aaa wrote: > > >Question: when previously did Harry give them a > chance > > >to turn back? > > > > > > Sharon > > > bboyminn: > > > > I speculate this occurred during the quest for the > Stone. > > Cassy: If this was the only time they got a chance to turn back, it's quite insufficiant, IMO. After all, in their first year children had absolutely no idea what they were, and eventially would be in future, up against. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 11:06:16 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:06:16 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158618 pippin: > > Anyway, things wouldn't have looked very good for Sirius even > before the attack on the Muggles. James and Lily had trusted > him above all others, Dumbledore believed he had been their > secret-keeper, and James and Lily were *dead*. Even if Dumbledore > knew that Sirius had been chosen as Harry's guardian, it would've > been reckless to hand Harry over to him under the circumstances. Finwitch: During the time then, yes. However, after Dumbledore learned Sirius was innocent (thanks to Harry), why not? Mainly, I'm thinking about OOP. Really, if one day&night was enough to keep the protection active, why not bring Harry to the 12 Grimauld Place much sooner. Did Harry really have to face a Dementor attack first? (Granted, it was important to the story, sort of, but...) At least Dumbledore learned his lesson, Harry being removed from Dursleys early in HBP... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 12:06:35 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:06:35 -0000 Subject: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158619 > > Abergoat writes: > > Ah, may favorite topics - Aberforth and goats...although I do tend to > merge them more than most people here like, no one's going for the > 'Aberfroth is presently a goat' idea. Finwitch: Aberforth is my fav. character, too... > Your mention of Roger Bacon reminds me of someone earlier's post > suggesting that Albus's relationship with Aberforth might mirror the > Sherlock Holmes series, with Aberforth being intellectually superior > to Albus but completely lacking the interest to use it for society's > betterment. Finwitch: Interesting idea. I do think Aberforth is intellectual, if a bit anti-social. Considering that he probably IS the bartender in Hog's Head. You know how he talks. Just like Mycroft, founding member of the Ganymede club where one isn't allowed to talk except in a special room reserved for that purpose... > I thought it was a fun idea. And no matter what anyone says, Albus > Dumbledore only questions whether Aberforth can read...not whether > Aberforth learned to read. The distinction could be quite significant. Finwitch: Yes, it could. Like if something happened to Aberforth's eyesight. He might be able to read *if*, for example, he used glasses... Or maybe he just stopped reading. At any case, Aberforth doesn't read. Personally, I think he has a negative attitude towards bookish people who don't think for themselves... (look at Rita Skeeter making the vast majority of wizards think what she wants them to...) As for his goats - my fav. theory is that his inappropriate charm was to get bezoars out of their stomachs without harming the goats. It was 'inappropriate' only because the charm was experimental and not controlled by the Ministry... As for Albus holding socks... maybe Aberforth used to send him some for christmas, but hadn't done so for a while. (As to why not -- Aberforth believed Sirius' being innocent all along and was angry at Albus not doing the same -- until the end of Harry's 3rd year when Albus finally saw the truth...). Finwitch From gwc22 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 01:30:51 2006 From: gwc22 at yahoo.com (Wayne Cochran) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry Message-ID: <20060922013051.48184.qmail@web53610.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158620 Laurawkids: > Harry is not dead, yet! ; ) I think the protection simply keeps LV > from killing Harry. LV seems to think that, while he cannot kill > Harry in the MOM, DD can. I'm thinking that Privet Dr. is protected > from the DE's and LV by other methods. Fidelius, perhaps? RavenHeart (emerging from several months of lurking): Hmmmm...Fidelius...can a muggle be a secret keeper? What bigger secret would the Dursleys not want to get out than the fact they are hiding a young wizard? 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 cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 12:43:53 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:43:53 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060922124353.84165.qmail@web38304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158621 > Abergoat writes: > > Ah, may favorite topics - Aberforth and goats... Cassy: Yet another piece of off-topic from me (sorry about it), but I just remembered that in "Devil's advocate" Keanu Reaves's character's first task upon joining the devil's lawer firm was to defend a certain person who was arrested for the killing of a goat as a part of some religious/magical ritual. Not that I'm saying Aberforth did anything of the kind, of course. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From random832 at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 13:27:12 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:27:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Inappropriate charms on a goat In-Reply-To: <20060922124353.84165.qmail@web38304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060922124353.84165.qmail@web38304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609220627ge4c03eif95843d3cbc32287@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158622 On 9/22/06, Cassy Ferris wrote: > Yet another piece of off-topic from me (sorry about > it), but I just remembered that in "Devil's advocate" > Keanu Reaves's character's first task upon joining the > devil's lawer firm was to defend a certain person who > was arrested for the killing of a goat as a part of > some religious/magical ritual. Not that I'm saying > Aberforth did anything of the kind, of course. And IIRC the charge was a health code violation - doesn't it seem like a perfect example of government overreach [of the same sort the MoM routinely engages in, to keep it vaguely on-topic] to apply the health code (written for restaurants, etc) to a private residence? Would _your_ kitchen pass a health inspection? -- Random832 From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 14:45:23 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Time to turn back Message-ID: <20060922144523.96766.qmail@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158623 Cassy said: <> Yes, but Hermione's statement is mainly sentament. If Harry had said: "You had a chance to turn back but didn't. Now you have to come with me!" He would be bullying them into risking their lives for him. But JKR made sure he didn't say that. Hermione by stating that they had a chance to turn back and didn't is telling Hary that no matter what she won't leave him to his fate. She is volunteering to risk her life for Harry and Ron readily agrees; not only to protect Harry, but to protect Hermione. They may have first risked their lives whne they were 11 and didn't understand what they were doing, but now they are older enough to be certain. Ron and Hermione as portrayed by JKR are in danger anyway, even if they turned from Harry. What bothers me is that Harry seems to see the danger Ron, Hermione and Ginny are in; but why does he have such a blind spot when it comes to Neville and Luna. They were with him at the Dept of Mysteries too, but his friendship is still developng with those two. I have a feeling JKR has something big planned with Neville and Luna in book 7 and it may not be good for those char. It maybe why she keep their roles so small in book6, so she can hammer us with what she is going to do with them. Though she nade sure Neville still acted as a hero again; even if his part was small! DA Jones --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 15:15:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:15:42 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158624 Tonks wrote: > The *only* thing that I was responding to was you assertion that one > act of physical aggression (in this case choking) is a *definite* > indication that the person has a history of physical aggression. I > am saying that you can not assume that. You can not assume > someone's past history by one observation of one act. You said that > if you "ever heard of an adult choking a child with two hands, would > immediately assume that the adult had a history of > physically abusing the child". In fact, you have said that you did > not even need to see it yourself, you only needed to hear about it > and that person is branded in your mind as someone who has been > abusing that child. > > All I am saying is that is it not fair to assume something about > someone that, 1. You did not witness yourself and, 2. When you do > not know the past history. Things are not always what they appear > to be. I am not arguing for or against the Dursleys. I am arguing > against the *idea* that you can know for certain about someone's, > anyone's, prior history by one act. > > And I do not agree that choking someone is a higher form of abuse > that hitting someone. One is as bad as the other in my book. So it > does not follow that there can have been prior abuse by just looking > at one act. Again, I am not talking about just Vernon here, I am > talking about anyone. Carol responds: I agree with you. None of us knows what we're capable of doing, good or bad, under stress, until it happens. And perhaps we underestimate the degree of stress that Vernon lives under, fearing an outbreak of magic in a kid who's getting bigger every day. At any rate, we don't actually see him harming Harry, and we see the magical protection kick in when he tries to choke Harry, so it's likely that this instance is the first and last attempt to choke him. It's rather like assuming that because Snape kills Dumbledore on the tower, he must have killed before. We don't know that. All we know is that he was once a Death Eater. There's always a first time. Maybe this is that first time, in both instances. As for two-handed choking being worse than hitting, Harry has done it at least twice, admittedly under provocation--first, with the supposed betrayer of his parents, Sirius Black, in the Shrieking Shack, and again with Mundungus Fletcher, who had been stealing Sirius Black's belongings from 12 GP. The first instance is entirely understandable, if not exactly commendable. (He realizes later, on his own, that it's wrong to commit murder, whether with a wand or by choking.) The second is, IMO, highly questionable. If Mundungus hadn't been able to Disapparate, Harry could have killed him, considering that he's sixteen years old and probably as big as Mundungus. Carol, who might feel differently if the books weren't fantasy and if she didn't believe that Harry is in no real danger at 4 Privet Drive because of the blood protection From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 22 17:45:39 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:45:39 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50609211759n62deef81w6d590c93ef264894@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158625 > > Pippin: > > I'm not sure what you mean. Say Dumbledore does not immediately > > assume that Sirius is the spy. In that case he doesn't know who the > > spy is, right? Random832 > Once he establishes (veratiserum or whatever) that Sirius is not the > spy, the manner in which that _must_ be established will reveal that > Peter is. > Pippin: As Dumbledore says in PoA, it cannot be established that Sirius is not the spy without Peter. The main reason that Dumbledore believed Sirius's story anyway is that he'd seen Harry's patronus. Without that, anyone would have thought Sirius was mad. Pippin From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Sep 22 13:43:39 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:43:39 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158626 Betsy Hp: > > > So Harry is not in rags, he's not overworked. I think there are > > > *references* to Cinderella, but they're very, very mild. Magpie: > > But Cinderella wasn't beaten bloody either. She can't go to > > the ball, she has to do chores when her step sisters don't, she > > wears ugly clothes (Harry in broken glasses and Dudley's hand > > me downs are the modern equivalent). Betsy Hp: > I guess where I see the Cinderella parallel breakdown is in the > intensity. etc, etc. etc. Tesha: The Cinderella Story is the only real and true Cinderella story - If HP WAS The Cinderella Story it wouldn't be Harry Potter it would be... wait for it... The Cinderella Story. JKR used the Cinderella tool to craft Harry - had a wonderful life ahead of him, terrible things happen, suddenly life is no longer rosy, he grows up straight and tall anyway and he moves forward to meet his destiny. She makes the replacement father an ignorant bully and the mother replacement, well -- is complex a good word? We can't LIKE them, some of us can't understand them - but all of us see them for what they are, a crucible for Harry. From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 14:00:54 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:00:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50609211518j2bd6999dp186c6b26883def5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40609220700l2a6968b5y33915739b056a20a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158627 a_svirn: > Exactly. Especially since Dumbledore went to considerable lengths to > plant that boy-who-lived image. It was thanks to his skilful PR > campaign Harry became a celebrity; and he used the fact as another > justification for his decision. montims: Not doubting this, but where in canon does it say that DD did this? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 20:46:05 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:46:05 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Dursleys - To abuse or not to abuse, that is the question. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158628 Once again we are discussing the wholly unresolvable question of whether Harry was /abused/ by the Dursleys. I would go so far as to say that the nature of their treatment of Harry was 'abusive', but given the horrible nature of true abuse in the world, I stop short of assigning that label to the Dursleys. Perhaps we should ask Harry, or at least take his example from the books, if he was abused. I'm sure he would agree that the Dursleys were mean and nasty. But Harry seems quite capable of handling himself. True Dudley is physically stronger than Harry and certainly likes to push Harry and any other kid he can get his hands on around, but we also see that Harry is far superior in a match of wits. - - - Quote PS/SS - - - "They stuff people's heads down the toilet the first day at Stonewall," he told Harry. "Want to come upstairs and practice?" "No, thanks," said Harry. "The poor toilet's never had anything as horrible as your head down it -- it might be sick." Then he ran, before Dudley could work out what he'd said. - - - end quote - - - When Vernon is refusing to let Harry go to the World Cup- - - - Quote GoF - - - "How many times do I have to tell you not to mention that unnaturalness under my roof?" he hissed, his face now a rich plum color. "You stand there, in the clothes Petunia and I have put on your ungrateful back -" "Only after Dudley finished with them," said Harry coldly, and indeed, he was dressed in a sweatshirt so large for him that he had had to roll back the sleeves five times so as to be able to use his hands, and which fell past the knees of his extremely baggy jeans. "I will not be spoken to like that!" said Uncle Vernon, trembling with rage. But Harry wasn't going to stand for this. Gone were the days when he had been forced to take every single one of the Dursleys' stupid rules. He wasn't following Dudley's diet, and he wasn't going to let Uncle Vernon stop him from going to the Quidditch World Cup, not if he could help it. Harry took a deep, steadying breath and then said, "Okay, I can't see the World Cup. Can I go now, then? Only I've got a letter to Sirius I want to finish. You know - my godfather." - - - End Quote - - - He's learn to stay clear of Uncle Vernon, because he doesn't want to be man-handled, which I think is closer to what happened that out and out abuse. I'm not saying physical punishments didn't occur, but keep in mind we are talking about a society in which corporal punishment was common in schools as late as the 1980's and to some extent even carries on today. Harry has adapted mechanisms that keep him clear of Dudley's mistreatment and keeps him out of Uncle Vernon's reach in all but the most extreme cases. I think this is how Harry was able to escape from his /abusive/ situation with little or no significant damage. Because he was constantly able to us his intelligence and wits to outwit clearly inferior opponents. I think this is what sustained Harry, his own internal knowledge that he is clearly superior to these people. Harry doesn't seem to take the situation as personally or as seriously as we the readers do. I think we should wisely let Harry be our model under this circumstance. Though I admit, that in cases of real abuse, the victim doesn't always have the clearest perspective, but it seems clear to me, that Harry doesn't fall into that catagory. He can hold his own, and very much does have his situation in perspective. Just a few thought on an unresolvable subject. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 20:49:07 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:49:07 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158629 > Pippin: > Er, the Order exists to keep Voldemort from taking over. a_svirn: Very good point. And we know that the order was effectively disbanded between the wars. Remember in OOP: "Thanks to you, Dumbledore was able to recall the Order of the Phoenix about an hour after Voldemort returned,' said Sirius." That's how it works: no danger ? no order. > Pippin: > What's analogous is that Sirius agreed to send Harry > away from a loving home in what was not yet obviously > mortal danger to a future where he might face cruelty > and neglect but at least would be protected from the danger > Dumbledore foresaw. I was pointing out that far from being a > fairytale contrived dilemma that no one would face in real > life, there were and are many parents who have had to make > such choices. a_svirn: Oh, but of course it is contrived. In real life any parents with Dumbledore's kind of resources wouldn't have to make this choice. Instead of sending their children with Kindertransport they would sail together to a safer heaven on their own yacht. The privileged and powerful have more choices than the poor and desperate. And Dumbledore certainly belonged to the former. > > Pippin: > In GoF, where we learn that Rosier, for one, forced Moody > to kill him. There were two other empty places in the circle > where DE's had died in the Dark Lord's service. a_svirn: "Forced to kill him"?! I just see Moody at the debriefing session, "these crazy folks they just keep getting in my way, forcing my hand". > Pippin: > There's canon that these methods did not work for those victims > whom Voldemort had decided to kill personally. Otherwise > the Potters would still be alive. a_svirn: It's not like Dumbledore's solution was any better. If Harry is still alive it's not thanks to Dumbledore's carefully laid plans. > Pippin: > The means of protection you suggest work because they make > the target too expensive and dangerous, but they would not work > against Voldemort, whose power is free and who no longer > needs to fear that he will lose his life. > > Fake death would not work. Voldemort *knew* Harry > had survived, as did whoever took his wand away. > Voldemort would suspect a trick. a_svirn: Well it would work against death eaters of any variety ? suicidal and homicidal. And since the blood protection hasn't worked out terribly well against Voledemort I don't see how this choice is the best possible one. > Pippin: > How are they supposed to guard Harry if they don't know > what they're guarding against? It didn't work very well in OOP, > did it. a_svirn: Agreed. Another instance when Dumbledore was hoisted with his own petard. > Pippin: > It's not merely a question of demanding explanations. If Harry is > kept under heavy guard while everyone else in the WW relaxes > and goes about their business, that alone will be proof of > what Dumbledore knows. > > But the strength of the power that protects Harry at Privet Drive > can be concealed until Voldemort attempts to penetrate it since > he does not like thinking about love magic and what it can do. a_svirn: He penetrated just fine through Dumbledore's wards. In OOP he started to mess up Harry's mind while Harry was still at the Privet Drive. > Pippin: > I'm not sure what you mean. Say Dumbledore does not immediately > assume that Sirius is the spy. In that case he doesn't know who the > spy is, right? He'd spent a whole year hunting for the spy in vain, > so why should he suddenly think he was going to be able to solve > the problem, or that Voldemort would refrain from attacking Harry > until he did? a_svirn: Well he could brief Sirius and see what he had to say, couldn't he. It worked in POA, it could work then. From jnoyl at aim.com Fri Sep 22 20:33:53 2006 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:33:53 -0700 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158630 Let's start at the very beginning: Was I the only one who questioned Dumbledore's "goodness" when he placed a baby on a doorstep at night and simply turned his back and left? What did DD do to Harry that day? Some how the whole WW learned that Tom had been defeated and DD didn't drop off Harry until the night after the day of celebration. Right away, my thought was "did JKR have him left on a doorstep because that is so "fairy tale" compliant or is she telling us something about DD?" Then, we bounce to the month before Harry turns 11 and he is receiving mail addressed to "the cupboard under the stairs." Did no one notice that address? After several hundred letters had been sent out, did DD get off his bony ass and check up on Harry? No...he sends that lovable buffoon Hagrid to find him. No one bothers to introduce Harry to the WW world. No one bothers to tell him how to catch the train. Does anyone notice any thing going on here? Is this the way the Champion of the Light treats a child? Then, consider the most obvious grievance against DD--he allows a teacher to abuse and mind rape students (it seemed clear that Snape and DD feel no hesitation in casting legilimens on minors--all for the common good, of course). It is like he wants Slytherin house to be hated and at least a generation of students to be severely abused during their days of magical training. Does anyone look into what Draco does? Does anyone care? Obviously not, if you permit Snape to treat students the way he does. IMO, there is no way to read canon and not feel that DD is either a bumbling incompetent or a very "bad" person. He refuses to tell Harry anything he needs to know. He refuses to train Harry to be able to face his fate. He takes no interest in how his students are treated. He expects Harry to act like an adult, while treating him like an imbecilic child, and excuses Snape and Draco for their childishness and cruelty. He takes no interest in the quality of teaching since he permits Binns, Trewlaney, and Snape to stay on the payroll and can't be bothered to try to find a qualified DADA teacher. Most of his time seems to be spent on non-headmaster duties. He never follows up on anything: He permits Hagrid to be sent to Azkaban without trial, he does nothing to get Hagrid's record cleared and place the CoS fiasco and the death of Myrtle on Tom Riddle. He does nothing about a man being sent to Azkaban without trial, he does nothing to free said convict when he learns the man is innocent. He does nothing to be sure that the CoS has released all of its secrets, he does nothing to establish what is petrifying the students (I mean, how many things could petrify?) or taking any actions to actually protect them. He allows dementors to attack Harry several times while on Hogwart's property or very close. He takes no action to determine who cursed Harry's broom. He doesn't just destroy the philosopher's stone (but brings it into the school so all the students are placed at risk). He doesn't call for an investigation into how Ginny got the diary. He places no extra protection on Harry when he gets entered into the Triwizard Tournament and allows Harry to stumble his way through (not even considering how someone can be forced into a magical contract that they never signed on to or how a minor can be forced into a binding magical contract no matter how the minor got involved). He sends a child back to an abusive home TWICE after said child is a witness to and is involved in the death on another person without any counseling or any sort of care. He allows a student he forces to live in an abusive environment to live all on his own for two weeks without any protection or visits when everyone thinks that a psychotic killer is searching for him. Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? James Lyon From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 21:41:10 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:41:10 -0000 Subject: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158631 > Betsy Hp: > I'm not sure I'd say that being in the Order makes one automatically > Dumbledore's client. a_svirn: Call it what you want, but it's not a one-sided deal. Or shouldn't be, anyway. The relationships between members of such networks and their leaders are reciprocal. If I am giving you my loyal service you are supposed to give me your good lordship. Or your patronage, if you like this term better. Otherwise, why bother? > Betsy Hp: Are there other patrons within the Order, for > example? What about some of the more undercover members? a_svirn: What about them? All members of the Order are undercover, if it comes to that. It's a secret organisation. > Betsy Hp: But I think > we're trying to find an exactness in something that I personally see > as pretty foggy. a_svirn: I know the feeling. > Betsy Hp: > Going with the patron-client idea, Sirius is such an independent > person that I think, newly freed from his parent's influence, he'd > have resisted coming under anybody else's. So I do think he was a > free agent. a_svirn: You can't be a free agent if you are a member of an order. That's a contradiction of terms. Order suggests regulation and discipline. > Betsy Hp: Which is why no one spoke for him when he was arrested. a_svirn: As Crouch Jr. put it "Convenient, eh?" > Betsy Hp: > Also, Dumbledore was obviously convinced of Sirius's guilt (which is > interesting in and of itself). He gives evidence that helps put > Sirius away, so he doesn't appear to have a reason to feel any > lingering loyalty towards a man who appears to have been betraying > him for some time. a_svirn: Well, sure, that much is obvious. We need no elaborate comparisons with Ancient Rom to state that Dumbledore in Random's words "screwed Sirius up". Which he did, patron or no patron. > Betsy Hp: > Since the WW seems to have only the bare minimum of laws, most bent > towards keeping their world hidden from the muggle world, I take it > as a given that there isn't any actual law governing the placement > of orphaned children. a_svirn: I don't see why you take it as a given. I've yet to know about any society where family and property rights weren't protected by a certain body of rules, more or less formalised. Especially, where elite is concerned. (And the Potters definitely belonged to elite. As did Sirius). Wizards are different from muggles, naturally, but not that different. We know that they have the laws regarding inheritance, so I think it logical to assume that they have also the laws regarding family and orphans. I imagine there have been quite a few wizrding orphans, what with all those wars, rebellions, witch hunts etc. Besides, *appointed guardian* is a legal term. > Betsy Hp: I think > there's a heavy *implication* that power and influence weigh quite > heavily in the WW, which would logically give rise to a patron- > client set up. And there are things that point to Dumbledore being > a patron to various characters within the series. But since we've > not got anything saying "yes, this is so", it's hard to decide > whether or not that system is legal within the WW. I do think there > is nothing pointing to it being *illegal*. a_svirn: Pharnabazus says in the essay: "Still, there is one major difference. In Ancient Rome the patron- client system was a formally recognised part of how government and social relations worked. By contrast, the wizarding version is entirely unofficial, and grew up in response to the simultaneous weakness, corruption and capricious power of the Ministry of Magic ? the inevitable consequence of that fact that Secrecy always comes before Justice." There you go. The WW has its official institutions. "Unofficial" private armies are outside the province of law and therefore illegal. > Betsy Hp: > Well, I'm not sure there is all that much distinguishing the good > guys from the bad guys. That's the beauty (and frustration) of the > series. a_svirn: These patron-client settings make the whole thing considerably less beautiful and considerably more frustrating. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 21:50:37 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:50:37 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40609220700l2a6968b5y33915739b056a20a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > a_svirn: > > Exactly. Especially since Dumbledore went to considerable lengths to > > plant that boy-who-lived image. It was thanks to his skilful PR > > campaign Harry became a celebrity; and he used the fact as another > > justification for his decision. > > montims: > Not doubting this, but where in canon does it say that DD did this? > a_svirn: Who else? If there was a spy at GH he would certainly refrain to advertise the fact. Yet the whole wizarding community knew about the rebounded AK, the scar and the boy-who-lived in a matter of hours. And did not know any other details. Dumbledore is the only one who had motive and opportunity to spread the carefully edited version of the story. We also know from canon what means he used. He knew that he could trust Hagrid with his life, but couldn't trust him to keep his mouth shut. So he banked on it. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 22:43:36 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:43:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0609221543q43976921q616f05a0f7b7f58e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158633 James Lyon: Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? James Lyon Lynda: Well, despite what you claim, somehow, Harry did get the knowledge and training he needed (strangely enough although it was indirectly from Dumbledore who allowed Harry and his friends the freedom to roam) and most significantly, Harry is still alive after-- Nearly being killed as a baby Nearly being killed throughout his days at Hogwarts, from perils that he did finally manage to escape, through a combination of training, knowledge, wits and sheer bravado, also given to him due to freedoms offered him by Dumbledore who chooses not to slam down the mallet at every infraction a student commits. And not only is Harry alive, but he is strangely well-equipped for the final task ahead of him. Sometimes its a bad thing to have everything spoon fed to a person. Much better to be able to use your brain to figure things out, given a little piece of the puzzle. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 22:29:41 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:29:41 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Lyon wrote: > > Let's start at the very beginning: Was I the only one who questioned Dumbledore's "goodness" when he placed a baby on a doorstep at night and simply turned his back and left? What did DD do to Harry that day? Some how the whole WW learned that Tom had been defeated and DD didn't drop off Harry until the night after the day of celebration. Alla: Heeee. Brilliant rant. Nope, you were not the only one, certainly not. Unfortunately to many of the charges you brought up I have only one defense - it is necessary for the sake of the story. Like the one of why he did not investigate the Chamber of Secrets, well because it was necessary for Harry to go there and do his thing IMO. I realise that it is a very weak defense, but I don't have anything stronger to offer, than in the story where kids play main role sometimes adults look like fools. :( And of course to some of your charges I have no defense at all to offer for Dumbledore. James Lyon: > Then, consider the most obvious grievance against DD--he allows a > teacher to abuse and mind rape students (it seemed clear that Snape > and DD feel no hesitation in casting legilimens on minors--all for > the common good, of course). Alla: Yep, no defence to this one, like none, but the defense that will be offered is that Snape does not abuse Harry. :) James lyon: > IMO, there is no way to read canon and not feel that DD is either a > bumbling incompetent or a very "bad" person. Alla: Agreed again, I prefer **bubbling incompetent** though, I think it looks a bit better for **epithome of goodness**. James Lyon: > Most of his time seems to be spent on non-headmaster duties. > He never follows up on anything: > > He permits Hagrid to be sent to Azkaban without trial, he does nothing to get Hagrid's record cleared and place the CoS fiasco and the death of Myrtle on Tom Riddle. > > He does nothing about a man being sent to Azkaban without trial, he does nothing to free said convict when he learns the man is innocent. > > He does nothing to be sure that the CoS has released all of its secrets, he does nothing to establish what is petrifying the students (I mean, how many things could petrify?) or taking any actions to actually protect them. Alla: Well, yes again - see above for the sake of the story and also of course that Dumbledore does not know everything :), but of course than we cannot have it both ways IMO, if he indeed does not know everything and just as human and fallible as every inhabitant of the Potterverse is, then he IMO has no special right whatsoever to play God with the fates of the potterverse people. Because if it is indeed **his** world, then he has a lot to answer for. When I read **LOTR** I never doubt that this is a Gandalf world sort of ( I know that he is just one of the divine beings, but I do not doubt his right to behave as he does for some reason, maybe because he behaves as divine being is supposed to IMO, DD on the other hand) James Lyon: > He allows dementors to attack Harry several times while on Hogwart's property or very close. He takes no action to determine who cursed Harry's broom. He doesn't just destroy the philosopher's stone (but brings it into the school so all the students are placed at risk). He doesn't call for an investigation into how Ginny got the diary. > Alla: Heeee. Yes, add to this that while being busy saving the soul of one student, he places at risk and almost let the death of two others occur ;) On the other hand, could he really do something about the Dementors, wasn't he pretty much powerless against the Ministry/ James Lyon: > He sends a child back to an abusive home TWICE after said child is a witness to and is involved in the death on another person without any counseling or any sort of care. He allows a student he forces to live in an abusive environment to live all on his own for two weeks without any protection or visits when everyone thinks that a psychotic killer is searching for him. > Alla: Don't remind me. I find this one to be quite despicable as well. I mean, Okay this is not the novel about therapy session, but to allow traumatised kid to go back **and** to forbid his friends not just visit but from writing anything of significance? James Lyon: > Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? Alla: Supposedly Harry is still alive because of Dumbledore's placing blood protection charm on him, but erm... is he? CoS - Harry's strength and Fawkes. PoA - mmmm, bad guy is really good guy, no danger. GoF - finite incantatem, Voldemort's victims held him off, Harry is able to get back. OOP - Harry's own heart saved him. So, the blood protection worked where? In PS/SS indeed it worked, only not in place where Harry's mom blood dwells, unless there is something we don't know yet. JMO, Alla/ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 22:47:48 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:47:48 -0000 Subject: Cinderella (was:Re: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158635 > >>Tesha: > The Cinderella Story is the only real and true Cinderella story - > If HP WAS The Cinderella Story it wouldn't be Harry Potter it would > be... wait for it... The Cinderella Story. Betsy Hp: Actually, I don't think there is an "only real and true Cinderella story". Since it started out as an oral folk-tale there are various versions out there of, I think, similar authenticity. (I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong about this. ) (e.g. Was there one ball Cinderella attended or three? Did the step- sisters mutilate themselves to try and fool the prince? Were their eyes pecked out by birds, were they forced into red-hot iron shoes, or did Cinderella show them mercy? etc.) Of course, what we were discussing was the Cinderella *type* of tale. Does the Harry Potter series (or more exactly, PS/SS) fall under that type? Personally, I think there are less links than more. > >>Tesha: > JKR used the Cinderella tool to craft Harry - had a wonderful life > ahead of him, terrible things happen, suddenly life is no longer > rosy, he grows up straight and tall anyway and he moves forward to > meet his destiny. She makes the replacement father an ignorant > bully and the mother replacement, well -- is complex a good word? > We can't LIKE them, some of us can't understand them - but all of > us see them for what they are, a crucible for Harry. Betsy Hp: But... that's not really the Cinderella story is it? The father should be dead. The mother and sibling should be jealous of the Cinderella figure. They should covet the life the Cinderella figure receives at the end of the tale. And the magical figure should show up only to rescue the Cinderella figure. Not stick them into the bad situation in the first place. (Plus, Cinderella never had to fight evil.) I do think there are Cinderella elements to PS/SS. Harry is the red- headed stepchild at the Dursleys. But I don't think JKR set that particular type of tale as her cornerstone. I think it was more the "hidden prince" thing. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 22 23:34:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:34:49 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158636 Alla wrote: > > Heeee. Brilliant rant. Nope, you were not the only one, certainly > not. > > Unfortunately to many of the charges you brought up I have only one > defense - it is necessary for the sake of the story. Like the one of > why he did not investigate the Chamber of Secrets, well because it > was necessary for Harry to go there and do his thing IMO. I realise > that it is a very weak defense, but I don't have anything stronger > to offer, than in the story where kids play main role sometimes > adults look like fools. :( Carol responds: I'm not going to respond to the rant, which I disagree with in every respect, but I do want to say that only a Parselmouth could find and open the Chamber of Secrets (I'm not counting a possessed eleven-year-old, who certainly didn't find it on her own). Harry has powers that no one else, not even Dumbledore has, acquired through the rebounded AK in Godric's Hollow. Carol, who doesn't see the adults as fools and finds them more interesting than the children From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 22 23:57:44 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:57:44 -0000 Subject: Leaving Harry on the Doorstep Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158637 Dumbledore mentions in HBP that it is unwise to linger on the doorstep. That being the case, I don't think he really left the area when he vanished after re-lighting the lamps in PS/SS. Canon states that with a swish of his cloak he was gone, but since he was standing at the corner, not the doorstep, he could well have apparated back to the house and remained there, invisible, until Harry was discovered. I suspect that Petunia had refused or ignored Dumbledore's owls, including perhaps the tawny one that fluttered past the window during breakfast, and leaving the baby at the door was a last ditch effort to persuade her to take him. I doubt Petunia could stand the thought of the scandal that would ensue if anyone else discovered a baby had been left in such a fashion. No one would believe it was her sister's child, particularly as she was pretending she didn't have a sister. So, for the sake of Vernon's reputation, she had to get Harry off the steps. But that sealed the charm, and from then on she was riding the tiger. Whatever happened, the people who killed her sister and had tried to kill Harry would know that she had given him protection, and they would seek revenge. As long as she was protecting Harry, the WW had a reason to defend her. But if she stopped, there would be other priorities... Pippin From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 01:19:23 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:19:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40609220700l2a6968b5y33915739b056a20a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40609221819v1457a2cew1b00396a75d3dd01@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158638 > > a_svirn: > If there was a spy at GH he would certainly refrain to > advertise the fact. Yet the whole wizarding community knew about the > rebounded AK, the scar and the boy-who-lived in a matter of hours. > And did not know any other details. Dumbledore is the only one who > had motive and opportunity to spread the carefully edited version of > the story. We also know from canon what means he used. He knew that > he could trust Hagrid with his life, but couldn't trust him to keep > his mouth shut. So he banked on it. > montims: I really hadn't thought of this, but in fact yes - the WW knew Harry Potter had lived, many hours before Hagrid actually delivered him to Privet Drive. Interesting... I had kind of thought, if I considered it at all, that Hagrid would have blabbed at the pub and to the Daily Prophet, but unless he had left Harry alone somewhere, he wouldn't have had the chance... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 01:55:23 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:55:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50609221855i5520ce8eh7c6d87989e821fda@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158639 a_svirn: > There you go. The WW has its official institutions. "Unofficial" > private armies are outside the province of law and therefore > illegal. Whoa. there is a very big middle ground between "not established/mandated by law" and "forbiden by law". I think the point was that it's informal, and really the Ministry doesn't have time to care whether they exist or not so long as they don't interfere with secrecy. -- Random832 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 23 06:29:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 06:29:56 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Lyon wrote: > Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? Geoff: In mitigation, may I offer at least one instance? When Harry came off his broom in the Gryffindor-Hufflepuff Quidditch match in POA, Dumbledore stopped him from crashing into the ground. (POA "Grim Defeat" pp.134-36 UK edition) From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Sat Sep 23 11:04:13 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:04:13 -0000 Subject: Cinderella (was:Re: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Tesha: > > The Cinderella Story is the only real and true Cinderella story - > > If HP WAS The Cinderella Story it wouldn't be Harry Potter it would > > be... wait for it... The Cinderella Story. > > Betsy Hp: > (e.g. Was there one ball Cinderella attended or three? Did the step- > sisters mutilate themselves to try and fool the prince? Were their > eyes pecked out by birds, were they forced into red-hot iron shoes, > or did Cinderella show them mercy? etc.) > > Betsy Hp: > But... that's not really the Cinderella story is it? The father > should be dead. The mother and sibling should be jealous of the > Cinderella figure. They should covet the life the Cinderella figure > receives at the end of the tale. And the magical figure should show > up only to rescue the Cinderella figure. Not stick them into the > bad situation in the first place. (Plus, Cinderella never had to > fight evil.) > Tesha: You make your point then you un-make it??? The Cinderella story is based on a very simple outline - that can be added to or embelished in many ways. Right? We've all heard father dead, father traveling, father sick, father under the thumb of the nasty step-mom... If you get into specifics you lose Harry Potter and become Cinderella, right? OK, my point is that the same basic outline is used to create the same effect in the reader - we are meant to empathize with the hero. oh, and btw - the Cinderella story I think you're recalling is the one where the hero as a woman has no power at all and has to wait for someone to save her - the fairy tale that warps women and sets up false expectations every day. Do you know any "Cinder-fella" stories? No fairy god-father comes along to make him a beautiful sequined suit for the ball..... he might slay a dragon... or become the king by pulling the sword from the stone.... hhhmmmm an idea for a book!!! From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 13:57:20 2006 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:57:20 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158642 Reading these posts I believe that Dumbledore's character and motivations have been greatly misread by some readers. Interpretation of a character is always subjective, however I think the neglectful, arrogrant DD portrayed in these rants is off the mark (though the rant was fun to read). Dumbledore may be a genius and a great wizard, but he is still just a man. And a very old man at that. I'm not arguing senility or anything like that, I'm just saying that DD's long life experience is definitely relevant to how he came up with his decisions regarding Harry and Harry's safety as well as how he ran Hogwarts. Dumbledore's greatest fault, to me, seems to be his faith in the goodness of people. As another character said in the book, DD gives second chances to people he really shouldn't have. James Lyon wrote: > Then, we bounce to the month before Harry turns 11 and he is > receiving mail addressed to "the cupboard under the stairs." Did >no one notice that address? After several hundred letters had been >sent out, did DD get off his bony ass and check up on Harry? >No...he sends that lovable buffoon Hagrid to find him. No one >bothers to introduce Harry to the WW world. No one bothers to tell >him how to catch the train. Think back to the death of James and Lily at the hands of LV. Dumbledore was left to arrange for the safety and long-term care of Harry. Wherever he placed Harry, it had be somewhere that was truly safe from LV. So, he chose Harry's only remaining relatives on his mother's side purely so that Lily's sacrifice would provide Harry with protection from LV (til he's 17 anyway). Even though LV may not have known exactly where the Dursleys and Harry lived, he knew Harry lived with them Yet LV never tried to kill him again. Why? Because after LV's own AK backfired onto to him, he knew that Harry was protected with old magic while under the care of his blood relatives. DD was very wise to use Lily's sacrifice to protect Harry so he had a chance to grow up. Remember that DD instructed the Dursleys to raise Harry as their own son, which they did not. DD knew the Dursley's might not be gushing with love and kindness for Harry, but I think he believed they would at least treat him kindly. At some point during Harry's childhood, he realized they were not kind to Harry, but DD knew to remove Harry from the protection they provided was unwise, so he left him there after seeing that Harry was alive and well, even if his circumstances at the Dursleys weren't the greatest. Harry's very life was at stake, so unloving foster parents was better than a horrible death at the hands of LV. I also believe that DD did not want Harry growing up a pampered, stuck-up snob (a la Draco Malfoy) and knew that taking him out of the WW would not only be an extra safety precaution but would allow him to grow up fairly normal. DD most likely truly believed that Dursleys would take in and grow to love Harry, but he ended up disappointed that his faith in the goodness of people had been wasted on them. As for Harry not knowing how to get on the train, well, Hagrid means well but can be rather forgetful with some details. If Harry had missed the train, DD or Hagrid would have come and got him. Like Hagrid, DD was probably under the impression that Harry knew at least a little about the WW when Hagrid went to fetch him. As for Harry knowing about the WW, it's possible DD thought the Dursleys would tell him something about the WW and his parents, or might have figured that if they didn't then he could be caught up on the details when it was time (when Harry was 11). Of course DD sent Hagrid to fetch Harry because Hagrid is impressively large and won't take no for an answer. ;) James Lyon wrote: > Then, consider the most obvious grievance against DD--he allows a > teacher to abuse and mind rape students (it seemed clear that >Snape and DD feel no hesitation in casting legilimens on minors-- >all for the common good, of course). It is like he wants Slytherin >house to be hated and at least a generation of students to be >severely abused during their days of magical training. Does anyone >look into what Draco does? Does anyone care? Obviously not, if you >permit Snape to treat students the way he does. > He takes no interest in the quality of teaching since he permits > Binns, Trewlaney, and Snape to stay on the payroll and can't be > bothered to try to find a qualified DADA teacher. I think you are wrong here. I do not believe Snape used legilimens on students (except once when Harry slashed Draco in HBP). Harry felt like Snape could read minds, but I don't think Snape was actually using it on Harry. Why? Because Snape felt superior to the students and would consider it beneath him to read the unimportant feelings of students' minds. Harry's feeling about Snape reading minds tells us a lot about Harry; that Harry has an uncanny ability to read people and situations, a gift which has helped him many times since. DD trusted Snape, perhaps in his folly, but he would not have let Snape teach if he felt Snape was 'mind raping' students. I don't recall a single instance in any of the books where DD used legilimens on any student for any reason. DD was good at intuiting what someone might be thinking, but that was his experience showing, not mind-reading. It is obvious that, unlike in our world, the WW has a tougher attitude regarding children. DD feels that the students can survive having a teacher like Snape because it prepares them for the world after school. Don't forget that past headmasters actually chained- up and tortured rule-breaking students (according to Filch), so having a mean teacher is hardly cruelty to the students. When you were in school were all your teachers highly-motivated, kind and gifted teachers? No? Mine weren't either, so that explains Binns. As for Trelawney, it is very clearly explained in OotP that Trelawney is a true seer, yet she is unaware of the two prophecies she did make; one was witnessed by DD and one was witnessed by Harry. DD did not want the seer who predicted the downfall of LV and the birth of the child who would defeat him roaming around unprotected in the WW. So, he hired her as a teacher and kept her at Hogwarts where he could watch over her, and be nearby in case she made another prophecy. DD can't find a qualified DADA teacher because the position had been cursed by Tom Riddle and no one lasts more than one year. It'd be very hard to find candidates for a post that seems to bring bad-luck upon whoever assumes it. James Lyon wrote: > He refuses to tell Harry anything he needs to know. > He refuses to train Harry to be able to face his fate. > He takes no interest in how his students are treated. > He expects Harry to act like an adult, while treating him like an > imbecilic child, and excuses Snape and Draco for their >childishness and cruelty. > Most of his time seems to be spent on non-headmaster duties. > He never follows up on anything: DD explains in OotP that he kept he limited his interaction with Harry out of fear that LV, using his mental connection with Harry, would bring out Harry's or DD's destruction. DD also admitted that he was wrong to shut Harry out in that manner, but DD explained that his incorrect decision was based upon his love for Harry. The end of OotP gave us a lot of insight into DD's actions to that point. DD was highly motivated to see Harry stay alive so that the prophecy, which was validated by LV's attack on the one-year-old Harry, could come to pass - meaning the once-and-for-all defeat of LV at Harry's hand. DD freely admits he made some wrong choices with regards to Harry, i.e. not telling him about the prophecy asap, keeping him at a distance, etc., however, he made those mistakes because he wanted to protect Harry and keep him from grief, worry and harm, much like a parent would. This is why the DD we see in HBP is so different - and why Harry's reaction to him is so different - DD has opened up and told Harry the truth about his destiny while at the same time continuing to care about him like his own grandson. DD treats Harry much like a parent teaches a child in that he has great pride in his accomplishments, yet worries for him and keeps information from him that he should know for the sake of caring too much about him. DD never treats Harry like an inbecile, he just tries to protect him from the horrible truth of the prophecy for too long. DD also tried to protect Harry from the MoM, who were gunning for him big time in OotP, by keeping him in the dark because I think DD was under the mistaken impression that Harry had read all the little snide comments about himself in the Daily Prophet and could see that the MoM were out to get him. DD lets Snape be Snape and Draco be Draco because he believes he can't force people to make the right choices. He can't force Snape to be a kind, loving teacher and he can't force Draco to be a nice, thoughtful boy, so he lets them make their own choices in the hope that the results of their choices drive them to make different, better choices when they don't turn out well for them. As for not following up on anything, I have no idea what you're referring to here. Some examples, please? James Lyon wrote: > He does nothing about a man being sent to Azkaban without trial, >he does nothing to free said convict when he learns the man is >innocent. DD is not omnipotent. He can't force the Ministry to do what he wants them to do. DD had thought Sirius was guilty as well therefore DD did not know an innocent man was being to sent to Azkaban. DD had no authority to overide Barty Crouch Sr. and the Ministry members who railroaded Sirius into prison without a trial, even if DD had known that he was innocent, which he did not. DD did not let Sirius go back to prison once he discovered that he was innocent. If you recall, DD instructed Harry and Hermione to free Sirius in PoA using Buckbeak and the Time Turner. >He does nothing to be sure that the CoS has released all of its >secrets, he does nothing to establish what is petrifying the >students (I mean, how many things could petrify?) or taking any >actions to actually protect them. DD did try to protect the students during CoS by having the teachers walk them to their classes and canceling after class activities. Your fault with DD assumes he knew what was attacking the students, where it lived, how it was being called forth and who was calling it. Look at it from DD's perspective. Fifty years earlier several students are attacked and Myrtle is killed. DD somehow knew it was Tom Riddle doing the attacking, but not being able to speak parseltongue or locate the CoS, he couldn't prove it was him. Fifty years later, students are being attacked again, but DD knows LV, Slytherin's only heir, is a vapor drifting around the Black Forest and isn't at school, so how could he be attacking students? DD doesn't know about the diary or that it was planted on Ginny by Malfoy until later. DD may suspect a lot of things, but he can't prove any of it, and one thing about DD, he never brings false charges against people without having the proof to back it up. Should he have known it was a basilisk? Maybe, but it's assuming an awful lot to think DD is intimately familiar with every single creature in the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them book. > He allows dementors to attack Harry several times while on >Hogwart's property or very close. He takes no action to determine >who cursed Harry's broom. He doesn't just destroy the >philosopher's stone (but brings it into the school so all the >students are placed at risk). He doesn't call for an investigation >into how Ginny got the diary. DD didn't allow the dementors to do anything. They attacked Harry on their own. DD was furious as he drove off the dementors after they attacked Harry at the Quidditch match. DD made sure the MoM removed the dementors after they attacked Harry by the lake. DD does not like dementors being anywhere near Hogwarts, but his personal desires and reasons were overridden by the MoM. We have no idea what DD did to investigate what happened to Harry's broom during PS/SS since the books are from Harry's POV. DD came to the next match, which tells us he was actively trying to prevent another attack as well as show the attacker he was on the lookout for him/her. DD felt the stone was safe at Hogwarts with all its protections in place. He did not know Quirrel was hiding LV on the back of his head. DD did not need to investigate how Ginny got the diary as he knew Lucius Malfoy slipped it to her. DD can't prove Malfoy gave it to her, which is why he doesn't press charges against Malfoy with the MoM, but DD lets Malfoy know that he knows what he did. > He places no extra protection on Harry when he gets entered into >the Triwizard Tournament and allows Harry to stumble his way >through (not even considering how someone can be forced into a >magical contract that they never signed on to or how a minor can be >forced into a binding magical contract no matter how the minor got >involved). DD did not expect Harry's name to be entered into the Goblet at all. In fact, I got the impression that DD's newly implemented age limit for contestants was specifically to prevent Harry from being entered into the contest, either by Harry himself or through another's subterfuge. How was DD to know that a thought-dead DE would take polyjuice potion to disguise himself as the new DADA teacher so as to sneak Harry's name into the Goblet? You're asking an awful lot of DD if you think he should have seen that coming. The WW does not work like our world where minors can't sign contracts. This is *magic* not the world of contract law. The Goblet does not care about age - DD's age limit had be upheld by an age line drawn around the Goblet - and will spit out the names of any person it deems worthy to the challenge. Don't forget that Barty!Moody confunded the Goblet into thinking four schools were competing for the cup and then had Harry's name be the only candidate for that forth non-existent school to make sure he was selected. Once the tournament was underway, DD most likely knew or suspected that Moody was sneakily helping Harry with the tasks, which DD would not have minded as Harry needed the help to stay safe. It was only when Moody dragged Harry away to the castle at the end of GoF when DD realized that Moody couldn't have been Moody, which tells us that the real Moody would have helped Harry in the tasks, otherwise DD would have seen Barty!Moody's help as suspicious. DD could not directly help Harry because DD was trying to forge ties with the other schools. DD helping one of the champions to win would have definitely destroyed the hand of friendship he was holding out to the other schools. James Lyon wrote: > He sends a child back to an abusive home TWICE after said child is >a witness to and is involved in the death on another person without >any counseling or any sort of care. He allows a student he forces >to live in an abusive environment to live all on his own for two >weeks without any protection or visits when everyone thinks that a >psychotic killer is searching for him. I don't remember reading anything in the books about there being wizard psychiatrists, do you? Again, you are projecting our world onto the WW. What did you expect DD to do with Harry after GoF and OotP? Send him to the psychiatric ward at St. Mungos for evaluation and counseling? DD was aware of Harry's trauma after the events of GoF, which is why he did not tell him about the prophecy then and there. DD explained a great deal to Harry at the end of OotP, all of which gave Harry a lot to mull over during the summer. While the Dursleys aren't exactly a loving family, they are Harry's protection and Harry's used to them, so he went home. Harry was hardly in danger during the two or three weeks he stayed at the Leaky Cauldron in PoA. DD knew he was there as did several other wizards who had Harry's best interests at heart. DD rightly felt that Sirius Black would hardly stride into the middle of a wizard-packed inn or street to attack Harry. James Lyon wrote: > Does anyone notice any thing going on here? Is this the way the > Champion of the Light treats a child? > Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in >Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? > IMO, there is no way to read canon and not feel that DD is either >a bumbling incompetent or a very "bad" person. DD's biggest faults have always been his willingness to forgive people and his desire to see the good in all people, regardless of their past actions. This blindness to people's dark sides has hurt DD several times, yet DD persists in giving people the benefit of the doubt. DD admitted that he'd overestimated Snape's ability to forgive James (and the Marauders) for their past encounters when he'd assigned Snape to teach Harry occlumency. DD admits that his expectations for the Dursleys to care for and love Harry were not carried out becuase he'd overestimated them. DD admitted that he had underestimated how much Harry could handle when he'd failed to tell him the truth about the prophecy much earlier, an act which might have prevented Sirius' death. DD allowed Riddle to enter Hogwarts, even though he suspected Riddle had done some terrible things to other children, because DD wanted to give Riddle a chance to change and be a better person. DD, ever the optimist, felt Riddle deserved that chance. DD doesn't get rid of Slytherin house at Hogwarts because he wants to give every student, whether picked for Slytherin house or not, a chance to make the right choices. DD is all about choices, remember, not fate, not prophecy, but individual choice. Diana L. From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 12:37:18 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:37:18 -0500 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40609230537k54199647lc16d2c26c8ee8a37@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158643 > Geoff: > In mitigation, may I offer at least one instance? > > When Harry came off his broom in the Gryffindor-Hufflepuff Quidditch match > in POA, > Dumbledore stopped him from crashing into the ground. > (POA "Grim Defeat" pp.134-36 UK edition) > montims: And how about when he suggested using the timeturner to save Sirius and Buckbeak? Sirius living was a net benefit to Harry for a brief while, although of course, it was also a benefit to the Order... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 23 12:57:43 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:57:43 -0000 Subject: The Longbottoms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158644 What did Alice and Frank Longbottom know to bring on such cruel torture? I know may of us have fantacised about them being able to impart some secret to Neville etc but has any one has any real ideas about why on Earth the DE's would think that the Longbottom's knew anything about the downfall or the whereabouts of LV? I know they were Aurors but I find it very hard to believe that Bella would clutch at straws when her success would have her masters return in the balance? If this topic had already been chewed over please can someone direct me to a theory. If not does anybody have one? Tinktonks From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 14:27:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:27:38 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana" wrote: > > Reading these posts I believe that Dumbledore's character and > motivations have been greatly misread by some readers. > Interpretation of a character is always subjective, however I think > the neglectful, arrogrant DD portrayed in these rants is off the > mark (though the rant was fun to read). Alla: Your post was fun to read, Diana. It was highly enjoyable read even if I disagree with much of what you wrote, **but** please believe me when I say it - this is the instance when I really and truly want you to be right and myself and James to be wrong. HBP seemed to push me towards your interpretation, but recently uncovered additional possibilities about DD action that night seemed to push me back in ;) Diana: > Dumbledore's greatest fault, to me, seems to be his faith in the > goodness of people. As another character said in the book, DD gives > second chances to people he really shouldn't have. Alla: Yes, this is very **attractive** falling, if that makes sense, very sympathetic one to me. The only problem to me is that on the night of Potters' murder Dumbledore seems to act a bit out of character and does not give Sirius a second chance ( by that I mean investigating himself what really happened, not relying on hearsay, etc), so I would add that DD greatest falling is to give second chances to people he should not have and sometimes to give second chances to people he really should have IMO. Diana: > I think you are wrong here. I do not believe Snape used legilimens > on students (except once when Harry slashed Draco in HBP). Harry > felt like Snape could read minds, but I don't think Snape was > actually using it on Harry. Why? Because Snape felt superior to > the students and would consider it beneath him to read the > unimportant feelings of students' minds. Harry's feeling about > Snape reading minds tells us a lot about Harry; that Harry has an > uncanny ability to read people and situations, a gift which has > helped him many times since. DD trusted Snape, perhaps in his > folly, but he would not have let Snape teach if he felt Snape > was 'mind raping' students. I don't recall a single instance in any > of the books where DD used legilimens on any student for any > reason. DD was good at intuiting what someone might be thinking, > but that was his experience showing, not mind-reading. Alla: Well, this is one of **JMO** arguments. You say all those instances when Harry feels it is mind reading was not as such, I say it was, you know? No, seriously, I don't mean to do **tennis match** type argument, it is just interpreting the same canon differently. I think in light of what we know about Legilimency, eye contact, etc, this is precisely what Snape did. Why? Because no matter how superiour Snape feels I believe that he would stop at nothing to catch Harry at wrong doing, real or imaginary, that is why I think he will stop at nothing to do so, including Legilimency. Now if you would argue that WW does not consider it to be **mind raping**, but I can call it nothing but that - reading student mind without their consent. DD I believe also read Harry's mind not once but several times, his motivation os of course different - for Harry's own good. Let me see, which ones I remember right away - in Cos, when DD asks Harry whether Harry wants to tell him something, probably in GoF too after TwT in hospital wing. It is just too early for me to search for the quotes. Diana: This is why the DD we see in > HBP is so different - and why Harry's reaction to him is so > different - DD has opened up and told Harry the truth about his > destiny while at the same time continuing to care about him like his > own grandson. DD treats Harry much like a parent teaches a child in > that he has great pride in his accomplishments, yet worries for him > and keeps information from him that he should know for the sake of > caring too much about him.? Alla: Yes, DD of HBP was the most sympathetic to me. Diana: > I don't remember reading anything in the books about there being > wizard psychiatrists, do you? Again, you are projecting our world > onto the WW. What did you expect DD to do with Harry after GoF and > OotP? Send him to the psychiatric ward at St. Mungos for evaluation > and counseling? DD was aware of Harry's trauma after the events of > GoF, which is why he did not tell him about the prophecy then and > there. DD explained a great deal to Harry at the end of OotP, all > of which gave Harry a lot to mull over during the summer. While the > Dursleys aren't exactly a loving family, they are Harry's protection > and Harry's used to them, so he went home. Alla: I can totally tell you what I expect DD to do after GoF. Absolutely, this is not a novel about psych sessions, although this is precisely what I would say Harry needed, but as a substitute applicable to the story - gee, Dumbledore, how about allowing Harry's friends to **visit** him at least few times during the summer? To make Harry talk to them, to make Remus and or Sirius stop by? I sure don't need talk with psychiatrist, but talk with Lupin and Sirius would be very good, IMO and okay substitute plot wise. This is when characters to me suffer so much because of plot requirements - Harry really, really should not have been sent to Dursleys IMO after GoF . He is **still** having nightmares at the beginning of OOP. So, if he has to for the sake of the blood protection, at least let him talk to his friends. Instead Dumbledore isolates him even more. Great move, headmaster, NOT. :) JMO, Alla, who enjoyed Diana's post very much From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 14:37:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:37:36 -0000 Subject: The Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158646 --- "spookedook" wrote: > > What did Alice and Frank Longbottom know to bring on > such crueltorture? ... I know they were Aurors but I > find it very hard to believe that Bella would clutch > at straws when her success would have her masters > return in the balance? > > If this topic had already been chewed over please can > someone direct me to a theory. If not does anybody have > one? > > Tinktonks > bboyminn: Oh!.... oh!.... ou! I've got one! This is actually a very old theory; been ages since we discussed this, so I can't really point your back to it. Also, since all the regulars have heard it several times before, it doesn't generate much discussion. But, here it goes. In the time between the Death of Harry's parents and the time when he is delivered to the Dursley's, 24 hours has past. Where was Harry during that 24 hour period? Well, of course, he was with Hagrid, but exactly where were they? I have always speculated that the second safest place for Harry was with the other 'Prophecy Boy' and his family; namely, Neville and his parents. I suspect that after Voldemort's fall word got around that Harry had stayed temporarily at Neville's. That would give the Death Eater reason to suspect the Longbottoms might know some deeper details of what happened the night Voldemort fell. It seems to me the alternative was that the DE's were attacking and torturing Aurors at random, which really doesn't make any sense at all. They had to have specific motivation for specifically attacking the Longbottoms. They must have had a reason to believe that the Longbottoms knew something that others didn't know. I conclude that belief in the Longbottoms knowledge came from their association from Harry and others immediately after Voldemort's downfall. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but none the less that is my theory. Steve/bboyminn From mros at xs4all.nl Sat Sep 23 14:47:15 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:47:15 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cinderella (was:Re: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection... References: Message-ID: <000a01c6df1f$29a817a0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 158647 Tesha: >>>oh, and btw - the Cinderella story I think you're recalling is the one where the hero as a woman has no power at all and has to wait for someone to save her - the fairy tale that warps women and sets up false expectations every day. Do you know any "Cinder-fella" stories? No fairy god-father comes along to make him a beautiful sequined suit for the ball..... he might slay a dragon... or become the king by pulling the sword from the stone.... hhhmmmm an idea for a book!!!<<< Marion: It's been done. Well, the movie. In 1960, with Jerry Lewis: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053716/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 23 15:08:55 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:08:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer References: Message-ID: <004101c6df22$309e7150$da66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158648 Diana: Harry's very > life was at stake, so unloving foster parents was better than a > horrible death at the hands of LV. I also believe that DD did not > want Harry growing up a pampered, stuck-up snob (a la Draco Malfoy) > and knew that taking him out of the WW would not only be an extra > safety precaution but would allow him to grow up fairly normal. DD > most likely truly believed that Dursleys would take in and grow to > love Harry, but he ended up disappointed that his faith in the > goodness of people had been wasted on them. Magpie: I don't really think this is explaining things to people who have misread them, but simply re-stating the same things with the pov that it's not so bad (while other people read the same thing and find it a lot worse). Whether DD thought the Dursleys would be kind to Harry or not, for instance, he put him with them and never moved to keep them from mistreating him. If you add in that Dumbledore thought it was up to him to make sure Harry didn't grow up into Draco Malfoy by putting him with the Dursleys I think it makes him look worse to people who don't like his actions, not better. After all, it's hardly his place to decide he's got to protect a kid from some nebulous concept of "being spoiled" by sticking him with people who actively hate him. The other thing that I think was mentioned earlier, particularly in Steve's post, is that Dumbledore is so isolated because he's so wise (though he makes mistakes like anyone else) so has all this responsibility, and I think that's another place where some people just do not agree. Dumbledore doesn't to me ever seem characterized as someone taking on responsibility reluctantly. On the contrary, he demands full cooperation without being open about what he's doing. He doesn't share information. So you've in the end still got everyone confused as to just what's happened and why they were trusting Snape--even somebody like Remus Lupin who seems perfectly intelligent himself. If he's human like anyone else and makes mistakes that's a good reason he shouldn't be treated like some being too wise to confide in or listen to others. The thing about DD having faults is that, imo, his having them means they can be criticized. If you say, "He makes mistakes like anyone!" but then all his mistakes can be excused with "but how was he supposed to know...?" or "He was trying to do the right thing..." it isn't really analyzing the faults but defending the character. The good thing about DD's habit of keeping all his intelligence to himself and always being in charge is that JKR allows that to actually be his flaw. He screws up precisely this way a lot of the time. It's true that he doesn't think he doesn't believe in controlling people and so lets them make their own choices even if they're wrong (letting bullies act out in his school--and Snape and Draco aren't the only people getting out of line), but the problems usually stem not from that but from the fact that DD usually seems to think he can handle all the consequences. Life is like a chess game where he seems to think he can see all his opponents moves in advance. He decides to do things but gets surprised that people don't act the way he'd allowed for. I don't think this should be chalked up to "giving people second chances when he shouldn't" because first, I really don't think he sees good in people that isn't there--that's the DE view of DD and one I think is mistaken. It's more, imo, that there's lots of things DD doesn't take into account when deciding what people will do. It doesn't always sound like that's what he does because once the person does something he's there with the analysis as if this was part of a calculated risk he took, but I don't think that's really the case. He gets blindsided by people acting on impulses he didn't forsee--and frankly, I think that's a good thing. It actually makes the world more hopeful by placing more power back into these "little people" that DD thinks he's so far beyond that he can make all the decisions, even if it has disasterous results in the short run. When people react badly to situations Dumbledore creates they're not always failing to be good, imo. They're often acting in ways that were predictable--they just weren't to Dumbledore because he, like everyone else, probably underneath imagines that everyone is more like himself than they really are. I think he also like many people sometimes sees his own motivations as more complex than those of others. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 15:08:13 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:08:13 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD (WAS musings on Dumbledore ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158649 --- "Diana" wrote: > > Reading these posts I believe that Dumbledore's > character and motivations have been greatly misread by > some readers. > ... > > Dumbledore may be a genius and a great wizard, but he > is still just a man. And a very old man at that. ... > I'm just saying that DD's long life experience is > definitely relevant to how he came up with his decisions > regarding ... Harry's safety .... Dumbledore's greatest > fault, to me, seems to be his faith in the goodness of > people. ... > > > ...edited... > > Think back to the death of James and Lily at the hands > of LV. Dumbledore was left to arrange for the safety > and long-term care of Harry. Wherever he placed Harry, > it had be somewhere that was truly safe from LV. .... > DD was very wise to use Lily's sacrifice to protect > Harry so he had a chance to grow up. > > Remember that DD instructed the Dursleys to raise Harry > as their own son, which they did not. DD knew the > Dursley's might not be gushing with love and kindness > for Harry, but I think he believed they would at least > treat him kindly. bboyminn: Excellent, a very fair and well balanced view of Dumbledore in my opinion. I think people are being way to harsh in judging Dumbledore. We as reader have the benefit of deep hindsight, and plenty of non-critical time for analysis, but Dumbledore was on the spot, he had to make a decision immediately and it was clear the potential danger to Harry was very very real. There is no way to get around that fact. As to Dumbledore's apparent lack of interest in Harry over the years, let's not forget that Harry's babysitter was a member of the Order and a friend of Dumbledore's. She saw Harry in a much clearer and at a much more intimate level than we have been allowed to see him. I'm sure she saw a boy who was somewhat put-upon but weathering it well. It is likely that Harry was not overly depressive or anti-social. He was probably a very quiet, well spoken, well mannered polite boy who did his best to stay out of trouble. Given Mrs. Figgs much more intimate knowledge of Harry, I think Dumbledore judged that miserable as it may have been at the Dursley's, Harry safety far outweighed his comfort. I suspect if he had seen Harry becoming anti- social or excessively depressed, he would have done something. But he had a plan, and that plan was to keep Harry isolated from the wizard world and to keep him safe. As long as the basic plan was working, and as long as Harry was weathering the storm effectively, he saw no need to change it. He saw no need to put Harry life at greater risk simply to make Harry's life more comfortable. I have already said, in another post that I think Harry had his coping mechanisms. I think he was clearly able to outwit both Dudley and the Dursley's. He became very good at knowing just how much he could get away with. By asserting himself, by standing his ground in his own subversive way, Harry was able to hold on to the best part of himself. Harry clearly knew that despite being put-upon, he was superior to the Dursley's in every way, and I think that gave him strength. Yes, it is sad what Harry had to endure, but as I've said several times, he seems to have found his own methods for weathering that storm. I would like to respond to the other aspects of your post, but I'm pressed for time and have to leave right now. Thanks for the thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 15:07:47 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:07:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Longbottoms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0609230807x34a89867m901c3457f8a1052c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158650 Tinktonks wrote: > > What did Alice and Frank Longbottom know to bring on such cruel > torture? I know may of us have fantacised about them being able to > impart some secret to Neville etc but has any one has any real ideas > about why on Earth the DE's would think that the Longbottom's knew > anything about the downfall or the whereabouts of LV? I know they were > Aurors but I find it very hard to believe that Bella would clutch at > straws when her success would have her masters return in the balance? > > If this topic had already been chewed over please can someone direct me > to a theory. If not does anybody have one? > Debbie: This has been hashed over many times in the history of this list. The most popular view is that the Longbottoms knew nothing and the notion that they had information was invented and planted so that Bellatrix & co. would go after them. Currently, I believe popular wisdom (supported by JKR's "sent after the Longbottoms" statement) holds that Lucius did it to get Bella and her inconvenient determination to find the Dark Lord out of the way so Lucius could pursue a comfortable life as an ambitious political advisor and philanthropist. I have long been in the minority, as I maintain that it is likely that after Voldemort's fall Frank was assigned to search for Voldemort's spiritual remains, either in his capacity as an Auror or as an Order member (or both). If Frank had disappeared for awhile there would be a basis for a popular belief that if anyone had information, it was Frank. I have always assumed Frank *did* have a good idea where Voldemort was, even if he didn't tell the Ministry; if Dumbledore knows where he is, why not an Order member who was also an Auror? This is not inconsistent with JKR's "sent after the Longbottoms" statement; in fact, if Frank had been away that fact would make it that much easier to convince Bella that Frank (and Alice) had the information she was so desperately looking for. Debbie _._,___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 15:49:39 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:49:39 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158651 First it seems to me that people blame DD for the actions of others. DD is not responsible for the choices of Vernon, for example. DD did what he needed to do to keep Harry alive. We can debate till the cows come home that he had other options. I think when JKR writes that this was the only choice for DD to make, it *was* the only choice. And as Diana says DD expects the best of people. Would you prefer him to be a judgmental, see the flaw in everyone and expect them to screw up type of person? I think not. As to the notion that Sirius would have been a good guardian, I have my doubts about that. Harry was a baby, I just don't see Sirius taking care of a baby. I suspect that Lily and James made Sirius Harry's Godfather because Sirius was James' best friend, not necessary because they thought that Sirius would one day really have to care for Harry. For all we know, Lily might actually have wanted Petunia to care for Harry. Lily like DD saw the good in everyone too, and I think that she may have expected her sister to love and care for a child in her care. The Potters may have thought that with Sirius and Petunia that they had someone in both world. A mother figure to raise Harry until he was older, and a cool Uncle type to teach him about the WW when he was old enough to understand. After all Lily was raised in the MW herself as a young child, so she would not have seen that as such a bad thing. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 16:08:53 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:08:53 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: And as Diana says DD expects the best of > people. Would you prefer him to be a judgmental, see the flaw in > everyone and expect them to screw up type of person? I think not. Alla: Let me see. Do I prefer him to double and triple check on people whom his Deputy had doubted after one day to make sure that kid he put in their care is okay? Um, **yes**, I absolutely do. Do I prefer him to investigate more than he did, before turning his back on someone who was Harry's guardian per his parents wishes? Um, **yes** again. Do I prefer him to be quiet about what happened in GH and not making Harry a celebrity if that could be helped? Um , **Yes** again ( I am not seeing much canon to support a_svirn argument that DD leaked the story to the press yet, but I think that the speculation is rather convincing as of today). That is again, putting aside **Harry had to grow up with Dursleys for the sake of the story" argument, of course. Tonks: > As to the notion that Sirius would have been a good guardian, I have > my doubts about that. Alla: Potters did not seem to have their doubts. Tonks wrote: For all we know, Lily might actually have wanted > Petunia to care for Harry. Lily like DD saw the good in everyone > too, and I think that she may have expected her sister to love and > care for a child in her care. The Potters may have thought that with > Sirius and Petunia that they had someone in both world. Alla: Do you see Lily going along with something she did not want? I frankly don't. That is why IMO Sirius is the guardian she would want for her kid, not because he was James' best friend, but because he loved Harry. If one is able of loving the child, one would learn to care for the baby, even if one never dealt with the babies before, but if there is no love, then no matter how skilled caretaker is, something very important is missing. IMO. Tonks: After > all Lily was raised in the MW herself as a young child, so she would > not have seen that as such a bad thing. Alla: If we learn that Lily indeed want that, then it would be a different story. > Magpie: > After all, it's hardly his place to decide he's got to protect a kid from > some nebulous concept of "being spoiled" by sticking him with people who > actively hate him. Alla: Yes, word to that and to your whole post, I think. JMO, Alla. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 23 16:28:31 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:28:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158654 Alla: Do I prefer him to investigate more than he did, before turning his back on someone who was Harry's guardian per his parents wishes? Um, **yes** again. Sherry now: In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if DD purposely did not try to learn more about the real truth behind the whole potter secret keeper thing, that he let himself believe Sirius was guilty, instead of doing what we have seen him do time and time again, give someone the chance to explain. It may have been easier for him to let himself believe the worst, so that he could follow through with his plans to leave Harry with his family and not have to fight with Sirius about it, or even, heaven forbid, actually have to comply with the wishes of James and Lily and let Harry be raised by Sirius. Sirius would not have made it easy, I suspect, if he'd been freed and DD still tried to say Harry should not be taken from his relatives. Not unless DD could convince him that Harry's life depended on it. and then, I can't imagine Sirius staying out of the picture, and Harry might actually have had a decent upbringing. Tonks wrote: For all we know, Lily might actually have wanted > Petunia to care for Harry. Lily like DD saw the good in everyone too, > and I think that she may have expected her sister to love and care for > a child in her care. The Potters may have thought that with > Sirius and Petunia that they had someone in both world. Alla: Do you see Lily going along with something she did not want? I frankly don't. That is why IMO Sirius is the guardian she would want for her kid, not because he was James' best friend, but because he loved Harry. snip. Sherry adds: Also, where does the idea come from that Lily saw the good in everyone? Is it in canon? I believe it was in the media that must not be mentioned, but is it ever stated in canon? She did not seem to see the good in James for quite a while. She lost her temper at Snape. I've always had the idea she was rather fiery myself. I absolutely cannot see her just going along with Sirius as guardian, to placate James. Not where her child's possible future is concerned. It was war time. She very well knew her child could end up an orphan. She would have insisted that the best possible guardian for her son was chosen. Both she and James would have. In my opinion anyway. She doesn't seem to have been the type to say something akin to, whatever you want, dear. Sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 23 16:39:14 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:39:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer References: Message-ID: <005901c6df2e$de428970$da66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158655 Tonks: > First it seems to me that people blame DD for the actions of > others. DD is not responsible for the choices of Vernon, for > example. DD did what he needed to do to keep Harry alive. We can > debate till the cows come home that he had other options. I think > when JKR writes that this was the only choice for DD to make, it > *was* the only choice. And as Diana says DD expects the best of > people. Would you prefer him to be a judgmental, see the flaw in > everyone and expect them to screw up type of person? I think not. Magpie: I don't think it's really blaming DD for the actions of others. It's giving him some responsibility for his own actions, especially since he's got so much more power than anyone else. Dumbledore's actions don't take place in a vacuum,. Every character has a reason for what they do. Tonks: > As to the notion that Sirius would have been a good guardian, I have > my doubts about that. Harry was a baby, I just don't see Sirius > taking care of a baby. I suspect that Lily and James made Sirius > Harry's Godfather because Sirius was James' best friend, not > necessary because they thought that Sirius would one day really have > to care for Harry. For all we know, Lily might actually have wanted > Petunia to care for Harry. Lily like DD saw the good in everyone > too, and I think that she may have expected her sister to love and > care for a child in her care. Magpie: See, but first you say it's good that DD is not judgmental and sees the best in people (and there's no indication he did that much with the Dursleys) but then you go on to defend his actions by saying Sirius was a poor choice for a parent because he was a young man with no experience taking care of babies. And then go even further by suggesting that DD was the one truly following Lily's wish that her sister who hates Harry was the one she really wanted to raise him. Seems to me these types of considerations do matter if you'd like Dumbledore to be on the right side of them. But I think canon indicates these things were not a priority. I say, let the Dursleys have full responsibility for their actions in mistreating a child (which was fully their choice) and let Dumbledore have full responsibilty for all of his actions and inactions that had bad forseeable consequences. If putting Harry with the Dursleys was the best choice--which I'm willing to accept--that doesn't change the bad parts of that choice. Nor does Harry's admirable reaction to those bad things. Part of being a good leader is having good counselors. DD by everyone's admission feels he's beyond having counselors and must make all his decisions by himself. In this case, overriding all known wishes for Harry's upbringing as a boy in favor of magical protection for a person he planned to have defeat Voldemort in the future. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 17:20:16 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:20:16 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158656 James Lyon wrote: > > > Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? > > Geoff: > In mitigation, may I offer at least one instance? > > When Harry came off his broom in the Gryffindor-Hufflepuff Quidditch match in POA, Dumbledore stopped him from crashing into the ground. > (POA "Grim Defeat" pp.134-36 UK edition) > Carol adds: And here's another. If Dumbledore hadn't suggested that Hermione and Harry use the Time Turner, not only would Buckbeak have been executed and Sirius Black soul-sucked by the Dementors, Harry and Hermione would also probably have lost their souls. Timeturned!Harry could not have cast the Patronus to save himself and Sirius (and Hermione, who was with them) if not for Dumbledore. (Snape woke up too late to do it, though he did conjure the stretchers.) Carol, who is glad that Dumbledore is neither perfect nor omniscient and wonders where the impulse to bash Dumbledore is coming from From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 23 17:30:42 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:30:42 -0000 Subject: The Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0609230807x34a89867m901c3457f8a1052c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158657 > Tinktonks wrote: > > > > What did Alice and Frank Longbottom know to bring on such cruel > > torture? ... why the DE's would think that the Longbottom's knew > > anything about the downfall or the whereabouts of LV? > > > > Debbie: > This has been hashed over many times in the history of this list. aussie: I missed all the discussions on what Frank and Alice knew. Did those discussions happen after we knew about the prophesy? There may have been whispers in DE camp that LV was going for Neville after killing Harry. DId those discussions happen after we suspected Scrimgeour of being a DE? Frank going into hiding at the time of LV's downfall may have caught some attention. Aussie From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 23 18:57:11 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:57:11 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Lyon wrote: > No...he sends that lovable buffoon Hagrid to find him. No one bothers to introduce Harry to the WW world. No one bothers to tell him how to catch the train. Hickengruendler: IMO, Hagrid was meant to do this. That he forgot this is so Hagrid, and Dumbledore should have thought, that this might happen. However, I think one good explanation for why Dumbledore sent Hagrid instead of going himself, is that Harry wasn't the only Hogwarts student, who didn't know anything about the wizarding world. Maybe Dumbledore sent all the staff members to the several Muggleborns. (Though now I have a mental image of Snape or Trelawney actually appearing on a doorstep of a poor unsuspecting muggle family.) IMO, there's no excuse for Dumbledore not doing anything to make the Dursleys treat Harry better. A few visits or maybe even letters in a month would probably have been sufficient for Harry being treated at least semily decent. But it's too late now to redeem Dumbledore from this. The damage was done by chapter two of book 1. JKR softened the blow a bit at the end of book 5, by giving Dumbledore a really good reason for sending Harry to the Dursleys, namely Harry's safety. But this still doesn't excuse, that he didn't care for his well beings for 10 years. James: > > He refuses to train Harry to be able to face his fate. > > He takes no interest in how his students are treated. > Hickengruendler: I really disagree with these points. Yes, Dumbledore could probably have done more to prepare Harry for his battle earlier, but he didn't do so out of love for him. He wanted him to enjoy at least a few years of his childhood/youth. I do not hold this against him. And I see no evidence, that Dumbledore doesn't care how his students are treated. We do not even know, what Dumbledore knows and what he doesn't. And anyway, as incompetent some of the teachers might be, I don't think anyone other than Snape (and Umbridge, but she's not hired by Dumbledore and Dumbledore had no power of her anyway, therefore she doesn't count) treated a student really badly. Granted, this does leave Snape. But again, we don't know how much Dumbledore knew and how much he doesn't. Seeing that Harry didn't tell about his detentions, I am sure nobody knew anything about Umbridge's special methods. James: > He expects Harry to act like an adult, while treating him like an > imbecilic child, and excuses Snape and Draco for their childishness > and cruelty. Hickengruendler: It's not Dumbledore's job to critisize Draco or Snape in front of Harry. Harry has enough knowledge about their flaws without Dumbledore telling him. What Dumbledore has to say about a Snape or Draco he probably says to them. There is no need to think he excuses all of their actions. Yes, I agree that he treated Harry to much like a child at first. But he admitted this in OotP and did treat him as an adult in HBP, particularly when he allowed him to accompany him to the Horcurx search, which is something the portrais on the wall disapproved of. He did keep it a secret, that Snape was the spy who overheard the prophecy, which is something he should have told Harry. But on the other hand, I find his motivations understandable. He wanted Snape and Harry to work together, and therefore he kept Snape's involvement in the Potters' death a sceret. A mistake? Yes, but an understandable one. James: > He takes no interest in the quality of teaching since he permits > Binns, Trewlaney, and Snape to stay on the payroll and can't be > bothered to try to find a qualified DADA teacher. Hickengruendler: As far as I can tell, he was capable enough to find at least three qualified DADA teachers, namely Lupin, Moody and (yes) Snape. Snape's DADA lessons we saw were IMO stellar (and much better than the Potions' lessons, maybe because he was finally happy with the subject?). Given that he has to find a new one for nearly fourty years in a row, I would argue three out of six isn't a bad quote at all. Whatever Dumbledore's flaws may be, it is definitely not his fault, that people refused to take the post, because they were afraid of the curse. What can he do? Forcing someone to take subject, while knowing very well, that it might end badly for them? I still think, even though I might be in the minority, that the problem is not with Trelawney but with the subject Divination. How can you teach something, that seems to be uncontrollable. Trelawney encourages the students to work in groups and to make some practical work in her class, which is at least something. Admittingly, Firenze is probably superior as a teacher, in explaining them how tricky seeing is and that it is likely they will see nothing at all, but he doesn't manage to teach them anything either. So it's not all Trelawney's fault. Granted, Binns is a flop. > James: > > He permits Hagrid to be sent to Azkaban without trial, he does nothing to get Hagrid's record cleared and place the CoS fiasco and the death of Myrtle on Tom Riddle. Hickengruendler: Okay, I have to admit that now came the part of your post, where I really disagreed with about everything you said. How can he stop Fudge sending Hagrid to Azkaban? If you reread the chapter, it is clear that they disagreed over this and that Dumbledore tried to stop Fudging froms ending Hagrid there. But Fudge didn't listen to him and that's it. Dumbledore had no power to overrule the ministry. And he helped Hagrid a lot after the CoS fiasco and Myrtle's death for example in giving him a home and a job. Not to imagine how Hagrid would have ended up, if it weren't for Dumbledore. He knew that Tom was behind the attacks, but couldn't prove it. So what could he do about it? Some may say, that his mistake was to even let Tom into Hogwarts, but then, hindsight is always a good thing, and as creepy and unsympathetic the child Tom Riddle might have been, he was not yet beyond hope and there was no good reason not to allow him to enter Hogwarts, particularly since at the very least the school is a place to control someone's magic. And Tom said that Dumbledore kept a close on him, therefore I assume that this is what he did. But he couldn't supervise him 24/7, he had to do a few othe rthings, like teaching. James: > He does nothing about a man being sent to Azkaban without trial, he does nothing to free said convict when he learns the man is innocent. Hickengruendler: Sure he does. He tells Harry and Hermione to use the Time Turner. Granted, the best thing he could probably have done was using the Time Turner himself. But maybe *this* actually was some training for Harry's later mission, just like the tasks at the end of PS might have been. And again, I find it problematic to think that he's almighty. He might be the most powerful wizard, but he has not the power to overrule Barty Crouch senior's decisions. How many people did go to Azkaban without a trial? Why should Dumbledore help Sirius and not the other ones. Maybe Dumbledore wanted Crouch to give fair trials to everyone and Crouch simply refused. I mentioned this already in another place, but I think the person, who should have talked to Sirius was not Dumbledore, but Lupin. James: > He does nothing to be sure that the CoS has released all of its secrets, he does nothing to establish what is petrifying the students (I mean, how many things could petrify?) or taking any actions to actually protect them. Hickengruendler: Yes, that's true. And I fear the only explanation is, that he is dictated by the plot here. At the very least he should have found out what was petriying the students. But he does take actions to protect them, namely in having them accompanied by the teachers all the time. James: > He allows dementors to attack Harry several times while on Hogwart's property or very close. Hickengruendler: No he doesn't. He protested against the Dementors, but couldn't stop Fudge from sending them. He forbade the Dementors to enter the castle and the Quidditch pitch, and the one time, where they actually did appear on the Quidditch pitch, Dumbledore was furious. James: > He places no extra protection on Harry when he gets entered into the Triwizard Tournament and allows Harry to stumble his way through Hickengruendler: I snipped a few parts about which I agree, particularly him hiding the Stone in Hogwarts. But I wonder what he should have done here? Is it even possible to place extra protection on Harry. James: > Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? Hickengruendler: Well, Voldie tells at the end of GoF, that he couldn't attack Harry at the Dursleys. Therefore we can assume, that the very reason, why he didn't even try was said protection. Which is also the reason, why I can't agree with Alla's list, why the protection didn't work there. It worked as good as it can, and the fact that nothing happens at Privet Drive is the proof for this. Voldie didn't even try to break the protection. The only time Harry's life was in danger there, was when the Dementors arrived, but they were not sent by Voldie or his henchmen at this time, but by Umbridge, who had her own agenda. Also, I really do not think Dumbledore is perfect or almighty, and I found it really unconfortable, when he listed of all Sirius' flaws to Harry, only an hour or so after Sirius' death. But I still find, that you are blowing Dumbledore's failings out of all proportions in your post. Blaming for him for not stepping in on the Dursleys or for placing Harry there on the first place? Yes. But he's not to blame for Hagrid being sent to Azkaban or for the Dementors' attack on Harry. Hickengruendler From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 23 19:11:26 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:11:26 -0000 Subject: The Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158659 Tinktonks: > What did Alice and Frank Longbottom know to bring on such cruel torture? *(snip)* has any one has any real ideas about why on Earth the DE's would think that the Longbottom's knew anything about the downfall or the whereabouts of LV? Ceridwen: This has probably been chewed over several times, and someone sharper than I will point to the threads, I'm sure! ;) But, since I didn't get much chance to have my say then, I'll do it now. I think LV's plan was to go to the two children born at the end of July, to couples who had "thrice defied him", that night: visit the Potters first, kill Harry, then move on to the Longbottoms and kill Neville. Moving so quickly would have limited the possibility that someone would warn the Longbottoms and move them to safer surroundings. It would also get rid of the two possibilities at once and clear the field for LV. The three Lastranges and Barty Jr. may have known where he went, or they may have discovered or been informed of his itinerary later on. They either didn't believe their master had been vaporized, or they thought the Order and therefore the Longbottoms had some secret information - after all, the Order had taken care to spirit Harry away from the scene. This, of course, gets into other things - who sent the Lastranges and Crouch on their mission? This person would have to have been in LV's confidence to know where he was going. Who would have betrayed the Longbottoms to LV, presuming that they had also been advised to take a Secret Keeper and did so? Is there a possibility for another rogue SK/Order member? Would they have used someone as SK outside of the Order? This scenario would call for another traitor, since Peter Pettigrew would only be my outside choice for SK to the Longbottoms. That is why I think the DEs, or at least one faction of the DEs, knew there was something about the Longbottoms that would have interested LV that night and so went after them. Ceridwen. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 20:32:40 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:32:40 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: <004101c6df22$309e7150$da66400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158660 > >>Magpie: > > It's true that he doesn't think he doesn't believe in controlling > people and so lets them make their own choices even if they're > wrong (letting bullies act out in his school--and Snape and Draco > aren't the only people getting out of line), but the problems > usually stem not from that but from the fact that DD usually seems > to think he can handle all the consequences. Life is > like a chess game where he seems to think he can see all his > opponents moves in advance. He decides to do things but gets > surprised that people don't act the way he'd allowed for. Betsy Hp: I think it's also important to recognize that he's a man of his world. That while I think he's put some effort into moving beyond the prejudices of the WW (e.g. sees the worth of squibs, etc.) he was still raised with those prejudices. So Dumbledore can see that muggles may be useful (provide an excellent protection for Harry) but he can't quite recognize the fear those same muggles might have being faced with magic. So in some ways Dumbledore *is* a lot wiser than the folks around him. But he's not superhuman and he does make mistakes and people do suffer because of them. Dumbledore doesn't question Sirius's guilt; he doesn't recognize the problem of there not being a trial. But he does see Mrs. Figg as an intelligent and worthy woman to work with. It's a dichotomy that I think is essential to the character of Dumbledore. > >>Magpie: > > It's more, imo, that there's lots of things DD doesn't take into > account when deciding what people will do. It doesn't always > sound like that's what he does because once the person does > something he's there with the analysis as if this was part of a > calculated risk he took, but I don't think that's really the > case. He gets blindsided by people acting on impulses he didn't > forsee--and frankly, I think that's a good thing. It actually > makes the world more hopeful by placing more power back into > these "little people" that DD thinks he's so far beyond that he > can make all the decisions, even if it has disasterous results in > the short run. > Betsy Hp: Again, I think part of the problem is the world Dumbledore has been raised in. It's easy to be incredibly wise, or even the "epitome of goodness" when your competition is, well, Fudge. Or even Crouch, Sr. And I think especially since Dumbledore is less quick to write the so-called "lesser beings" off (squibs, half-breeds, etc.) he can come across as incredibly compassionate. But the entire reason he can appear so bright is that his world is so dark. There's a reason the WW, even with Dumbledore around, still suffers from Dark Lords. He's not bright enough, in the end. He is still a product of his world. I suppose the mistakes he does make (Sirius, Katie Bell & Ron) don't bother me a ton because they don't contradict his character for me. This is the same guy who gave Slytherin a giant raspberry in PS/SS, so I'm not expecting perfection. It's also why I give him more of a pass with sticking Harry with the Dursleys. I don't expect Dumbledore to be able to come up with a perfect solution. At the same time, I don't look to Dumbledore as the great protector. Unlike young Harry, I don't think everything is going to be okay because Dumbledore is here. Dumbledore does have his moments, and some of them are pretty cool. But they are just moments. And some time he just plain screws up. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 20:56:06 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:56:06 -0000 Subject: Cinderella (was:Re: Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158661 > >>Tesha: > You make your point then you un-make it??? Betsy Hp: Did I? The first point was: Cinderella is a folk-tale and can be retold. The second point was: Cinderalla has specific plot points that Harry with the Dursleys does not closely match. > >>Tesha: > The Cinderella story is based on a very simple outline - that can > be added to or embelished in many ways. Right? Betsy Hp: Right. > >>Tesha: > We've all heard father dead, father traveling, father sick, father > under the thumb of the nasty step-mom... Betsy Hp: Actually, I haven't. But I agree that as long as the "good" parent is out of the picture you can still have a Cinderella-type tale. And Harry does fit the required profile in that he's an orphan. > >>Tesha: > If you get into specifics you lose Harry Potter and become > Cinderella, right? Betsy Hp: It depends on the degree of specifics. To link Harry at the Dursleys with Cinderella there does need to be enough specifics to link his story with the Cinderella story. Not every story about an orphan is a Cinderella tale, IOWs. > >>Tesha: > OK, my point is that the same basic outline is used to create the > same effect in the reader - we are meant to empathize with the > hero. Betsy Hp: By putting Harry in ill-fitting hand-me-downs, by having Harry be the one child in the house to be given chores, etc., I agree that JKR uses *elements* of the Cinderella story to help her readers empathize with Harry. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a re-telling of the Cinderella story. There are too many important elements missing. And even the elements that are there are pretty watered down, IMO. > >>Tesha: > oh, and btw - the Cinderella story I think you're recalling is the > one where the hero as a woman has no power at all and has to wait > for someone to save her - the fairy tale that warps women and sets > up false expectations every day. Betsy Hp: That's the standard feminist reading of Cinderella, yeah. But it's still the Cinderella story. Change too much of it in an attempt to avoid warping women and you no longer have a Cinderella story. > >>Tesha: > Do you know any "Cinder-fella" stories? No fairy god-father comes > along to make him a beautiful sequined suit for the ball..... he > might slay a dragon... or become the king by pulling the sword > from the stone.... hhhmmmm an idea for a book!!! Betsy Hp: If there isn't a fairy godmother type character, you're no longer talking about Cinderella. There are tons of fairy tales with male protagonists where magic changes their lives without them having to do much. A sticky goose, for example, that wins them a beautiful princess and half the kingdom with little effort on their part. But you're describing more the "hidden prince" type of tale (King Arthur is a good example), and that's not Cinderella. It *is* however, more the way I think JKR was directing the Harry with the Dursleys stuff in PS/SS. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 23 21:20:59 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:20:59 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158662 > > a_svirn: > Who else? If there was a spy at GH he would certainly refrain to > advertise the fact. Pippin: Even to other DE's, who might be rather anxious, not to say insistent, to know what had happened to their master? You think Hagrid has the only loose lips in the WW? Gimme a break! By the time McGonagall arrived at Privet Drive, the whole wizarding world was whispering that the Potters are dead, that Voldemort was gone, and that Harry was supposed to have survived. But unless he was prepared to silence the whole Ministry, Dumbledore could hardly have prevented it. An exploded house with the bodies of James and Lily lying in the rubble (per Sirius in PoA) would invite some sort of investigation from the Ministry. They would be on the scene and able to determine that indeed James and Lily were dead and that Voldemort had been involved, probably within minutes of when Hagrid left wth Harry. Previously captured Death Eaters would notice the vanishing of their Dark Marks and would no doubt be singing like birds. Hagrid mentions that people came out of trances, In short everyone would know that something had happened to Voldemort. If they didn't know where Harry was, there would be a massive effort to find him, all when the aurors would be better employed rounding up stunned and demoralized DE's. Harry looks so much like James that short of ingesting polyjuice every hour on the hour for his entire childhood, any wizard who saw him would know at once who he was. McGonagall guesses immediately what the scar is, too -- before DD has told her anything. Presumably any competent wizard could do as much. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 23 21:40:37 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:40:37 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158663 > > a_svirn: > > > Exactly. Especially since Dumbledore went to considerable > lengths to > > > plant that boy-who-lived image. > > montims: > > Not doubting this, but where in canon does it say that DD did this? > > > > a_svirn: > Who else? Hickengruendler: The ministry? I mean, surely the attack on Godric's Hollow didn't pass by unnoticed. The muggle authorities will have found out, and the MoM probably learned pretty soon, who the victims were. Or maybe another wizard or witch was living was living in the village (it was named after a wizard, after all, therefore it might not be unreasonable to think, that more wizards are living their), and they saw Voldemort arriving. Later they heard the explosion or maybe even saw Vapormort flying away, and heard that the baby survived. Obviously I'm just guessing. This doesn't explain how anyone could have known about what exactly happened. But then, at least right now we also don't know how Dumbledore could have known. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 23 22:42:40 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:42:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158664 James: > He does nothing about a man being sent to Azkaban without trial, he does nothing to free said convict when he learns the man is innocent. Hickengruendler: Sure he does. He tells Harry and Hermione to use the Time Turner. Granted, the best thing he could probably have done was using the Time Turner himself. But maybe *this* actually was some training for Harry's later mission, just like the tasks at the end of PS might have been. And again, I find it problematic to think that he's almighty. He might be the most powerful wizard, but he has not the power to overrule Barty Crouch senior's decisions. How many people did go to Azkaban without a trial? Why should Dumbledore help Sirius and not the other ones. Maybe Dumbledore wanted Crouch to give fair trials to everyone and Crouch simply refused. Sherry: I would agree with you, except for one very important fact. It was the mere word of Dumbledore that kept Snape out of Azkaban. All Dumbledore had to do was to stand up and declare that Severus Snape was not a death eater, and the whole wizengamut took his word for it. Some of them may have continued to suspect Snape, but noone dared speak against the word of Dumbledore. I find it impossible to believe that he could not have determined the truth in the matter of Sirius Black and have spoken that one word on his behalf too. It was not like in the Fudge Era. Dumbledore was powerful and respected, and apparently, everyone followed his lead and took his word on such matters. He did it for Snape but could not, would not do it for Sirius? Hmmm. Seems rather suspicious to me. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 23 22:42:23 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:42:23 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius (was: Petunia/Headmaster/LVatHogwarts/Mo...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158665 > > Pippin: > > Er, the Order exists to keep Voldemort from taking over. > > a_svirn: > Very good point. And we know that the order was effectively > disbanded between the wars. Remember in OOP: > > "Thanks to you, Dumbledore was able to recall the Order of the > Phoenix about an hour after Voldemort returned,' said Sirius." > > That's how it works: no danger ? no order. Pippin: No danger of an attack planned by Voldemort and carried out by an army of DE's. There's no canon that the Order has ever been effective against attacks carried out by Voldemort himself, either in his own body or possessing another, or attacks carried out by DE's on their own, both of which Dumbledore needs to fear, and neither of which we have seen take place at Privet Drive. > > Pippin: > > What's analogous is that Sirius agreed to send Harry > > away from a loving home in what was not yet obviously > > mortal danger to a future where he might face cruelty > > and neglect but at least would be protected from the danger > > Dumbledore foresaw. I was pointing out that far from being a > > fairytale contrived dilemma that no one would face in real > > life, there were and are many parents who have had to make > > such choices. > > a_svirn: > Oh, but of course it is contrived. In real life any parents with > Dumbledore's kind of resources wouldn't have to make this choice. > Instead of sending their children with Kindertransport they would > sail together to a safer heaven on their own yacht. The privileged > and powerful have more choices than the poor and desperate. And > Dumbledore certainly belonged to the former. Pippin: The rich and privileged can run out of options just like everyone else. IIRC, there were parents who thought they had better options than the Kindertransport and turned it down, only to realize they'd made a terrible mistake. In any case, you are talking about a secret refuge, protected with the most sophisticated spells, er, systems, to which only the most trusted persons are admitted? Sounds like Godric's Hollow. It worked for about a week. Dumbledore thought he had something better. If it *is* better I admit we haven't had a chance to see. But I doubt JKR has made us wait to the end in order to demonstrate that it doesn't work. What would be the point? > a_svirn: > "Forced to kill him"?! I just see Moody at the debriefing > session, "these crazy folks they just keep getting in my way, > forcing my hand". Pippin: Er, no, it went like this: "Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were too. He preferred to fight rather than come quietly and was killed in the struggle." "Took a bit of me with him, though," whispered Moody to Harry's right. Harry looked around at him once more, and saw him indicating the large chunk out of his nose to Dumbledore. --GoF ch 30 > a_svirn: > It's not like Dumbledore's solution was any better. If Harry is > still alive it's not thanks to Dumbledore's carefully laid plans. > Pippin: Isn't it? Why was the ministry monitoring Privet Drive "given...given past events" when they didn't believe Voldemort would return? --OOP ch 8 Anybody ever wonder what Rosier was doing when he was captured? Or why Harry had an out of sequence memory of a dragon rearing up in front of him? (OOP 24) Or why Voldemort said, "Not even I can touch him there."? -GoF ch 33 > a_svirn: > He penetrated just fine through Dumbledore's wards. In OOP he > started to mess up Harry's mind while Harry was still at the Privet > Drive. Pippin: Sorry, do we know that? I thought it was Harry penetrating *Voldemort's* mind, as shown by the fact that it all stopped when Voldemort, not Harry, began practicing occlumency. > a_svirn: > Well he could brief Sirius and see what he had to say, couldn't he. > It worked in POA, it could work then. Pippin: I've already pointed out that it worked in PoA because Dumbledore had seen Harry's patronus and recognized that it was confirmation of what Sirius was saying. There were a lot of people unjustly imprisoned by the Ministry during the Voldemort War. You can hardly blame Dumbledore if he spent his efforts in trying to free the ones for which there wasn't overwhelming evidence of guilt. If he made a mistake it was underestimating the lengths to which Voldemort would go to frame an innocent person. And Sirius *did* have a guilty secret that would have put him in Azkaban for a long time regardless, one that he shared with another. He could hardly have established his innocence without betraying Lupin. If we're to believe him, he'd sooner have died. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 23 23:15:36 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:15:36 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158666 > Sherry: > > I would agree with you, except for one very important fact. It was the mere > word of Dumbledore that kept Snape out of Azkaban. All Dumbledore had to do > was to stand up and declare that Severus Snape was not a death eater, and > the whole wizengamut took his word for it. Pippin: No. The tribunal had already considered Snape's case when Dumbledore announced at Karkaroff's hearing that Snape had been cleared. Dumbledore was simply reminding the court of a verdict they'd already reached, on what evidence we do not know. Snape says that Dumbledore kept him out of Azkaban, but there's no reason to think that's the whole truth, since if there is independent evidence that Snape changed sides during VWI, Snape will certainly not be telling Bella of it. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 23 23:23:58 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:23:58 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158667 > Sherry: > > I would agree with you, except for one very important fact. It was the mere > word of Dumbledore that kept Snape out of Azkaban. All Dumbledore had to do > was to stand up and declare that Severus Snape was not a death eater, and > the whole wizengamut took his word for it. Hickengruendler: I find the situation somewhat different. Snape was spying for Dumbledore (at least that's what Dumbledore thought), and that's what Dumbledore told Crouch and the others. Dumbledore gave testimony about what he knew. He didn't even have to make further investigations about Snape's case, because he knew about Snape's activities to begin with. With Sirius, he gave testimony to Crouch as well, again to his knowledge, and sadly it was a very condemning one and probably played a big part in why Sirius didn't get a trial. Is Dumbledore therefore responsible that Sirius didn't get a trial? I don't think so, because IMO Crouch has made his decisions without asking for Dumbledore's advice (see the trials against Karkaroff, the Lestranges or even Bagman for example.) With Snape it was something different because Dumbledore was an actual witness, not a counsellor. Do I think Dumbledore needed to have investigated further about Sirius' case? Maybe. But you could just as well argue, that he could have investigated some of the other cases further, where nobody got a trial. There is just so much Dumbledore can do. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 23:53:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:53:46 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158668 > Hickengruendler: > IMO, there's no excuse for Dumbledore not doing anything to make the > Dursleys treat Harry better. A few visits or maybe even letters in a > month would probably have been sufficient for Harry being treated at > least semily decent. Alla: I knew we would agree on the major point, heeee. > James: > > > Can ANYONE think of ANY ACTION that DD has taken meddling in > Harry's life that was actually of any net benefit to Harry? > > Hickengruendler: > > Well, Voldie tells at the end of GoF, that he couldn't attack Harry > at the Dursleys. Therefore we can assume, that the very reason, why > he didn't even try was said protection. Which is also the reason, why > I can't agree with Alla's list, why the protection didn't work there. > It worked as good as it can, and the fact that nothing happens at > Privet Drive is the proof for this. Voldie didn't even try to break > the protection. Alla: Erm.... it worked as well as it can? You mean during the Graveyard? Where do you see the protection in action there? When Harry's arm was sliced? Or when he was running for his life with images holding him up? It is possible that protection worked at privet Drive. My point is 1) it is not shown and 2) that we saw when it worked **not** at privet drive, therefore why cannot Harry stay at other place if protection works anyways? Hickengruendler: Blaming for him for not stepping in on the Dursleys or for > placing Harry there on the first place? Yes. But he's not to blame > for Hagrid being sent to Azkaban or for the Dementors' attack on > Harry. Alla: Well, sure I agree with you on this one, but those are minor points IMO. I would also add not doing enough in Sirius' case. > > Sherry: > > > > I would agree with you, except for one very important fact. It was the mere > > word of Dumbledore that kept Snape out of Azkaban. All Dumbledore had to do > > was to stand up and declare that Severus Snape was not a death eater, and > > the whole wizengamut took his word for it. > > Pippin: > No. The tribunal had already considered Snape's case when Dumbledore > announced at Karkaroff's hearing that Snape had been cleared. Dumbledore > was simply reminding the court of a verdict they'd already reached, on > what evidence we do not know. Alla: Yes, what we saw was DD reminding the court of what already happened and as ar as we know - what indeed happened was Snape getting out because of DD testimony, did he not? > Hickengruendler: > Do I think Dumbledore needed to have investigated further about > Sirius' case? Maybe. But you could just as well argue, that he could > have investigated some of the other cases further, where nobody got a > trial. There is just so much Dumbledore can do. > Alla: Sorry, but I disagree that Sirius' case was a case just as any other. It was a case against the member of the order, trusted small group of people whom Dumbledore lead. Do I think that DD owed Sirius further investigation? Yes, I do. > > > > a_svirn: > > > > Exactly. Especially since Dumbledore went to considerable > > lengths to > > > > plant that boy-who-lived image. > > > > montims: > > > Not doubting this, but where in canon does it say that DD did > this? > > > > > > > a_svirn: > > Who else? > > Hickengruendler: > > The ministry? I mean, surely the attack on Godric's Hollow didn't > pass by unnoticed. The muggle authorities will have found out, and > the MoM probably learned pretty soon, who the victims were. > Alla: Oooo, the ministry is actually a really good guess. Good to know that DD maybe innocent in this what I would consider rather disgusting behaviour. JMO, Alla From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Sat Sep 23 23:59:29 2006 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:59:29 -0000 Subject: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158669 > James: > > > He does nothing about a man being sent to Azkaban without trial, he > does nothing to free said convict when he learns the man is innocent. > > Hickengruendler: > > Sure he does. He tells Harry and Hermione to use the Time Turner. > Granted, the best thing he could probably have done was using the > Time Turner himself. But maybe *this* actually was some training for > Harry's later mission, just like the tasks at the end of PS might > have been. And again, I find it problematic to think that he's > almighty. He might be the most powerful wizard, but he has not the > power to overrule Barty Crouch senior's decisions. How many people > did go to Azkaban without a trial? Why should Dumbledore help Sirius > and not the other ones. Maybe Dumbledore wanted Crouch to give fair > trials to everyone and Crouch simply refused. > > > Sherry: > > I would agree with you, except for one very important fact. It was the mere word of Dumbledore that kept Snape out of Azkaban. All Dumbledore had to do was to stand up and declare that Severus Snape was not a death eater, and the whole wizengamut took his word for it. Some of them may have continued to suspect Snape, but noone dared speak against the word of Dumbledore. I find it impossible to believe that he could not have determined the truth in the matter of Sirius Black and have spoken that one word on his behalf too. > It was not like in the Fudge Era. Dumbledore was powerful and respected, and apparently, everyone followed his lead and took his word on such matters. He did it for Snape but could not, would not do it for Sirius? Hmmm. Seems rather suspicious to me. Diana: Don't forget that at the time Sirius was first arrested, DD himself thought Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters because DD was not aware that Pettigrew had been the Secret Keeper in a last minute switch suggested by Sirius. Sirius was hauled off to Azkaban laughing his head off. Sirius himself didn't protest his innocence, as far as I can tell, because he felt responsible for his friends' deaths. Sirius blamed himself for suggesting Pettigrew as Secret Keeper, as evidenced by his admitting to Harry that he as good as killed Harry's parents in PoA. By all appearances, Sirius went round the bend for a little bit after Lily and James were murdered. After 12 years in Azkaban, Sirius didn't escape to prove his innocence, either, he escaped to murder Pettigrew who was a direct threat to Harry at Hogwarts. Dumbledore did try to argue Sirius' case with the MoM at the end of PoA, but he was not going to win because Sirius' own actions made him look guilty, i.e. sneaking into Hogwarts and knifing Ron's bedcovers, etc.. DD's witnesses to Sirius innocence were three underage wizards (who MoM thought Sirius had befuddled) and a werewolf running around in the forbidden forest, none of which the MoM would have considered as trustworthy witnesses. Do you think Fudge would have agreed Sirius was innocent just becuause DD said he was? I don't think so. Unlike when Snape was on trial many years before, Fudge was beginning to believe that DD wanted to take over the MoM, so Fudge would not have given DD any benefit of the doubt at the time of the events of PoA. Snape was also a witness to Sirius' actions and since Snape hated Sirius, he wasn't going to paint anything Sirius and Lupin had said inside that shack in a Sirius-is-innocent light. Dumbledore knew that he was not going to insure Sirius' freedom by arguing he was innocent, so he did the best he could by arranging for Harry and Hermione to help him escape. The Dumbledore who's word was trusted without question was losing his influence as Fudge and the MoM became more paranoid and desperate to retain their power and positions. Diana L. The Plaid Toad From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 24 00:48:38 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:48:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer References: Message-ID: <009d01c6df73$360072f0$da66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158670 > Diana: > Don't forget that at the time Sirius was first arrested, DD himself > thought Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters because DD was > not aware that Pettigrew had been the Secret Keeper in a last minute > switch suggested by Sirius. Sirius was hauled off to Azkaban > laughing his head off. Sirius himself didn't protest his innocence, > as far as I can tell, because he felt responsible for his friends' > deaths. Sirius blamed himself for suggesting Pettigrew as Secret > Keeper, as evidenced by his admitting to Harry that he as good as > killed Harry's parents in PoA. By all appearances, Sirius went > round the bend for a little bit after Lily and James were murdered. Magpie: Right, but I think that's what everyone is saying anyway. Dumbledore believed Sirius was guilty, or had no problem with his being guilty, so he didn't do anything to investigate further or find out what really happened. Snape was someone that he (Dumbledore) had a personal interest in, so even thought Snape actually was guilty, he got off. Snape never went to jail at all for being a DE. He went to Dumbledore and repented (allegedly--I realize this matter is in question), and Dumbledore recruited him and put him to work. So he wasn't a DE *anymore*--but he had been before. Snape benefitted from Dumbledore's personal justice system, Sirius less so. Not at all at the time, that is. Later, after he'd broken out and told his story to Harry Dumbledore helped him escape. As to whether DD's word would have been enough to clear Sirius in PoA, it's canon that it wouldn't, though I don't remember exactly how that information is given. Just DD saying that without Peter no one will believe the story. Okay, maybe we do have Veritaseum that could be given to the 13-year-olds that would back the story up, but at least we're told in canon that nothing will work. Strangely, after OotP Fudge seems fine with Sirius being innocent and I'm not sure why. There's no more evidence than there was before, not even a body. Maybe I'm forgetting something. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 00:59:04 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:59:04 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158671 > Alla: > > Do you see Lily going along with something she did not want? I frankly don't. That is why IMO Sirius is the guardian she would want for her kid, not because he was James' best friend, but because he loved Harry. snip. > > Sherry adds: I absolutely cannot see her just going along with > Sirius as guardian, to placate James. Not where her child's possible future is concerned. It was war time. She very well knew her child could end up an orphan. She would have insisted that the best possible guardian for her son was chosen. Both she and James would have. In my opinion anyway. She doesn't seem to have been the type to say something akin to, whatever you want, dear. > Tonks: That is not what I meant. What I was saying was that it was necessary for Harry to have at least one Godparent for his Baptism and because Sirius was James' best friend he would be given that honor. By *both* James and Lily. In my mind a Godparent and a guardian are two different things. But as I remember now I guess Sirius was able to sign Harry's permission slip, which in itself is a bit odd because Petunia and Vernon were still his legal guardians at the time. So did he have 3? Or did Sirius sign in his duties as Godparent? It all seems a bit confusing. But I did not mean that Lily was the "yes dear" type!! I do not see Lily that way either. (On the other hand, Petunia is a submissive housewife to a point, but when push comes to shove, she isn't either.) I wish JKR would explain all of this to us, as to just what roll does Sirius have? Lets say that a Godparent is a legal guardian. If that be the case, I think the fact that Hagrid had the kid and the guardian's motorcycle that Sirius must have somehow given his consent to Harry being with his aunt. I know that this isn't canon either, but the bike and Hagrid and the kid all together is. I think that is as good a piece of evidence as any. Instead of blaming DD, maybe you should blame Sirius. Tonks_op From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Sep 24 00:58:12 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:58:12 EDT Subject: real life Message-ID: <386.c4b9be8.32473224@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158672 I know that there was a thread a while back about incidents in real life that remind one of HP. I was in Ireland last month and met a young man working at the Waterford glass factory who would have made a wonderful young Severus. Thin, pale, long black hair and a large nose. He seemed very nice though. Severus lives! Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 01:15:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:15:43 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: <004101c6df22$309e7150$da66400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158674 Magpie: > Whether DD thought the Dursleys would be kind to Harry or not, for instance, he put him with them and never moved to keep them from mistreating him. If you add in that Dumbledore thought it was up to him to make sure Harry didn't grow up into Draco Malfoy by putting him with the Dursleys I think it makes him look worse to people who don't like his actions, not better. After all, it's hardly his place to decide he's got to protect a kid from some nebulous concept of "being spoiled" by sticking him with people who actively hate him. Carol responds: since draco Malfoy was only about two months older than Harry, I doubt that Dumbledore had him in mind. However, I do think that in addition to the blood protection, which was apparently his primary consideration, I think he may well have had James's arrogance in mind. Suppose that Harry, James's son, grew up being treated as the savior of the WW without having actually done anything to earn that honor? Wouldn't arrogance like James's only magnified by an understanding of *why* people were bowing to him in the streets, be a very dangerous trait in the Chosen One? If he already thought he was special, how could he develop humility or love, the traits that seem necessary to defeat LV? Wouldn't he think that he was already special and didn't need to learn anything? (Look at the fate of child stars in RL. I think he thought it was best for Harry to grow up not knowing who he really was--and, as it turns out, he appears to be correct. And of course that's not even considering the danger of being recognized on the streets and having every wizard in Britain, if not the entire WW, know that he was living with, say, the Weasleys. Even after the arrest of Bellatrix and company, there were plenty of Death Eaters who got off by pleading the Imperius Curse. According to Harry (or the narrator--I forget which), there were more than thirty Death Eaters in the graveyard in GoF. BTW, I agree with you that giving people second chances is not a mistake, and I expect to see that DD was right to do so with Hagrid, Snape, Trelawney and various other people in Book 7. Carol, who is pretty sure that neither Harry nor his guardian(s) would have lived very long if anyone except Petunia took him in From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 01:27:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:27:50 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer/Sirius and DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158675 Tonks: > That is not what I meant. What I was saying was that it was > necessary for Harry to have at least one Godparent for his Baptism > and because Sirius was James' best friend he would be given that > honor. By *both* James and Lily. In my mind a Godparent and a > guardian are two different things. But as I remember now I guess > Sirius was able to sign Harry's permission slip, which in itself is > a bit odd because Petunia and Vernon were still his legal guardians > at the time. So did he have 3? Or did Sirius sign in his duties as > Godparent? Alla: Maybe because Sirius never relinguished his duties as a guardian and DD decided that maybe he should be allowed to do this small thing, maybe he knew that he made a huge mistake that night and wanted to clear his conscience a little bit,regardless of the fact that Petunia and Vernon are indeed Harry's guardians too? Sirius says that he was appointed guardian, to me that ends the inquiry. Tonks: > I wish JKR would explain all of this to us, as to just what roll > does Sirius have? Alla: She did IMO, by saying that Sirius was chosen a guardian. Tonks: > Lets say that a Godparent is a legal guardian. If that be the case, > I think the fact that Hagrid had the kid and the guardian's > motorcycle that Sirius must have somehow given his consent to Harry > being with his aunt. I know that this isn't canon either, but the > bike and Hagrid and the kid all together is. I think that is as good > a piece of evidence as any. Instead of blaming DD, maybe you should > blame Sirius. Alla: But sure, it is Sirius own fault that Dumbledore did not bother to investigate further and once deciding that he is guilty, went with it. ;) Sirius agreed to decision made by great Albus Dumbledore. Reluctantly, if I may say. Per Hagrid, he **argued**. He should not have been agreed of course. Just take the kid and leave, but since he had his mind bent on revenge, well, I suppose he did not want to endanger Harry further. Again, not a good thing, revenge that is. Understandable to me, but not good. But no, great Albus Dumbledore is not off the hook with me, sorry. :( And the first thing Sirius does when he has a small hope to clear his name is offers Harry to live with him. And funnily, what he also says, that maybe Harry would not want to leave his relatives. Which to me suggests that Sirius had no idea what kind of people Dursleys are, otherwise I sincerely doubt that he would have agreed to anything. This is just my opinion of course. > Carol responds: > However, I do think that in addition > to the blood protection, which was apparently his primary > consideration, I think he may well have had James's arrogance in mind. > Suppose that Harry, James's son, grew up being treated as the savior > of the WW without having actually done anything to earn that honor? > Wouldn't arrogance like James's only magnified by an understanding of > *why* people were bowing to him in the streets, be a very dangerous > trait in the Chosen One? If he already thought he was special, how > could he develop humility or love, the traits that seem necessary to > defeat LV? Wouldn't he think that he was already special and didn't > need to learn anything? (Look at the fate of child stars in RL. I > think he thought it was best for Harry to grow up not knowing who he > really was--and, as it turns out, he appears to be correct. Alla: Leaving aside the huge disagreement with the idea that it is up to DD to think of what traits to develop in Harry, how do you know that Harry would have been arrogant had he grew up with anybody else? We are never going to agree on what kind of person James was, but maybe Harry was and always would have been primarily like Lily, and she was not arrogant, as far as we know, like ever. I have to say one thing, the more I participate in this thread, the worse DD looks to me and I think I am close enough to start despising him on the permanent basis the way things look like now, hopefully not :( I am really unhappy to go against author's intent and I know what JKR intends with DD, I think, but DD who plays God, but who is not really God, deserves a major slap IMO. IMO, Alla From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Sep 24 01:34:34 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:34:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158676 Tonks: That is not what I meant. What I was saying was that it was necessary for Harry to have at least one Godparent for his Baptism and because Sirius was James' best friend he would be given that honor. By *both* James and Lily. In my mind a Godparent and a guardian are two different things. But as I remember now I guess Sirius was able to sign Harry's permission slip, which in itself is a bit odd because Petunia and Vernon were still his legal guardians at the time. So did he have 3? Or did Sirius sign in his duties as Godparent? It all seems a bit confusing. But I did not mean that Lily was the "yes dear" type!! I do not see Lily that way either. Sherry: Unless you are contending that Sirius is lying in POA, as he and Harry are walking through the tunnel from the shack, Sirius says he is Harry's guardian. Your parents appointed me your guardian, or something. Legally, I do not believe the Dursleys are Harry's guardians. Sirius is. Was, I mean. And DD was apparently fine with Sirius signing the permission form. Tonks: Lets say that a Godparent is a legal guardian. If that be the case, I think the fact that Hagrid had the kid and the guardian's motorcycle that Sirius must have somehow given his consent to Harry being with his aunt. I know that this isn't canon either, but the bike and Hagrid and the kid all together is. I think that is as good a piece of evidence as any. Instead of blaming DD, maybe you should blame Sirius. Sherry: I'm never comfortable with blaming the victim. Sirius is the victim in every way. He just lost his best friend, the one who was like his brother, the one whose family took him in when he fled from his own family. and he lost them as a result of his own idea to switch secret keepers. There's no canon either that he was expecting Hagrid to take Harry away forever, that Harry would live with his relatives forever. Sirius is not at fault. He was the innocent victim, convicted of a crime he didn't commit and forced to live twelve miserable years in a fate I cannot even begin to comprehend, while the child he should have been raising lived with abuse and neglect. And DD went on his way, Apparently to me anyway, not caring at all about the two lives he had destroyed that night. Now, yes, this had to happen for the sake of the story, but since this topic has come up, I'm very much beginning to lose most of the respect I ever had for the so-called epitome of goodness, based on his actions toward two innocents, whose lives appeared to be nothing but pieces on a chess board. If he hadn't needed Snape as a spy, would Snape's fate have been the same as that of Sirius? Sherry From CliffVDY at juno.com Sun Sep 24 01:35:16 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:35:16 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158677 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > since draco Malfoy was only about two months older than Harry, I doubt > that Dumbledore had him in mind. However, I do think that in addition > to the blood protection, which was apparently his primary > consideration, I think he may well have had James's arrogance in mind. > Suppose that Harry, James's son, grew up being treated as the savior > of the WW without having actually done anything to earn that honor? > Wouldn't arrogance like James's only magnified by an understanding of > *why* people were bowing to him in the streets, be a very dangerous > trait in the Chosen One? If he already thought he was special, how > could he develop humility or love, the traits that seem necessary to > defeat LV? Wouldn't he think that he was already special and didn't > need to learn anything? DD was right to do so with Hagrid, > Snape, Trelawney and various other people in Book 7. Cliff here: What Carol didn't say was "Look at Draco who grew up in the wonderful home of the Malfoys where he was given everything and deliberately turned out to be an overbearing boy who had almost enough hate to kill DD. It was much better that Harry didn't have it 'so good.'" Cliff, who is what he is because of his hardships in life. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 01:46:32 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:46:32 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158678 > Cliff here: > What Carol didn't say was "Look at Draco who grew up in the wonderful > home of the Malfoys where he was given everything and deliberately > turned out to be an overbearing boy who had almost enough hate to kill > DD. It was much better that Harry didn't have it 'so good.'" > > Cliff, who is what he is because of his hardships in life. > Alla: Look at Ron, look at Hermione who were raised in the normal , **loved** homes. I think they turned out to be very much Okay "people". Harry turned out much better than he could have, but he is still damaged and JKR said he is. Alla, who had plenty of hardships in her life, but who would not ever want to grew up being unwanted and unloved. :( From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 24 02:12:06 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:12:06 EDT Subject: What about Lily's sacrifice in all this DD bashing??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158679 "Tonks" wrote: For all we know, Lily might actually have wanted > Petunia to care for Harry. Lily like DD saw the good in everyone > too, and I think that she may have expected her sister to love and > care for a child in her care. The Potters may have thought that with > Sirius and Petunia that they had someone in both world. Alla: Do you see Lily going along with something she did not want? I frankly don't. That is why IMO Sirius is the guardian she would want for her kid, not because he was James' best friend, but because he loved Harry. If one is able of loving the child, one would learn to care for the baby, even if one never dealt with the babies before, but if there is no love, then no matter how skilled caretaker is, something very important is missing. IMO. Julie: Lily wanted Sirius as a guardian under certain expected circumstances, wherein she and James died while Harry was safely somewhere else (while doing their jobs as Aurors, unfortunate broom accident, whatever). This is NOT the circumstance that eventually transpired because no one--NO ONE--expected that Lily and James could be murdered by Voldemort during his quest to kill their defenseless baby and yet that defenseless baby would actually LIVE. And it was *Lily* herself who changed those circumstances. Suddenly blood magic and blood protection came into play, and this changed *everything* IMO. The situation is totally unique, one which James and Lily couldn't have forseen a need to consider in their guardianship plans. I honestly think if Lily and James could speak to us from beyond the grave they would not fault Dumbledore for taking advantage of that totally unforseen development--the until then unavailable blood protection--and placing Harry where he could reap the advantages of it. After all, what was the point of Lily's selfless sacrifice, of her death that JKR says was more meaningful than James', of the pure love she used to save her son (and then passed on to him), if there wasn't someone to recognize her sacrifice and make sure it was put to the use for which it was intended? Sirius couldn't do it, so when the circumstances were completely altered--*by* Lily, I repeat--it fell to Dumbledore to ensure her sacrifice for her son was not in vain. And while one can certainly say Harry could have been protected in other ways and might have survived-- even had a good chance of surviving--the only certain way to *ensure* Harry's survival was to place him with the Dursleys and invoke the full blood protection. The blood protection Lily set in motion, perhaps intentionally, with her death. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 02:26:57 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 02:26:57 -0000 Subject: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158680 > Sherry: > > Now, yes, this had to happen for the sake of the story, but since this topic has come up, I'm very much beginning to lose most of the respect I ever had for the so-called epitome of goodness, based on his actions toward two innocents, whose lives appeared to be nothing but pieces on a chess board. > If he hadn't needed Snape as a spy, would Snape's fate have been the same as that of Sirius? > Tonks: (First I will admit that I had forgotten the part in POA where Sirius says that he is Harry's guardian. But it still does not change anything that I have said.) As to all of this DD bashing: I truly do not understand; no matter how much I try, how anyone can blame DD for the situation at the Dursleys, and go on it hate the man for the actions of Vernon. That is not the way JKR means to portray DD, by her own words. It is not the way that I see DD. DD is a kind, loving and very capable man to me. He made the only decision that could keep Harry alive. He does not interfere with others moral development and choices. The situation at the Dursleys cannot be compared to RL in the year 2006. On one hand people are saying that DD is not God, but on the other they expect him to have the power of God. It can't be both ways. Either he is a human being with much wisdom, but making mistakes, or he is God and incapable of making a mistake. If A then he has made mistakes and needs to be given the same forgiveness that he gives to others. If B, then there is nothing else to say since whatever he has done was the right thing, period. I am just totally baffled by the views against DD for the actions of the Dursleys, actually by the actions of Vernon. Petunia just goes along with her husband and tries to make the best of a bad situation. She does her *duty* to her sister. She tries to keep her husband's and son's lives as normal as possible. But things happen, and then Vernon loses control. How many people here who if in RL had a young wizard on their hands could truly cope with that? Really? Are you sure??? Why does there have to be fault finding at all. Why do humans always look to put blame on someone, anyone? If Harry doesn't blame DD, what gives anyone else the right? DD is not responsible for Vernon's choices. "Choice" places a big part in the books. If the *only* choice DD had was to place Harry with the Dursley's to keep Harry alive, then that is the end of it. After that what happens or doesn't happen to Harry depends on those who are his caretakers. Hate Vernon if you must. But DD is a good man, more than that he is the epitome of goodness itself, and I don't understand why that is not evident to everyone. Tonks_op From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sun Sep 24 02:33:59 2006 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:33:59 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Lon... Message-ID: <2fe.62500e80.32474897@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158681 In a message dated 9/23/2006 7:02:10 PM Mountain Standard Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: Tonks: That is not what I meant. What I was saying was that it was necessary for Harry to have at least one Godparent for his Baptism and because Sirius was James' best friend he would be given that honor. By *both* James and Lily. In my mind a Godparent and a guardian are two different things. But as I remember now I guess Sirius was able to sign Harry's permission slip, which in itself is a bit odd because Petunia and Vernon were still his legal guardians at the time. ********** I always thought DD let that one slide, because a) it was the only chance Harry was likely to get and b) Sirius was no longer a threat. I'd like to make a couple of miscellaneous points however: First, as Harry says, in GOF, all this is mostly the fault of Voldemort and his megalomania and Snape and whatever he was thinking. (As usual, who knows?) Everybody else is trying to do the best they can for Harry through their rather large blinders, Sirius and his hot-blooded temper and desire for action, Dumbledore and his lack of insight into human nature, Petunia through her jealousy of her sister, her terror of magic, and her fear that taking in Harry might tear her family apart or mark them for death. Secondly, I believe, in Sirius's defence, that the appointment of Pettigrew was a last-minute thought, since even if he had the best of intentions, Pettigrew is certainly weak enough to break under torture almost immediately. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 24 04:03:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:03:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer References: Message-ID: <00cd01c6df8e$6a035070$da66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158682 > Carol responds: > since draco Malfoy was only about two months older than Harry, I doubt > that Dumbledore had him in mind. However, I do think that in addition > to the blood protection, which was apparently his primary > consideration, I think he may well have had James's arrogance in mind. > Suppose that Harry, James's son, grew up being treated as the savior > of the WW without having actually done anything to earn that honor? Magpie: Oh, I didn't mean he literally was worried about him turning into Draco, who himself barely existed yet. I meant that to me it seems more disturbing, not less, to suggest that growing up with the Dursleys is important because it would be bad if Harry were spoiled. I mean, it's fine as an analysis of Harry as a character. It's just not something I consider a justification for Dumbledore doing it. Objectively, the idea of Harry growing up away from the WW is fine--if we were talking about a loving Muggle family who would just treat Harry like a regular (loved) child. But I feel like even that can quickly gets into a disturbing area because it's not Albus' child, it's no relation to Albus. Harry's parents never wanted him to grow up away from the WW--certainly not with Muggles who would hate him for being a Wizard. Since the Dursleys wound up being cruel guardians, it gets uncomfortably close to making it seem like Harry's mistreatment was good for him because it's better than his being spoiled. This is what Dumbledore seems to suggest, imo, when he talks about Harry showing up "not a pampered prince." I remember I couldn't believe the character would have the nerve to say that--it sounded like he was congratulating himself on the great results of the home he put Harry in, taking credit for Harry's not being insufferable. That line, iirc, drew a lot of criticism for DD. The blood protection really saved the whole thing, imo. It gives a reason Harry must be with the Dursleys that gets around any suggestion that DD is flat-out playing God and interfering in someone else's family. Cliff here: What Carol didn't say was "Look at Draco who grew up in the wonderful home of the Malfoys where he was given everything and deliberately turned out to be an overbearing boy who had almost enough hate to kill DD. It was much better that Harry didn't have it 'so good.'" Cliff, who is what he is because of his hardships in life. Magpie: Exactly--but that's an awful thing to say. The Malfoy's home was not wonderful in many ways, and Draco isn't automatically what Harry would be without the Dursleys. It's one thing to say that Harry's hardships are part of who he is and he's good. It's a totally different thing to suggest it was great of Dumbledore to place a baby with people who would hate him and mistreat him because otherwise he might be spoiled. I'm sure there are plenty of people who had, for instance, abusive childhoods who accept them as part of who they are without wanting their own children to suffer the same abuse. Why not give Voldemort the credit for Harry's personality? It was good of him to take out that arrogant James and doting Lily so Harry would have to live with the Dursleys. Dodged a bullet there. And, of course, it's quite possible it's loving Lily's magical blood protection that kept Harry from absorbing the Dursley's negativity. Tonks: On one hand people are saying that DD is not God, but on the other they expect him to have the power of God. It can't be both ways. Either he is a human being with much wisdom, but making mistakes, or he is God and incapable of making a mistake.[snip] Hate Vernon if you must. But DD is a good man, more than that he is the epitome of goodness itself, and I don't understand why that is not evident to everyone. Magpie: I would have thought people were explaining in great detail why it wasn't so obvious to them. As you say, you can't have it both ways. Either he's the epitome of goodness or he's a man who makes mistakes. If he makes mistakes we can analyze them and hold the character reponsible for them. Dumbledore's actions bring up a lot of ethical questions. Ones that get worse to many of us when they're defended as good. JKR's idea of what the epitome of goodness acts like might not jibe with everyone else's. -m From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 24 04:33:23 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:33:23 -0000 Subject: InvCloak /Veritaserum /Much Macbeth/ Fidelius/ Nagini/ PeterPeterSecretKeeper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158683 Tonks_op wrote in : << We do not know how and when James got the cloak. >> says: <> Orna wrote in : << perhaps in WW they just use Verisatrum - but I'm not sure...). >> says: << Q: Veritaserum plays a big part in finding out the truth from Mad-Eye Moody in book four. Why then is it not used for example in the trials mentioned in the same book? It would be much easier in solving problems like whether Sirius Black was guilty or not? JKR: Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion - he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial. Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it. >> Zanooda wrote in : << If we are talking about Shakespeare, there was no such spell in "Macbeth", and Birnam wood moved to Dunsinane without any witchcraft invoved. English soldiers were holding tree branches for camouflage while advancing to Dunsinane, that's all (please correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe "mobiliarbus" is from some other shakespearean play? Could someone explain? >> I don't think the phrase 'Mobiliarbus' appears in any Shakespeare play. I do think the play 'Macbeth' was based on a history book which included the prophecies about not being killed by any man of woman born and ruling until Birnam Wood came to Dunsinane, and Malcolm's gimmicks about being born by Caesarian section and camouflaging his soldiers with branches from Birnam Wood. However, that was a Muggle history book. The magical history books would explain that Birnam Wood really did move, picking up its roots from the earth and flying to the new location, because of a magic spell, because of a wizard who was on Malcolm's side. Maybe in the wizarding world he was the son of a Veela not of a woman. Tonks_op wrote in : << Oh, my... what does this ["'Malkin' also meant a slatternly or ill-kempt woman.)"] mean for Madam Malkin?? Does this mean that she is not the *in* place to get your robes? >> She was the 'in' place to get your robes, or the Malfoys wouldn't have shopped there. So all it means is that the wizarding folk pay no attention to the (somewhat ironic) meaning of her name relating to her business. I suppose that habit is how they could miss knowing that 'Remus Lupin' was a werewolf. Geoff wrote in : << Just to be pedantic (as ever!), according to my notes, in the collected Folio edition of 1623, the witches were variously referred to as "wayward" or "weyard". >> Fascinating, considering that 'wayward' means 'misbehaving'. I assume that Shakespeare believed that Witches were people who had decided to serve the Devil, which by Christian ideas is definitely misbehavior! I must check the etymologies... says: << c.1380 aphetic shortening of aweiward "turned away," from away + -ward. >> says: << O.E. wyrd "fate, destiny" (n.), lit. "that which comes," from P.Gmc. *wurthis (cf. O.S. wurd, O.H.G. wurt "fate," O.N. ur?r "fate, one of the three Norns"), from PIE *wert- "to turn, wind," (cf. Ger. werden, O.E. weor?an "to become"), from base *wer- "to turn, bend" (see versus). For sense development from "turning" to "becoming," cf. phrase turn into "become." The modern sense of weird developed from M.E. use of weird sisters for the three fates or Norns (in Gmc. mythology), the goddesses who controlled human destiny. They were usually portrayed as odd or frightening in appearance, as in "Macbeth," which led to the adj. meaning "odd-looking, uncanny," first recorded 1815. >> So, these are two different words that came together, but they both started out with '*wert' meaning 'turn'. Nate wrote in : << The Fidelius charm works on the building, not on the individual. >> I don't remember any canon for that; please remind me. gives some information about Fidelius: <