Re: CHAPDISC: HBP20, Lord Voldemort’s Request

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 158177

<snip akh's admirable synopsis>   


>   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