From sophierom at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 00:09:14 2007 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:09:14 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > I dreamt about the Tower, lol. And I heard in my dream Dumbledore > pleading with Snape and it finally hit on me (DUH, Alla) that > Dumbledore indeed does not show surprise before he pleads with Snape. > Therefore he indeed must have plead with Snape to do something that he > asked him to do before. > > This is a sad day for me, people. I have to go and absorb the > Dumbledore who could ask Snape to do that. Bye. > > Alla, shrieking in the Shack. > Sophierom: Well, if it makes you feel any better, couldn't Dumbledore have been unsurprised by Snape's betrayal? He's an old man who's probably seen many betrayals in his time. Yes, he trusted Snape. But Dumbledore also understands human nature. That being said, I believe Dumbledore did ask Snape to kill him, if the Snape ended up in such a position. So, I'm torn here ... do I rejoice that you may have joined the "dark" side, or do I feel bad about your realization? ;-D From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Apr 1 00:10:51 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:10:51 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166962 Alla: > I dreamt about the Tower, lol. And I heard in my dream Dumbledore pleading with Snape and it finally hit on me (DUH, Alla) that Dumbledore indeed does not show surprise before he pleads with Snape. Therefore he indeed must have plead with Snape to do something that he asked him to do before. Ceridwen: Lucky you to dream about the Tower! The last dream I remember is about wet grass. I would love to be as sure as you are about this. But, oy, I've been thinking, with one book left, and with it actually being a children's series insted of one for adults, then it is time for her to make Harry right and the adult mentor wrong. Harry's been wrong about Snape, as well as the other DADA teachers, all through the series. Now, he's right about Draco. Could he also be right about Snape? I mean, could we all have invented Enigma!Snape in our own minds because we really want a literary character with that sort of depth? I know I'm sick and tired of seeing plastic, transparent characters on TV and in the few modern books I've read over the last few years: everything riding at the surface, like a bunch of cartoon baddies or goodies, flat as proverbian pancakes, uninteresting in the last degree. I would much rather see Snape in all his complex glory, even if he turns out to be ESE, rather than that. But, with one book left to go, I'm just afraid sometimes that what we see, or are presented, is exactly what we'll get - no depth, no mystery, just another cardboard cartoon bad guy to amuse the kiddies into thinking that grown-ups are always wrong and it's up to kids to save the day. Alla: > This is a sad day for me, people. I have to go and absorb the Dumbledore who could ask Snape to do that. Bye. > Alla, shrieking in the Shack. Ceridwen: I'm sorry! I hope you come out of it all right. ;) But at the same time, I really need to hope that you're right. Sometimes, I just despair. Ceridwen, not shrieking, but hoping for a dream. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 00:18:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:18:35 -0000 Subject: I Had a Dream or HowI Realized That I May Have Been Wrong. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166963 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Strangest thing happened to me few days ago. ... > > I dreamt about the Tower, lol. And I heard in my > dream Dumbledore pleading with Snape and it finally > hit on me (DUH, Alla) that Dumbledore indeed does not > show surprise before he pleads with Snape. > > Therefore he indeed must have plead with Snape to do > something that he asked him to do before. > > This is a sad day for me, people. I have to go and > absorb the Dumbledore who could ask Snape to do that. > Bye. > > Alla, shrieking in the Shack. > bboyminn: I realize that this was just a revelation in a dream, but I've alway had a problem with the admittedly popular idea that Dumbledore /planned/ for Snape to kill him. But before I go on let me note that your revelation that Dumbledore showed no surprise IS very likely significant to interpreting the events. That is something I never thought of before, so you have certainly brought new evidence to light. But I simply can't accept any idea that says Snape and Dumbledore had a cold hard brutal calculated plan for what to do in such a situation. I think far more likely, they had set their long term objectives and priorities. Snape knew, /in general/, that he would be forced to make a terrible choice if circumstances ever worked against him as they certainly did on the top of the tower. There wasn't an clear and immediate plan for that specific event, but there were guidelines that said, the success of long term objectives outweigh /anyone's/ life in the moment. When Snape and Dumbledore's eyes met there on the top of the tower, Snape knew he was face with setting his priorities, 'do I attempt to save the moment, and risk losing everything and everyone, or do I lose the moment, and live to fight again another day, and in doing so, preserve my position and preserve the best potential weapon against Voldemort?'. I think Snape chose, from the perspective of the good guys, to lose the moment. To lose a tremendous asset, yet to preserve more valuable long term assets. Long term assets like himself and Harry, that had a greater potential to produce positive results down the road. I simply can't see a direct conscious plan for what happened on the tower, but I can see a more general all-encompassing plan and strategy that lead Snape to make the terrible choice he made in that moment. Oddly, in the moment Snape killed Dumbledore, I became more convinced than ever that he was indeed Dumbledore's man; counter-intuitive, I know. Lastly, I'm absolutely convinced that Harry doesn't have a chance without Snape's help, and Snape somehow convincing Harry to accept his help is going to be a big part of the plot of book 7. I can't imagine /how/ but none the less, I am absolutely convinced it must be done. Sorry to ramble on. Steve/bboyminn From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 00:25:57 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:25:57 -0000 Subject: FYI on Book Covers In-Reply-To: <460EE1DF.000003.03484@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166964 Debi: > When an artist does a book cover its based on a description of what the > publisher would like to see on the cover, not because the artist has gotten > to read the book yet, the artist is given limited information to the > contents of the book. I'm an amateur artist and my daughter an amateur book > writer so we have looked into this, this information is based on what we > have been told by no less than 9 or 10 publishers. So its hard to guess what is (exactly) between the pages by the covers. There had been a lot of speculation > about what's inside the book based on the covers, for example, in the US > edition Harry has no scar, IMO either Ms. GrandPre forgot it, left if off or > is suggesting its covered by his hair. Annemehr: Actually, Mary GrandPre does read the books first, I suppose because she does an illustration for each chapter heading as well as the cover. I was searching for an old interview where she talked about this, but I found a more recent one at Mugglenet, instead: http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/638 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel: Could you describe the process of illustrating for a Harry Potter book? Mary GrandPre: Well, first they send the manuscript and it's just usually on typed sheets of paper on 8 1/2 x 11 sheets, and it's usually a pretty big stack. Then I just read through and highlight visual descriptions of people and places so that I know how to draw them. I make ideas for chapter headings and ideas for cover art. Then I sketch out all the ideas and send them to the art director in New York and he either approves or has me redo, and then it just kind of goes back and forth a little bit during the pencil stages. Then, after it's approved by the art director, the publisher, and J.K. Rowling, then I start the final artwork with pastels, and I just take that through final stages. -------------------------------------------------------------------- As I recall (from past news items difficult to find now), none of the Bloomsbury illustrators read the books beforehand, but had to work from what they were told. I think GrandPre's PoA and GoF were the covers that were the most filled with little significant details, but the ones since then, it seems to me, have given us much less fodder for speculation. Annemehr P.S. For what it's worth, I concur with those who think GrandPre's cover melds several disparate elements into one scene. From homeboys at comcast.net Sun Apr 1 00:45:59 2007 From: homeboys at comcast.net (Adesa) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:45:59 -0000 Subject: Did Snape see Regulus's Death? (Was: Reading the Runes . . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166965 > Carol: > Thank you. It's an important point, IMO. I'm sure that young Snape > *saw* Regulus die, but if he had done it himself, I don't think that > JKR would have broken off where she did. I remain convinced that DD's > death is Snape's first murder, maybe even his first Unforgiveable Curse. Now Adesa: I've not kept up with this list on a regular basis for a while now, so forgive me if this has been covered before (hasn't it *all*? ;o>). I believe that Regulus is not dead, but in hiding. Didn't JKR have Dumbledore tell Draco (and us) that there are ways to make it seem as if you'd died, but you're really in the Wizarding World's Witness Protection Program? Add to this tidbit that Regulus and Snape could have been buddies, spies abound on both sides, and Dumbledore's firm faith in Snape, and I smell a plot twist. I just wonder where Harry will find Regulus. Most likely (in my mind) is at Godric's Hollow. Adesa in Virginia From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 01:07:36 2007 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:07:36 -0000 Subject: Who Does this Sound Like to You? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166966 I found some descriptions of Envy from Greek mythology and other sources on the internet. Who does this sound like to you? "Envy never smiles, except at the sight of someone else's troubles. She never sleeps either, because she is too disturbed with wakeful cares. She hates the success of others because at its sight she pines away. She is herself her own punishment because as she gnaws she is herself gnawed." "So Athena decided to visit Envy in her cave. Her home, filthy with black gore, is hidden in a valley where no sun shines, and no breeze blows." OVID "ENVY is frustrated desire turned destructive. Envy is what leads a child to break another child's favorite toy, or a boss to frustrate a talented employee. In Amadeus, Salieri enacts a highly theatrical version of envy as he sets out to destroy Mozart for effortlessly writing music far greater than all Salieri's labors can produce. Impotent to attain the ideal, the envious person feels detructive toward it. Like despair, envy derives from the separation of the person from the object of desire, combined with a sense that one is powerless to attain what is desired. In envy, the urge to reach out becomes the urge to destroy." "PHTHONOS was the god or spirit of jealousy and envy. He was particularly associated with the jealous passions generated by love." In Harry Potter .... He lives in a dark place with snakes and has a sallow complexion. He may have had passions for someone who he could not have, and is tortured by the memory of this lost love. He never smiles except at the sight of someone else's troubles(like Harry's). He wanders the halls at night ( he does not sleep well). Someone else got all the attention and all the glory. Someone else took something important away from him which he can never have. He is now reminded of this every day by the son who looks just like the man who did this to him. SEVERUS SNAPE ? Just a thought... RED EYE RANDY My opinions are : 1.Quirrell was Pride (could not see himself as he truly was in mirror) 2. Lockhart was Greed ( wanted what others had done for his own) 3. Lupin was Sloth ( was slow to act due to his regrets about life) 4. Moody was Lust (for vengence and retribution) 5. Umbridge was Anger ( it seemed to bubble up to the surface) 6. Slughorn was Gluttony ( he drinks and eats to much) 7. Snape could be Envy ( he is bitter and resentful toward Harry?) Or you could just make a case for Voldemort who seems to fit this description too. What do you think? From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 1 01:20:01 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:20:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG. References: Message-ID: <010f01c773fb$e2929030$a880400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166967 > Sophierom: > > Well, if it makes you feel any better, couldn't Dumbledore have been > unsurprised by Snape's betrayal? He's an old man who's probably seen > many betrayals in his time. Yes, he trusted Snape. But Dumbledore > also understands human nature. Magpie: Actually, he can't be. Because Snape hasn't "betrayed" him yet at the point where Dumbledore starts pleading. He's just entered the room--which is what Dumbledore already wanted earlier. Though that doesn't mean that Snape was always supposed to kill Dumbledore. It could just be what Snape knows he's supposed to do in this extreme scenario they hoped would never happen. Sophierom > So, I'm torn here ... do I rejoice that you may have joined the "dark" > side, or do I feel bad about your realization? ;-D Magpie: On one hand I can't feel badly because it's the way I see it.:-) Otoh, I've had that happen to me, where suddenly I saw something like that. It's kind of mind-blowing. -m (thinking about all those times Sydney suggested people act out the scene for this beat.:-) From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 01:20:50 2007 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:20:50 -0000 Subject: FYI on Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166968 SNIP > > Annemehr: > Actually, Mary GrandPre does read the books first, I suppose because > she does an illustration for each chapter heading as well as the > cover. > > I was searching for an old interview where she talked about this, but > I found a more recent one at Mugglenet, instead: > > http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/638 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Daniel: Could you describe the process of illustrating for a Harry > Potter book? > > Mary GrandPre: Well, first they send the manuscript and it's just > usually on typed sheets of paper on 8 1/2 x 11 sheets, and it's > usually a pretty big stack. Then I just read through and highlight > visual descriptions of people and places so that I know how to draw > them. I make ideas for chapter headings and ideas for cover art. Then > I sketch out all the ideas and send them to the art director in New > York and he either approves or has me redo, and then it just kind of > goes back and forth a little bit during the pencil stages. Then, > after it's approved by the art director, the publisher, and J.K. > Rowling, then I start the final artwork with pastels, and I just take > that through final stages. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- SNIP > Annemehr > SNIP DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS? Based on the last cover, this lady now lives in Sarasota, Florida. There is a manuscript of book seven within 30 miles of my house!!!! AAHHHHHHHHHH! The torture!!!!!!! My precious is so close and yet so far!! AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! Randy From sophierom at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 01:29:16 2007 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:29:16 -0000 Subject: I Had a Dream or HowI Realized That I May Have Been Wrong. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166969 > bboyminn: > I simply can't see a direct conscious plan for what > happened on the tower, but I can see a more general > all-encompassing plan and strategy that lead Snape > to make the terrible choice he made in that moment. Sophierom: I've been absent from this forum for a long while, so forgive me if I ask a question that's been answered a zillion times since the release of HBP. If you don't see Dumbledore's death as conscious plan hatched by DD and Snape, how do you interpret the discussion between Snape and Dumbledore overheard by Hagrid? (Chapter 19) Hagrid "heard Snape sayin' Dumbledore took too much fer granted an' maybe he - Snape - didn' wan' ter do it anymore-" (405). Do you agree with Harry there that Snape is trying to back off his investigation of Malfoy? Thanks! Sophie From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 1 01:47:14 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:47:14 -0000 Subject: Homorphus / Goats / Helga's Cup / Hit man Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166970 Goddlefrood wrote in : << Wolfsbane Potion seems to control a werewolf, but if there is such a thing as a Homorphus Charm as claimed by Gilderoy Lockhart in CoS (he said he cured a werewolf) then why is it not used on those, such as Remus, who clearly do not enjoy their lupine state. >> See tbe thread on Homorphus culminating in . Carol wrote in : << There's also that odd reference to inappropriate Charms on goats, which I trust will remain unexplained, >> IIRC some listie suggested that, altho' the joke is obvious, the reality is that he was trying to invent a way to get bezoars out of goats without hurting the goats. (Real bezoars are stomach hairballs usually from goats, but the medieval belief was that bezoars grow inside the skulls of toads, so the toad must be killed to extract one. If that were 'true', Neville, as a toad lover, would be trying to invent a way to extract the bezoar without harming the toad.) Related possibilities include trying to increase the production of bezoars and trying to make bezoars that cure even more things. I agree with you that Albus really has no doubt that Aberforth can read. Carol wrote in : << The cup, I just realized, can't be Helga Hufflepuff's since the one Hepzibah Smith had isn't described as being inlaid with stones, and they wouldn't be rubies if there were any--more likely topazes or whatever the yellow stones are in the Hufflepuff hourglass. >> The gold is the Hufflepuff yellow, so I imagine she'd inlay it with black stones -- maybe onyx? A black stone with white stripes like the Badger's face would be perfect -- is there such a thing as a cat's-eye onyx? Lupinlore wrote in : << if Harry dies the price of hit men will go through the roof, since JKR will have two publishing companies and a major studio putting out contracts on her >> No, they'll pressure her to write a prequel, maybe about James so Daniel Radcliffe can play the part, with a new actress as Lily. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Apr 1 01:56:22 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:56:22 -0000 Subject: I Had a Dream or HowI Realized That I May Have Been Wrong. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > I realize that this was just a revelation in a dream, > but I've alway had a problem with the admittedly > popular idea that Dumbledore /planned/ for Snape to > kill him. > I think Snape chose, from the perspective of the good > guys, to lose the moment. To lose a tremendous asset, > yet to preserve more valuable long term assets. Long > term assets like himself and Harry, that had a greater > potential to produce positive results down the road. > > I simply can't see a direct conscious plan for what > happened on the tower, but I can see a more general > all-encompassing plan and strategy that lead Snape > to make the terrible choice he made in that moment. Quick_Silver: While I agree with you about the whole greater good and Snape being a long term asset I wonder how much of Dumbledore's sacrifice on the Tower may turn out to be motivated by emotional factors? I think that Dumbledore honestly cared about Snape and would go out of his ways to protect Snape (I mean Dumbledore risked a lot for Draco...why not Snape too). That's why in the Vow debate, although my first inclination is that it's Snape and not Dumbledore's problem that Snape made that Vow, I think it can't be overlooked that Dumbledore would honestly try to save Snape (maybe even from himself). > Lastly, I'm absolutely convinced that Harry doesn't have > a chance without Snape's help, and Snape somehow > convincing Harry to accept his help is going to be a big > part of the plot of book 7. I can't imagine /how/ but > none the less, I am absolutely convinced it must be > done. Quick_Silver: Interesting. I'm basically leaning in the opposite direction...I think that Snape desperately needs Harry and Harry really doesn't need Snape anymore. Harry's little Horcrux hunt, with the expectation of the snake, Nagini (spelling?), seems very independent of current events and thus Snape's spying abilities and skills. On the other hand the only person that's left who has really challenged Voldemort is Harry so to it seems logical that Snape will have to make his way to Harry eventually (if he's on the good side). Quick_Silver From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Sun Apr 1 02:49:58 2007 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 101 "most" important remaining questions: pt. 1 of 101! Message-ID: <20070401024958.60746.qmail@web81212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166972 I vote for choice *a*... canon, canon, canon! The connection between Voldemort and Harry has been building since book one, and I look forward to the way this will play out in The Deathly Hallows. Since Harry proved to be a poor Occlumens (or Prof. Snape perhaps NOT agood Occlumency teacher) I wonder if Harry will try a new tactic, and figure out how to use the connection to his advantage. If Voldemort can read Harry's thoughts well enough to lure him to the Department of Mysteries, Perhaps Harry will use the connection to track down the Horcruxes. Combining Dumbledore's last lessons (the secrets of Tom Riddle's past) and this uncanny connection he has with Voldemort, Harry may be better armed than he thinks. -Witherwing From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 11:44:34 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:44:34 -0000 Subject: The Things You Can Find (Was Re: Homorphus / Goats / Helga's Cup / Hit man) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166973 A Small Diversion > Catlady in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165936 > I agree that the Homorphus Charm is real, because Lockhart stole his exploits, not invented them. I don't agree that the Homorphus Charm is a cure for lycanthropism, because if it were, someone would have tried it on Lupin by now, either his parents, who 'tried everything' or his clever friends who became Animagi for his sake. > Carol in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165957 > Exactly. And the name of the charm supports this interpretation: Homorphus = homo (Latin for man or human being) plus morphus (pseudo-Latin from the Greek morphe, change or transform) > Goddlefrood of the near past in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166481 > Perhaps the Homorphus Charm was only known to the wizard whose memory Gilderoy must have obliviated. (SNIP) > We also know from HBP that Lupin (at work but I apprehend during "A Very Frosty Christmas" chapter) that Greyback himself created Remus as a werewolf due to Lupin's parents upsetting either Fenrir himself or LV. > It would please this writer greatly if Remus were to somehow meet this wonder man with his memory restored and be himslef cured of his lycanthropy. Goddlefrood Now: Well, sidetracked again :-<, but this time in a good cause and ultimately to all our benefites, I hope. Catlady's post I took as an invitation to dig for clues :) Her referral earlier today (for me) led me to take a closer look at the etymology of Homorphus in a little depth. I enjoyed it, and here I now present my evidence: (i) Based on Carol Suspect Homo + Morphus (mixed Latin and Greek etymology) Morphe, meaning apoproximately in English change or transform. It is the root of Morpheus, noun: Morpheus - morfeeus, the Greek god of dreams. Some information on him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheus_%28mythology%29 My interpreatation would be that it then translates to a dream, and was never real. This I do not like, as indicated in the snippets from my previous above :). I could not commend this etymology as outlined above to you. (ii) My first suspect Homorphus - Home office (pronounced orfice). This would be the way HRH Queen Elizabeth II might pronounce this, and if that is the case then it is a pun in the manner of Knockturn Alley, Diagon Alley, and Golpalott's (gulp a lot). This is just a little fun, and would have no real significance if correct :) (iii) My second suspect Most similarly spelt real word Definitions homomorphous adj: Similar in form, especially if different otherwise. With reasonably straightforward extrapolations to be made. (iv) My third and favourite suspect "acardius (acar?di?us) (?-kahr?de-us) [a-1 + cardia] an imperfectly formed free twin fetus, lacking a heart and invariably lacking other body parts as well; called also fetus acardiacus. a. ace?phalus holoacardius acephalus. a. acor?mus holoacardius acormus. a. amor?phus holoacardius amorphus. a. an?ceps hemiacardius." Extracted from: http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppd ocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_a_05zPzhtm#12103691 (Probably need to paste this one into browser to get to it, for those interested :)) The bit that really got me was the word twin. Another little tortuous route to a clue. Remus the twin of Romulus is cured by the Homorphus charm :) that is . It is an outcome, as I stated before, that would please me greatly, rather like Remus do I :). Of course it may also suggest that Remus has no heart for the fight, but I, for one, would not agree with that ;). Note that amorphus sounds like Homorphus :) Goddlefrood, whose date for this post is 1612, the year of a Goblin rebellion as noted in PoA Chapter Five - The Dementor. It is also the year in which the Pendle witches were tried in Lancashire for, surprisingly, practising witchcraft, one of those on trial was Alice Nutter, crazy name, crazy gal :) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 1 17:00:16 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 1 Apr 2007 17:00:16 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/1/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1175446816.31.93513.m46@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166974 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 1, 2007 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 All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://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 gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 17:24:50 2007 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:24:50 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166975 Angie here: On the UK Kids' version: Just wondering if anyone else noticed that one of the coins depicts what appears to be a goblin (look under Ron's right foot)? I don't know where the trio is but I think that either Gringott's and/or the goblins will play a part in the final book. (I personally think at least one of the Horcruxes is at Gringott's.) Anyway, the goblin rebellions have been mentioned frequently throughout the series and some of the adults in either OOP or HBP were wondering if the goblins would stay neutral or be persuaded to help Voldemort. I just can't imagine that Voldemort wouldn't try to control the sole wizard bank... but will the goblins forget that goblin families were murdered by Voldemort's orders during his "previous" rise to power? > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > VAULT/TREASURE- > > > > > > > > I don't think this is a Gringott's vault, they just seem > > > > too hard to get into and I can't see any reason for the > > > > plot going there. However, - > > > > > > Talisman: > > > The idea of Gringott's has been developed and maintained > > sufficiently > > > throughout the course of the series, that I woulndn't be a bit > > > surprised to find us revisiting it in DH. > > > > > > Maybe finally seeing a dragon there, to boot. > > > > > > That said, I can't say I'm all that fussed about where the > depicted > > > *vault* is. > > > > From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Apr 1 17:26:36 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:26:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460FEB4C.6060002@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166976 > Carol responds: > He said he was "sobbing" because "it's a very emotional > book"--carefully evading the question, "that means somebody we like > dies, doesn't it?" > > We already *know* that "somebody we like" is going to die, not > including those two previously unplanned deaths (the weasley Twins)? > Personally, I think the "somebody we like" is someone JKR likes, > probably Hagrid. My prediction (and it's not a longshot piece of silliness, like the Deathly Hallows being cries from behind the Veil): the end of the novel portends the end of the Wizarding World. Bart From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 17:26:38 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:26:38 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166977 I am just getting into this discussion and do not have a good picture to work from, but here are my first impressions so far. If someone has a link to a better picture let me know. These are first impressions and a bit of free association. My first impression of the U.S. version is that they are behind the veil, because of the curtains on each side. The sky is the color that we associate with Fawkes, with fire, with DD. The strange building behind looks like the Colosseum in Rome, but I think that the Hogwarts Express train also runs on something that looks like that. And there are people watching. Is the figure LV or a Dementor? There looks like blood on Harry???s shirt near his heart. The people behind are not judges, they are witnesses. What is the black thing in front of LV and Harry? Is it a spider? Harry is looking up. LV is falling backwards and slipping out of his robes. Are we sure it is LV and not someone or something else? The UK Children???s cover is confusing. Why is one wearing a green robe and one a blue one? And Harry, a black one? Is this Harry, Ron and Hermione? The one is green has red hair, so must be Ron. Water and Fire is shown here and is Alchemy symbolism. The mixing of fire and water are a very important part of Alchemy. It is one of the last steps in producing the stone. It is the union of opposites. Fire colors are also the colors of Gryffindor. Do we have Gryffindor and Slytherin united in some form? Who has the sword? It is not Hermione or Harry. Ron, in his left hand? Or is this a clock? It looks like they are being sweep down a pipe again with the color of fire in the background. Maybe it is some place we have not seen before. And if it is a sword, why doesn???t Harry have it? That is all for now. Tonks_op (who has not been here for awhile. I have been very active at Yahoo Answers, Religion and Spirituality section.) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 17:48:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:48:01 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Homorphus Charm (Was: The Things You Can Find) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166978 Catlady in: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165936 > > > I agree that the Homorphus Charm is real, because Lockhart stole his exploits, not invented them. I don't agree that the Homorphus Charm is a cure for lycanthropism, because if it were, someone would have tried it on Lupin by now, either his parents, who 'tried everything' or his clever friends who became Animagi for his sake. > Carol in: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165957 > > > Exactly. And the name of the charm supports this interpretation: Homorphus = homo (Latin for man or human being) plus morphus (pseudo-Latin from the Greek morphe, change or transform) > Goddlefrood: > Catlady's post I > took as an invitation to dig for clues :) > > Her referral earlier today (for me) led me to take a closer > look at the etymology of Homorphus in a little depth. I enjoyed > it, and here I now present my evidence: > > (i) Based on Carol > > Suspect Homo + Morphus (mixed Latin and Greek etymology) > > Morphe, meaning apoproximately in English change or transform. > It is the root of Morpheus, noun: Morpheus - morfeeus, the > Greek god of dreams. Some information on him here: > > > Definitions homomorphous adj: > > Similar in form, especially if different otherwise. Carol responds: Mea culpa. I was thinking of "metamorphosis" and confusing "meta-" (change) with "morphe" ("form" or "shape"). (I may have been misled here by the Lexicon, which gives the meaning of "morph" as change." Are we all confused by the slangy verb "to morph"?) Be that as it may, I'll try again. "Homo" can mean either "same" (Greek) or "man"/"person" (Latin). But "similar external form or appearance but not [similar] structure or origin" (the definition I found for "homorphism" converted to adjective form) won't work for "Homorphus" (although JKR may have had the word in mind) because we're surely talking here about a *change* in shape or form (from rat to man or werewolf to man) as opposed to a *similar* form. (The spell doesn't change a werewolf to a wolf, which would be pointless, as would changing a rat Animagus to a mouse.) The whole point is to determine his identity (or prove that he's a wizard, not an animal). For that reason, I think we have to go with "man form" or "human form" as opposed to "same form" (or "similar form") for the meaning of "homo" plus "morphus." (The "-us" ending, as far as I can determine, simply serves to make the spell look Latin while retaining the -ous sound of the adjective "homomorphous." It appears to be a play on words, but not exactly a pun, like Knockturn Alley, Diagon Alley, and Knight Bus" or, perhaps better, the Disillusionment Charm, which actually "illusions" the person on whom it's performed. "Let me Disillusion you" is a JKR-style joke.) At any rate, we see what the Homorphus Charm (if it's the same spell, and, admittedly, we can't be sure) does to Peter Pettigrew. It forces him to return to his human form. I deduce that the same spell performed on a werewolf would also change him to his human form, but temporarily. As Catlady says in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165957 the spell can't be a cure for lycanthropy. If it were, Lupin would not have had to resort to Snape-made Wolfsbane Potion in PoA. I suspect that the transformation to human form in the case of a werewolf is fleeting because the influence of the full moon is stronger than the influence of the spell, which would last (as Catlady says) just long enough for the villagers to identify the werewolf. Again, "metamorphosis," which is essentially what's happening both to Pettigrew and (presumably temporarily) to the Wagga Wagga Werewolf, means change of form, a physical transformation. I think it may be profitable to look at another use of the root "morph(e)" in the HP books, the word "Metamorphmagus": essentially, "metamorph(osis)" plus "magus" ("magician" or "sorceror"), i.e., a wizard (or witch) who can change his (or her) form. If "morph" means "shape" or "form" im "metamorphmagus," as it surely must, I see no reason why it wouldn't have the same meaning in "Homorphus Charm": a charm that returns a seeming animal to human form, temporarily in the case of a werewolf at full moon. It's unfortunate that Lupin and Black don't shout an incantation in PoA. If they did, we'd have a better indication of whether the charm used on Pettigrew is the same one that Lockhart claims to have used on the werewolf. IMO, they're one and the same. Carol, apologizing for inadequate research in her previous post and hoping that her mental fog has lifted From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 17:57:02 2007 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:57:02 -0000 Subject: Veil and Archway Don't Match OOP Descriptions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166979 If someone pointed this out already, I missed it... The veil in the MOM is described as follows: "Unsupported by any surrounding wall, the archway was hung with a tattered black curtain or veil, which, despite the complete stillness of the cold surrounding air, was fluttering very slightly as though it had just been touched." OOP, U.S. edition at 773. Obviously, the veil or curtain on the U.S. cover is not black and tattered, although it does appear frayed at the bottom. Also, it may just be me, but I got the impression that the MOM veil hung straight down, maybe in one panel -- there is no suggestion that it was parted or that Harry saw thru it. In fact, Harry went around to the other side of the veil to see what was on the other side. For those who might suggest the veil looks different from "the other side", when Harry looked at the back of the veil, "All that could be seen was the other side of the tattered black veil." Then again, Harry was looking at the back side of the veil from the outside world, not from "Beyond the Veil." Similarly, if the archway on the U.K. Kids's version is supposed to be the archway on which the veil hangs, it does not match the MOM archway, which is described as "a stone archway that looked so ancient, cracked, and crumbling that Harry was amazing the thing was still standing." OOP, U.S. edition, at 773. The archway on the Kids' version looks rather intact to me. Angie From shamyn at pacbell.net Sun Apr 1 18:26:48 2007 From: shamyn at pacbell.net (Draeconin) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:26:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Veil and Archway Don't Match OOP Descriptions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460FF968.6010006@pacbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166980 gelite67 wrote: > The veil in the MOM is described as follows: > > "Unsupported by any surrounding wall, the archway was hung with a > tattered black curtain or veil, which, despite the complete stillness > of the cold surrounding air, was fluttering very slightly as though > it had just been touched." OOP, U.S. edition at 773. > > Obviously, the veil or curtain on the U.S. cover is not black and > tattered, although it does appear frayed at the bottom. > > Draeconin: In my 40+ years of reading books, I can say that 99% of the time the cover art will have only a peripheral relationship with the content of the book. The artists do not have the time to read every book they paint a picture for, and rely on descriptions from the publisher and/or author. The artist's job is NOT accuracy, but to create interest in the book. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ekrdg at verizon.net Sun Apr 1 18:26:54 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:26:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Veil and Archway Don't Match OOP Descriptions References: Message-ID: <003301c7748b$53eebee0$2f01a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> No: HPFGUIDX 166981 Angie wrote: The veil in the MOM is described as follows: "Unsupported by any surrounding wall, the archway was hung with a tattered black curtain or veil, which, despite the complete stillness of the cold surrounding air, was fluttering very slightly as though it had just been touched." OOP, U.S. edition at 773. Also, it may just be me, but I got the impression that the MOM veil hung straight down, maybe in one panel -- there is no suggestion that it was parted or that Harry saw thru it. In fact, Harry went around to the other side of the veil to see what was on the other side. For those who might suggest the veil looks different from "the other side", when Harry looked at the back of the veil, "All that could be seen was the other side of the tattered black veil." Kimberly's turn: Now see, I got the impression that it was described pretty accurately to what we saw on the cover. OotP, Amer. Ed. pg. 773 "...They were standing on the topmost tier of what seemed to be stone benches running all around the room and descending in steep steps like an amphitheater, or the courtroom in which Harry had been tried by the Wizengamot. Instead of a chained chair, however, there was a raised stone dais in the center of the lowered floor, and upon this dais stood a stone archway that looked so ancient, cracked, and crumbling that Harry was amazed the thing was still standing. Unsuppported by any surrounding wall, the archway was hung with a tattered black curtain or veil which, despite the complete stillness of the cold surrounding air, was fluttering very slightly as though it had just been touched." Except for the color, I thought it sounded like the same place. The stone benches around the room, the center being lower, a stone cracked and crumbled archway. As for the veil being all one piece rather than parted as it was on the cover. That could be purely to lend itself an artistic presence. MGP probably wanted to use the veil but if she made it all one piece we wouldn't have been able to see the rest of the scene she was depicting. Kimberly, who is convinced that Harry is in control of the situation on the cover and that LV looks for the first time, a bit worried. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 19:46:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:46:57 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: <460FEB4C.6060002@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166982 Carol earlier : > > He said he was "sobbing" because "it's a very emotional book"--carefully evading the question, "that means somebody we like dies, doesn't it?" > > > > We already *know* that "somebody we like" is going to die, not including those two previously unplanned deaths (the Weasley Twins)? Personally, I think the "somebody we like" is someone JKR likes, probably Hagrid. > Bart responded: > My prediction (and it's not a longshot piece of silliness, like the Deathly Hallows being cries from behind the Veil): the end of the novel portends the end of the Wizarding World. Carol again: As you know if you've read my recent posts, I'm basing my own predictions on genre conventions and JKR's known attitude toward Harry, as well as Harry's expression and Voldemort's posture in the Scholastic cover art. I can't find the quotation I'm looking for regarding JKR's attitude toward Harry's suffering (something about what she intends to do to him in the upcoming book), but regarding the death of Sirius Black, the first of the "meaningful" deaths, she says, "[Y]ou need to be very unpleasant and vicious to your characters [meaning the protagonists, I'm sure] to write heart-warming children's books." That sounds to me as if she intends to have Harry and his friends suffer but survive, with their magical world intact (however much it's in need of reform). Otherwise, I don't see how it could be "heart-warming." At any rate, I'm interested in knowing the basis for your prediction. I trust it isn't the tongue-in-cheek April Fool's Day post at Leaky about the signifcance of the curtains: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9667 "Curtains seem to be closing over the whole saga, the way they opened on the first cover. Dawn seems to be breaking on the wizarding world, Harry is kicking Voldy's overgrown butt, and a peaceful sense of ending, of wholeness, of finality, falls over the whole scene." The editors are joking about closing down the site because it's all over, folks, but even their faux announcement assumes victory and survival for Harry and peace for the WW. (And that's how I read the scene as well.) Carol, encouraging Bart to expand on his ideas From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 1 20:03:16 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:03:16 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > My first impression of the U.S. version is that they are behind the > veil, because of the curtains on each side. The sky is the color > that we associate with Fawkes, with fire, with DD. The strange > building behind looks like the Colosseum in Rome, but I think that > the Hogwarts Express train also runs on something that looks like > that. Geoff: I think that the probability of the train being involved in the way you mention it is very low. In all the books so far, JKR makes only passing references to the scenery outside the train. You are digressing into the world of "the medium that dare not speak its name". Just for information, the structure you refer to only occurs in the films and is, in fact, the Glenfinnan Viaduct on the West Highland line from Fort William to Mallaig. So, unless JKR specifically brings this into Book 7, I doubt very much whether the cover drawing is meant to hint at the train's involvement. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 20:56:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:56:14 -0000 Subject: Veil and Archway Don't Match OOP Descriptions In-Reply-To: <460FF968.6010006@pacbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166984 Draeconin wrote: > > In my 40+ years of reading books, I can say that 99% of the time the cover art will have only a peripheral relationship with the content of the book. The artists do not have the time to read every book they paint a picture for, and rely on descriptions from the publisher and/or author. The artist's job is NOT accuracy, but to create interest in the book. Carol responds: With regard to book covers in general, I'd say that your statement is true, though as a former assistant production editor, I've seen authors provide input for the cover designs which may or may not be heeded by the book designers. The wrong cover art can be very upsetting to an author, as the Ballantine covers were for J.R.R. Tolkien. http://www.cafes.net/ditch/tril.jpg I imagine that JKR had a similar reaction to the original back cover of the Bloomsbury children's edition of PS: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/bloomsbury-ps-back.jpg Setting aside the relative artistic merit of the HP Scholastic cover art by Mary GrandPre (which has definitely improved since SS and CoS) and the inaccuracy or cartoonishness of some of the chapter art (save me from her conception of Snape or Aunt Petunia), we do know that she has read, or at least skimmed, the books, as a previous poster indicate with a link to a GrandPre interview. Moreover, if we examine the Scholastic HP covers, we see that they do indeed provide a good indication of what's going on in the books (even if Fluffy is considerably larger than he ought to be and misplaced and Quirrel!mort, on the back cover, is hiding behind a curtain and holding a candle). The later covers are better, especially from GoF forward. The SS front cover http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/ss-cover-large.jpg at least gives us Harry on a broom catching a winged golden ball, a castle, a forest, a three-headed dog, and a unicorn. The CoS front cover http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/cs-cover-large.jpg gives us Harry wearing a sword and holding the tail of a Phoenix in front of the chamber of secrets, complete with lots of snake imagery. Granted, it's fancifully depicted and the font for "and the Chamber of Secrets" is chosen to suggest the "Enemies of the Heir beware" message, which actually appears in a corridor elsewhere in the story, but despite some inaccuracies, the cover does give a fair indication of the book's contents. The PoA cover http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/pa-cover-large.jpg and http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/pa-cover-large.jpg shows Harry and Hermione riding on a hippogriff, with the scruffy shadow of Sirius Black looking up at them (that part is a bit fanciful) and, on the back, hooded Dementors (rather Black-Riderish in their facelessness), the Whomping willow, and Crookshanks. The GoF cover (where see greatly improved art) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/gf-cover-large.jpg shows Harry holding a golden egg (and his wand) with the other three TWT champions behind him. In front of him is a spiky something suggesting the Hungarian Horntail (the back cover, which I don't have an image of, also suggests dragons). Dog!Sirius appears to be peeking over a hedge. The OoP cover http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/op/rg-op00.html shows Harry looking over his shoulder in a blue-lit, candle-filled circular room with several open doors in front of him, obviously the entrance chamber of the DoM. On the back, peeking through a door in what is obviously the same building, are Tonks, Lupin, and Mad-Eye. A wisp of smoke of cloud is coming out of the door (from the broken Prophecy orbs?). Sirius, or his head, anyway, looks out another door. In the back is another open door through which we see only a shadow (don't know what that's about). The HBP cover http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/cover-hbp-large.jpg shows Dumbledore (unfortunately with an uninjured right hand) and a left-handed Harry looking into a cracked, Pensievlike bowl on a pedestal. Swirling green light comes out of the bowl and suffuses the cover. The back cover, for which unfortunately I don't have an image, shows Ron, Hermione and ginny at night, with a shadowy Hogwarts in the background, looking up at a Dark Mark in the sky. While details such as that last one (Ron, Hermione, and Ginny actually outside looking at the Dark Mark) are technically inaccurate, the covers, especially the later ones, really do suggest what's going to happen in the books. Bearing all that in mind, I think that we can deduce from the Scholastic cover of DH at least something of what's going to happen. The rubble at the front may not be related to the Voldemort/Harry scene at all, and the background is probably rendered with more than a few artistic liberties. (For example, the curtains may represent the Veil and the round amphitheaterlike structure may represent the Death Room. If so, we're seeing an artist's conception rather than faithfully imitated details from the book. Or they may represent something else altogether.) We do *know* that the hooded figure is Voldemort, despite those uncanonically rendered hands. I think we can safely speculate that this scene represents the final confrontation, and that the lighting, Harry's hopeful expression as he reaches out, the apparent fear of Voldemort, even the odd wandlessness represent fairly faithfully what we can expect in that final scene. The lighting is particularly interesting, as the circular room *was* lit by blue-flamed candles and the Pensievelike bowl containing th horrible potion *did* give off a green glow. It's the type of detail that Mary GrandPre would, IMO. pay particular attention to. Carol, not sure whether the Bloomsbury artist read the book but fairly sure that such a detailed rendering, particular the proliferation of rubies and no other precious stones, suggests that he did From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 1 21:03:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:03:40 -0000 Subject: Veil and Archway Don't Match OOP Descriptions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166985 Oops. I gave the links for the the PoA covers as http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/pa-cover-large.jpg and http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/pa-cover-large.jpg That's the same link twice. The back cover link should be http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/covers/pa-back-cover.jpg Carol, hoping that this correction doesn't count as a post 'cause the List Elves have asked her not to delete and repost! From irisraem at gmail.com Sun Apr 1 20:22:04 2007 From: irisraem at gmail.com (irisraem) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:22:04 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166986 > Angie here: > On the UK Kids' version: Just wondering if anyone else > noticed that one of the coins depicts what appears to be > a goblin (look under Ron's right foot)? > > I don't know where the trio is but I think that either > Gringott's and/or the goblins will play a part in the > final book. Hi, I just saw the same thing! I thought it was Dobby though. He is holding the Gryffindor sword(?) or another sword. Could also be a goblin of course. It looks like they are being sucked into that thing Sirius also "fell" through.... Iris From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 00:38:34 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:38:34 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166987 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Strangest thing happened to me few days ago. I mean dream was not the > strangest thing per se. I am sure some other people had HP related > dreams (or at least I hope so) > > I dreamt about the Tower, lol. And I heard in my dream Dumbledore > pleading with Snape and it finally hit on me (DUH, Alla) that > Dumbledore indeed does not show surprise before he pleads with Snape. > Therefore he indeed must have plead with Snape to do something that he > asked him to do before. > > This is a sad day for me, people. I have to go and absorb the > Dumbledore who could ask Snape to do that. Bye. > > Alla, shrieking in the Shack. > Alla: Well, no, I really did not have that dream. At least not yet. Happy April fools everybody :) P.S. Oh, and Ceridwen also wishes to point out that she still has faith in JKR abilities to portray the complex Snape, hehe. P.S.1. The argument I brought up is by no means mine ( I think Sydney was the one who brought it up first, but I may be wrong), neither do I think that the fact that Dumbledore is not surprised when Snape appears on the tower **before** Snape kills him, proves anything with certainty. P.S.2. If anybody wants to say something to us which is not related to canon events, please reply offlist :) Alla, runs away with amazing speed to hide behind Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Apr 2 00:46:02 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:46:02 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166988 Alla: > > > Well, no, I really did not have that dream. At least not yet. > > Happy April fools everybody :) > > P.S. Oh, and Ceridwen also wishes to point out that she still has > faith in JKR abilities to portray the complex Snape, hehe. > > P.S.1. > > The argument I brought up is by no means mine ( I think Sydney was > the one who brought it up first, but I may be wrong), neither do I > think that the fact that Dumbledore is not surprised when Snape > appears on the tower **before** Snape kills him, proves anything > with certainty. > > P.S.2. > > If anybody wants to say something to us which is not related to > canon events, please reply offlist :) > > Alla, > > runs away with amazing speed to hide behind Ceridwen. Ceridwen: Yes, I do still have faith that JKR will give us a great ending to the series and that Snape will be a complex adversary worthy of Our Hero, and of years of re-reading enjoyment. In the best tradition of pranks, we wish Gred and Forge Weasley a very happy birthday and many, many happy prankings. Awaiting the tomato storm, Ceridwen. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 01:39:41 2007 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:39:41 -0000 Subject: U.S. Cover: Contemporaneous Events? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166989 I'm not sure if I am "correctly" interpreting everyone's interpretations of the U.S. cover. :) Is it the general belief that whatever is happening is happening at once, all in the same place? That the individuals in the background are witnessing what is happening b/w Harry and Voldemort as it is happening? I don't think that is necessarily so, if past covers are any example. For example, the Scholastic GOF cover depicts Harry holding the golden egg, Fleur, Cedric, Krum, Sirius the Dog, a dementor, and presumably part of a dragon. Yet, Sirius was never in the presence of the other champions, the egg, or the dragon, was he? Nor was the dementor. Obviously, the bit with Harry and Voldemort refers to their final showdown. Maybe the frayed curtains and broken wood represent the Potters' home that was destroyed, that Harry is expected to visit early on in the book, after the wedding? Can't think of any suggested "timing" for the individuals in the background, but I find it hard to believe the Harry-Voldemort smackdown will be a mass-spectator event. Angie (hoping she hasn't exceeded her max. posts) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 02:49:27 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:49:27 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Homorphus Charm (Was: The Things You Can Find) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166990 > Carol in: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165957 > > > Exactly. And the name of the charm supports this interpretation: Homorphus = homo (Latin for man or human being) plus morphus (pseudo-Latin from the Greek morphe, change or transform) > Goddlefrood: > > > Catlady's post I took as an invitation to dig for clues :) > > > > Her referral earlier today (for me) led me to take a closer > > look at the etymology of Homorphus in a little depth. I > > enjoyed it, and here I now present my evidence: > > > > (i) Based on Carol > > > > Suspect Homo + Morphus (mixed Latin and Greek etymology) > > > > Morphe, meaning apoproximately in English change or transform. > > It is the root of Morpheus, noun: Morpheus - morfeeus, the > > Greek god of dreams. Some information on him here: > > - This snip by Carol includes the bit that clearly indicates the next definition was my suspect number one, if you're not already confused ;) > > > > Definitions homomorphous adj: > > > > Similar in form, especially if different otherwise. > > > Carol responds: > Mea culpa. Goddlefrood: Indeed, mens rea etc, established ;) > Carol: > I'll try again. Goddlefrood: Do go on, you interest me strangely :) > Carol: (SNIP) Latin / Greek bits (in many ways ;)) > At any rate, we see what the Homorphus Charm (if it's the same spell, and, admittedly, we can't be sure) does to Peter Pettigrew. It forces him to return to his human form. Goddlefrood: If the Homorphus charm were as easy as you make out, can it honestly be believed that Lupin, or any other werewolf would remain one? The spell cast in the Shrieking Shack to reveal Peter was, in my very humble opinion, unrelated in any way to the Homorphus charm. It is a not unreasonable conclusion to make that the *only* person aware of this charm was the poor wizard whose memory of it had been obliviated by Gilderoy Lockhart. He or she should be found immediately! Cure the werewolves if possible, take them out of play! (iv) In my previous is commended as preferred etymology, but thank you, Carol, for acknowledging the value of research :). Perhaps Catlady on her next visit could decide which interpretation she likes best ;) Goddlefrood, whose date for this post is 1473, the year of the first Quidditch World Cup (odd how so many have been held in the intervening period unless they were once more regular than they now are in canon:)), it is also the same year in which, amongst other things, Jean Lemaire de Belges, a famous Belgian, or Wallonian if preferred, was born :). Nice name, great poet. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 04:19:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 04:19:55 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Homorphus Charm (Was: The Things You Can Find) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166991 Carol earlier: > > Mea culpa. > > Goddlefrood: > > Indeed, mens rea etc, established ;) Carol again: Hmph. Do I dare quote Henry VI, Part 2: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"? > Carol earlier: > > > I'll try again. > > Goddlefrood: > > Do go on, you interest me strangely :) Carol again: Not sure why; we seldom agree. > Goddlefrood: > (SNIP) Latin / Greek bits (in many ways ;)) Carol: The Latin and Greek bits (see upthread) are central to my point, which is that "Homorphus" means (according to my reading, which I prefer to yours) "human form." *If* I'm correct, the spell that Lupin and Pettigrew use to restore Pettigrew to *human form* is very likely to be the Homorphus Charm. > As I said earlier: > > At any rate, we see what the Homorphus Charm (if it's the same spell, and, admittedly, we can't be sure) does to Peter Pettigrew. It forces him to return to his human form. > > Goddlefrood: > > If the Homorphus charm were as easy as you make out, can it > honestly be believed that Lupin, or any other werewolf would > remain one? Carol: I addressed this point (as did Catlady earlier) in a snipped portion of the post you're quoting. Here it is again (see especially the italicized line): > > I deduce that the same spell performed on a werewolf would also change him to his human form, but temporarily. As Catlady says in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165957 the spell can't be a cure for lycanthropy. If it were, Lupin would not have had to resort to Snape-made Wolfsbane Potion in PoA. *I suspect that the transformation to human form in the case of a werewolf is fleeting because the influence of the full moon is stronger than the influence of the spell, which would last (as Catlady says) just long enough for the villagers to identify the werewolf.* > Goddlefrood: > The spell cast in the Shrieking Shack to reveal Peter was, in my very humble opinion, unrelated in any way to the Homorphus charm. Carol: The etymology, homo = man and morph = form, suggests otherwise. Goddlefrood: It is a not unreasonable conclusion to make that the *only* person aware of this charm was the poor wizard whose memory of it had been obliviated by Gilderoy Lockhart. He or she should be found immediately! Cure the werewolves if possible, take them out of play! Carol responds: The person whose memory was Obliviated can't be the only person aware of it. If it's permanent, the werewolf himself and the villagers would know (assuming that Lockhart didn't invent the whole story, and canon suggests that he didn't). Moreover, Lockhart's books, including "wandering with Werewolves," are highly popular and widely read. And even if Harry and Ron never read their books for Lockhart's class, Hermione did (canon available on request). she would know what the Homorphus Charm did, and if it were a cure for lycanthropy, she would certainly have informed Lupin when he and she were both at 12 GP. Besides, DADA is Lupin's area of expertise. If a charm existed that would transform a werewolf permanently, he would know about it. (He certainly knows about the spell to transform an Animagus from animal form to human form since he used it himself; I think it's the same spell, and that he knows it won't work on him, at least not for more than an instant. IMO, it's only useful for identifying the werewolf, not for curing him.) As for taking werewolves "out of play," providing them all with Wolfsbane Potion as a public service would serve the same purpose--not a cure, admittedly, but it renders them peaceful and harmless. > Goddlefrood: > (iv) In my previous is commended as preferred etymology, but > thank you, Carol, for acknowledging the value of research :). > Perhaps Catlady on her next visit could decide which > interpretation she likes best ;) Carol: "Preferred" in the sense that you prefer it. I prefer mine, which makes mine the "preferred etymology" from my perspective. It remains to be seen what other people think, assuming that hey're interested in etymology at all. Catlady or anyone else is, of course, welcome to join in the debate. As for the value of research, believe me, I know that already, having spent more than a year writing a 600-plus page doctoral dissertation (and many other research papers during my career as a graduate student). My average post is probably three times the length of the average poster's, much of that length being quotations from canon or other sources. The problem for all of us is that research is very time-consuming, and it's a whole lot easier to work from memory. If we forget a detail, such as DD's presence in the photograph of the old Order , someone on the list is sure to point out the oversight or blunder. Carol, wondering if everyone caught the April Fool's post on Mugglenet in which we discover, among other revelations, that Snape is Aberforth's long-lost love child http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/760 From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 11:38:34 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:38:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Etymology of Homorphus Charm (Was: The Things You Can Find) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40704020438m7103309cl5e00fd43b859a777@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166992 montims: Innocently I ask, is this not a play on "amorphous" in the same way as other plays on word used in the series, with the twist of being homorphous - having the shape of a man, rather than amorphous, having no shape at all? I think it just reveals the shape of the man inside the creature. But I'm not a great scholar... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lydiafrench at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 13:08:30 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:08:30 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166993 Carol: > I think and hope we've seen the last reference to "your > mother's eyes." (I fully realize that the Snape/Lily theorists think > differently on this question.) firefly: Sorry, JKR has stated that in book 7 :The fact that Harry "has his mother's eyes" will prove to be an important plot point. So there is still more to come and with Petunia also showing some signs of being important it all seems to be pointing to Lilly's side of the family/bloodline! From lydiafrench at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 12:30:09 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:30:09 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166994 bboyminn: > Now, it is possible that Harry and Riddle are related, > but how does that change any thing? How does that change > or advance the plot, or alter Harry's approach to the > problem? > > Many things 'could be', but to what end? > > If you believe they are related (Harry and Tom R.) then > what is the plot purpose of this? > > FireFly speculated that it might explain how or why > Tom Riddle's curse backfired, but does it? Why would > a person not be able to curse their relatives? > > It is a fair speculation since the similarities between > Harry and Tom have been mentioned, but, once again, > what plot purpose does it serve? Is Voldemort going to > go, 'Oh so your my nephew, well then, never mind'? I > don't think so. Is Harry going to go, 'Oh so your my > Uncle, well then never mind, take over the world'? I > don't think so. firefly: Honestly? You don't see what impact discovering a blood connection between Harry and Voldemort could have on plot? Well, if I follow my own, granted, rather dilapitated and by now derailed, (see quote by JKR herself on the matter)train of thought, the plot point was to come round to and illustrate JKR's running theme of the power of personal choice over "fate". Harry has much of the same physical qualities of LV, LV accidentally even gave him much of the same majical abilities and Harry had become renowned, seen in the public eye as heroic, the anti-Voldemort. His "equal", as the prophecy foresaw but the difference, with a blood relationship established, the ONLY difference, would be the Power of Love and of Pesonal Choice. That being the case, I think the plot would actually have turned on a showdown where Harry would CHOOSE not to be a murderer, disproving even the prophecy's power over the human spirit. And maybe then Neville would run up and destroy the last Horcrux which, with his newly returned memory, he would realise was actually the vulture at the top of his grandmothers old hat! Yeah! And then Voldemort would learn his lesson, see that ANYONE can change,even if evil seems to be in their blood, repent and will end up being the best darn Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher than Hogwarts has ever seen! Thanks for your two-cents, there's your change. firefly From lydiafrench at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 12:42:47 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:42:47 -0000 Subject: Who Does this Sound Like to You? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166995 RED EYE RANDY wrote: > My opinions are : > > 1.Quirrell was Pride (could not see himself as he truly was in mirror) > 2. Lockhart was Greed ( wanted what others had done for his own) > 3. Lupin was Sloth ( was slow to act due to his regrets about life) > 4. Moody was Lust (for vengence and retribution) > 5. Umbridge was Anger ( it seemed to bubble up to the surface) > 6. Slughorn was Gluttony ( he drinks and eats to much) > 7. Snape could be Envy ( he is bitter and resentful toward Harry?) > > Or you could just make a case for Voldemort who seems to fit this > description too. firefly: This is really interesting!! Nice work putting this all together. One correction, Lockhart would HAVE to be Vanity! Greed could be Lucious Malfoy or Voldemort himself. Greedy for all Power? thanks again! firefly From shawn.beach.sp54 at statefarm.com Mon Apr 2 15:10:54 2007 From: shawn.beach.sp54 at statefarm.com (Shawn Beach) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:10:54 -0700 Subject: US Cover a dream? Message-ID: <20253DF9635FD5438442BBC8397BBE740317B186@WPSCV6NF.OPR.STATEFARM.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 166996 It just occurred to me that the US cover might in fact depict an important dream/nightmare of Harry's in which he has to face Voldemort in front a crowd of spectators (hence the Amphitheatre.) Could be flashes of Harry's nerves regarding the Tri-Wizard Tournament or Quidditch matches, since Harry is now facing his most important "match" ever. The dream might even help him realize a key detail to the plot. We've seen a lot of Harry's dreams before... Has there been one in every book? Shawn From shmantzel at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 15:18:16 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who Does this Sound Like to You? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <872683.14715.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166997 RED EYE RANDY wrote: > My opinions are : > > 1.Quirrell was Pride (could not see himself as he truly was in mirror) > 2. Lockhart was Greed ( wanted what others had done for his own) > 3. Lupin was Sloth ( was slow to act due to his regrets about life) > 4. Moody was Lust (for vengence and retribution) > 5. Umbridge was Anger ( it seemed to bubble up to the surface) > 6. Slughorn was Gluttony ( he drinks and eats to much) > 7. Snape could be Envy ( he is bitter and resentful toward Harry?) firefly: This is really interesting!! Nice work putting this all together. One correction, Lockhart would HAVE to be Vanity! Greed could be Lucious Malfoy or Voldemort himself. Greedy for all Power? Dantzel replies: Hmm.... I think the 7 were Hogwarts teachers, which Lucius and Voldemort have not been. I think Gluttony describes Slughorn pretty well, but he's not a DADA teacher, which all the rest were. From lydiafrench at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 11:59:11 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:59:11 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0703301434k35588310i25dde4115ae0e48e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166998 firefly, earlier: > Ever since I was convinced by a paper on > Mugglenet.comthat Harry could > not, in fact be a Horcrux, I've had an idea brewing in my head. > There is no denying Tom Riddle/Voldemort and Harry Potter have many > similarities now. Both being Parseltongues, for example. However, we > have been led to assume it all came from/after Tom's attack on > Harry. Lynda: > I never have assumed this. I read enough to fantasy/SF/mystery to > know better than to assume such a thing and have been in fact, more > than a little bemused by what seems to be many peoples' assumption > that many of Harry's abilities are strictly due to the attack from > Voldie when he was a baby. To me that leaves too many questions > unanswered. But then again I may be barking up the wrong tree here. firefly: I know what you mean! Whenever I find a train of thought that relies on assumptions concerning ANYTHING in JKR books I feel a shock of danger run up my spine! "Warning! She could be messing with your head, don't be too sure of anything! Tread carefully!" Still, it's in our nature, and she seems to have provided the clues, to try to weed out the truth of the situation if we look hard enough, think logically enough... and get lucky! firefly From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Mon Apr 2 15:59:04 2007 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:59:04 -0000 Subject: Book Cover/Prophecy Orb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Molinari" wrote: > > Does anyone think the image of the snake in the glass ball on the UK > Children's cover resembles a Prophecy Orb? Could we expect another gem > from Prof. Trelawney, perhaps leading Harry to a show down with > Voldemort? After all ... third time's the charm ;) > Laura: : ) !!!! Haha. Maybe the third prophesy contains the words to a new charm that Harry will need. Probably not, but I'd love to see her make something "real" out of "third time's a charm"!!!! I really enjoy the places where she enlightens us as to why things happen in our real world. Like the shrinking key idea or, in the movie POA, the Knight Bus having set off the car alarm and Tom shutting down the system. Laura From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Apr 2 16:04:42 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:04:42 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167000 firefly: > > Sorry, JKR has stated that in book 7 :The fact that Harry "has his > mother's eyes" will prove to be an important plot point. Ceridwen: Actually, no. I did a search, and could only come up with vague references to some time in the future from the dates that the question was answered: Asked about Harry's parents: JKR: "Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and that's very important in a future book." Boston Globe, 18 Oct 1999: http://www.accio- quote.org/articles/1999/1099-bostonglobe-loer.html#eyes Another question and answer session: Q: "Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes." JKR: "Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I'm going to say no more, very clever." cBBC Newsround, 8 Jul 2000 http://www.accio- quote.org/articles/2000/0700-cbbc-mzimba.htm Nothing about when the eye link comes into play. For all we know, the effect of Harry's eyes on Slughorn, which he used at least twice in HBP, is the end of it. I don't find it satisfying in light of the hoopla everyone's made out of it, but it could be that this is the only importance Lily's eyes in Harry's head might have, and the hoopla was just building castles in the air. Of course, Slughorn's unadulterated memory was very important, so I shouldn't say that the Lily connection in HBP wasn't much. But JKR didn't say the eyes would come into play in DH, just in some book not yet released in 1999 and 2000 respectively. HBP, among others, fits that description. Ceridwen. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 2 16:34:19 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:34:19 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167001 "justcarol67" wrote: > I can't find the quotation I'm looking > for regarding JKR's attitude toward > Harry's suffering JKR was asked if she could take one of her characters to dinner who would it be? Immediately she said "Harry to apologize to him." She then paused and said she would pick Ron and Hermione because "I know who's dead". I would interpret that to mean Ron and Hermione will survive but Harry will not. At any rate it doesn't sound like the story is going to have a happily ever after ending. Eggplant From awedekind at fsgbooks.com Mon Apr 2 16:10:34 2007 From: awedekind at fsgbooks.com (grackel13) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:10:34 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: <460FEB4C.6060002@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167002 Bart wrote: *SNIP* My prediction (and it's not a longshot piece of silliness, like the Deathly Hallows being cries from behind the Veil): the end of the novel portends the end of the Wizarding World. --Bart *SNIP* Grackel13: Hello, this is my first post -- please forgive any infelicities (or just edit 'em out, I suppose!). The end of the WW would indeed be occasion for sobbing -- we have a really good example of exactly how poignant and harrowing this can be in the Lloyd Alexander Prydain chronicles, in which the overthrow of evil precipitates the leaching of magic from the world. Very, very affecting. But I don't believe it's going to happen to the whole world -- only to Voldemort. I've always suspected that Dumbledore's spell, the one with the hollow, gong-like note, was an attempt to strip Voldemort of his magic, and I've always nursed the hope that is how Harry will defeat Lord Thingy -- not by causing his death, but by stripping him of power, which would be, for Voldy, worse than death...though he doesn't realize it. Perhaps this has already been thoroughly hashed out in earlier discusions, and if so -- apologies. But perhaps not? Any thoughts would be eagerly read.... Grackel13 From penhaligon at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 16:55:17 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Suzanne Chiles aka Panhandle) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:55:17 -0700 Subject: The Bill Connection Message-ID: <46113575.9050905@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167003 I think that Bill is going to be an important resource for Harry in Book 7. We know that Bill is a curse breaker for Gringott's and I don't believe that curse breaking is something that Harry knows a lot about, but is going to need to know how to do if he's going to complete his task. It seems we've been set up to believe that Book 7 will have the Trio and many members of the Order together (at the Burrow, I presume) for Bill and Fleur's wedding. This would be an excellent opportunity for Harry to consult with Bill and to learn some of the techniques he's going to need once he gets his hands on those horcruxes. Panhandle -- Suzanne Chiles aka Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com homescribe.wordpress.com From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 2 16:52:00 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Uncle Tom? Message-ID: <23071930.1175532720593.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167004 From: fireflyseason2 >That being the case, I think the plot would actually have >turned on a showdown where Harry would CHOOSE not to be a murderer, >disproving even the prophecy's power over the human spirit. Bart: I see Voldemort dying in an advanced version of the legendary monkey trap (the one where there is a piece of fruit in a jar that is attached to the ground. The fruit is about as wide as the opening in the jar. A monkey reaches in, but finds there is not enough room for the fruit AND its hand, and remains trapped because of its refusal to let go of the fruit). Harry will be in a position where he can save Voldemort's life, but _CAN_ (note the emphasis) only do so if Voldemort gives up something precious (like the last Horcrux). Bart From k.coble at comcast.net Mon Apr 2 17:17:42 2007 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:17:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5A7A1D6B-1E56-49AD-8A35-79C3C4957B30@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167005 I've been on this list for a long time now. Mostly I'm all discussed- out, having hashed through most of the issues already. But I'm continually amazed, and now kind of disappointed, at all of the posts which seem to be almost GLEEFUL in their hope that Harry die. What do those of you who insist on this eventuality expect to gain by it? Why the constant posts about how not only is it inevitable but those of us who do not hope for Harry's death are too foolish to appreciate Great Literature? This last book is going to be hard on all of us. We're die-hard fans for whom these books have become a sort of good friend. Regardless of any outcome in DH itself, the ending of these books will be a eucatastrophe for many of us. Something we love is over. Whether Harry dies or Harry lives, the series will have 'died', in that it's lifespan will be over. I think it's difficult enough for us to deal with the death of the series itself, that for many fans the death of Harry or certain other beloved characters is not something we like to ponder. There are a lot of posts hitting my inbox over the last week which seem almost cruel in the relentless way they predict Harry's death. Why are those of you who write those posts so insistent on that point of view? It seems like a lot of puppy-kicking. Katherine From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 18:55:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:55:30 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167006 I accidentally sent this post to the list owners instead of the group. My apologies for any duplication of Ceridwen's points. It was written before her message appeared. Carol earlier: > > I think and hope we've seen the last reference to "your mother's eyes." (I fully realize that the Snape/Lily theorists think differently on this question.) > firefly responded: > Sorry, JKR has stated that in book 7 :The fact that Harry "has his mother's eyes" will prove to be an important plot point. Carol again: I'm familiar with the quotes, which do not specifically refer to Book 7. The first is from 1999 and could have referred to any book from GoF onward: [Question]: Do you know what Harry's parents look like? [JKR]: Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and that's very important in a future book. Loer, Stephanie. "All about Harry Potter from quidditch to the future of the Sorting Hat," The Boston Globe, October 18, 1999 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-bostonglobe-loer.html The point is alluded to again but not directly answered in the 2000 Newsround interview, which follows the publication of GoF: [Questioner]: Are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? JKR: Why do you want to know this? [Questioner]: Well because everyone always go on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes. JKR: Aren't you smart - there is something, maybe coming about that, I'm going to say no more - very clever. So "something maybe coming about that" could refer either to special wizarding powers that depend on wizards using their eyes (Legilimency and Occlumency) or to Harry having Lily's eyes or both. The question and answer preceded GoF and again did not specify a particular book. (The "special wizarding powers," of course, appeared in OoP.) "JK Rowling talks about Book Four," cBBC Newsround, July 8, 2000 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-cbbc-mzimba.htm No indication whatever that the significance of Harry's having Lily's eyes would be revealed in book 7. She could have been referring to 5, 6, or 7 (or, IMO, to 5 *and* 6 because the "special wizarding skill" and "Lily's eyes" are two separate topics. The fact that Harry has Lily's eyes has *already* proved important. Harry would not have been able to retrieve the true memory from Slughorn is his eyes didn't remind Slughorn of Lily's. Slughorn, unlike virtually everyone else, is constantly reminded of Lily rather than James when he sees Harry, and that reminder, combined with his sentimental fondness for Lily's memory and his guilt about having talked to Tom Riddle about Horcruxes, is what enables Harry to retrieve the true memory from Slughorn. That was a *very* important plot point. I doubt that it will be repeated with a different character in Book 7. Re Lily/Snape: If Snape, who has looked into Harry's eyes many times, were going to see Lily there, surely, he'd have seen her there immediately. Instead, Professor Snape says nothing whatever about Lily. All he sees when he looks at Harry is James (and a Chosen One who's not up to snuff). Carol, thinking that perhaps we should not trust our memories regarding interview quotes (or, in my case, publishing dates) From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 19:24:35 2007 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0000 Subject: Alla's Dream Joke (was I HAD A DREAM...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167007 Alla, in what turned out to be an April Fool's Joke wrote: > I dreamt about the Tower, lol. And I heard in my dream Dumbledore > pleading with Snape and it finally hit on me (DUH, Alla) that > Dumbledore indeed does not show surprise before he pleads with Snape. > Therefore he indeed must have plead with Snape to do something that he > asked him to do before. > > This is a sad day for me, people. I have to go and absorb the > Dumbledore who could ask Snape to do that. Bye. Ginger: Alla, Alla, Alla. Call me a fish. You had me hook, line, and sinker. I was all prepared to post for your approval a theory that has been in the back of my mind for months now. I haven't posted it because I've been hundreds of posts behind, and with one thing and another, by the time I'd get caught up, it was too late or someone had posted something similar. (Bow to Quick_Silver and also thanking Steve for his previous analyses which made the timeline of this theory possible.) However, as punishment for your joke, I am going to post my theory anyway. You are hereby condemned to read it as penance for your actions. Um, if you want to, that is. I wouldn't actually threaten an elf. Here's the theory: Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him temporarily, but it didn't work out that way. It all started in my head with a memory of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. In that episode, Tasha Yar was bound by the laws of the planet they were visiting to fight another woman to the death. She either had to kill or be killed. They resolved the problem by having Tasha poison the other woman in the battle, the doctor pronounced the other women dead, and then gave her an antidote, which jump-started her heart and got her living again. The laws of the planet were fulfilled because the other woman had actually died. Her heart had stopped and she was not breathing. So, to apply this theory to HP: Snape has a Vow to fulfill in which he must kill DD if Draco fails or he (Snape) will die. (canon) DD knows about this Vow. (assumption- we only know that DD knows that he vowed to protect Draco.) Snape has spoken of putting a stopper in death. (canon) We have seen an AK blocked. (canon- the statue and Fawkes in the DoM) DD and Snape were overheard by Hagrid arguing that DD was taking too much for granted and Snape didnt' want to do it any more. (canon, but a huge amount of speculation on my part of how to apply it.) Where am I going with all this? Why, to the tower, of course;) >From here on out (in the section marked THEORY), this is all speculation. It could work, but it might not. I'm not insisting on any of it being true. The usual IMO and IMHO and all that apply from here on out. I'm not going to reiterate that every paragraph, so don't everyone flame me if it seems like I'm stating fact when I'm just stating an opinion. _________________ ~~~~~~THEORY~~~~~ DD knew Draco was trying to kill him. DD knew that Snape had to kill him if Draco didn't. Neither of them knew when and where Draco would strike. Neither expected an audience of DEs would be present. All they could plan for was some sort of contingency that could be implemented at any time and in any place. Snape could cast an AK at any time, and DD could perform a transfiguring (or conjuring) charm at any time (having been a transfiguration teacher and a really powerful wizard to boot). The plan was that Snape would cast an AK in the direction of DD, which DD would then block by transfiguring something into a fly (or bumblebee, if you like- or maybe just conjuring one) and guiding its movements so that it would fly directly in front of his chest. Snape, who has been aiming at flied since his teenage years (see OoP) would then hit the fly with the AK, but it would not be big enough to absorb the full spell. DD would then be hit by a part of the spell, which would be enough to stop his heart. DD would also be protected by the potion to which Snape had referred as "putting a stopper in death" which would act as sort of a magical pacemaker, for lack of a better term. DD would die. Snape would pronounce him dead. The Vow would be fulfilled, Draco would be ushered out, and then DD would revive. It would be a lot for DD to take for granted, wouldn't it. Why risk everything on such a mad scheme? Snape might argue with DD on that. On the tower, it was time to put the plan into action. DD was there with Draco. Snape came in and was informed by the DEs that Draco was seeming to fail in his task. It was now or never, but Snape saw that DD was weakened by the Goo (although he may not have known that it wsa the Goo that had weakened him, he would have certainly seen that DD was weak). There was also the problem of the DE audience. DD had not planned that there would be witnesses. Draco by himself could have been ushered out quickly, but the other DEs would have wanted to stay and make sure that DD was as dead as dead can be. Not to mention Greyback wanting him for afters. Eew. Snape enters the scene, evaluates, hesitates. DD pleads. Snape raises his want and fires the AK. >From here it goes south. DD transfigured (or conjures) the fly (or bee), which does get the brunt of the AK. He is now dead. Snape removes his body by levitating it (forcefully) over the battlements. He does this so that even if he can't get the DEs out of there, they won't be around DD when he revives, and Greyback won't get his munchies. DD falls to the ground, and either fails to revive due to his weakness, or revives, but doesn't have the strength to stay revived and dies (this accounts for the fresh blood). In summary: Snape kills DD. The Vow is fulfilled. DD is dead and won't be coming back, as per JKR. DD did not ask to die sacrificially or suicidally in the sense that some people have expressed a problem accepting. Snape's hesitance before casting the AK was due to his fear that DD might not be strong enough to survive the plan, but he went ahead with it at DD's request, against his better judgement. He risked everything- his job, the trust of his collegues and the Order, and the life of his mentor- and lost. He had faced the trial by fire and it had failed. No wonder he was a bit tetchy when Harry called him a coward. ____________________ ~~~~~END THEORY~~~~~ So, Alla, and anyone else who had been reading, there's my theory. I don't think there are any Yellow Flags to be thrown. Some might not like it, others might. JKR almost certainly won't go that way, but I think it's a valid theory nonetheless. Ginger, wishing everyone sweet dreams. My last one was that Kirk, Spock, Scotty and McCoy had beamed down to my old hometown so that they could destroy the government because people were only eating half their bagels and leaving the other halves in the street where they were becoming a fire hazard and general nuisance. Weird. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 19:31:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:31:05 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: <5A7A1D6B-1E56-49AD-8A35-79C3C4957B30@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble wrote: > > I've been on this list for a long time now. Mostly I'm all discussed- > out, having hashed through most of the issues already. But I'm > continually amazed, and now kind of disappointed, at all of the posts > which seem to be almost GLEEFUL in their hope that Harry die. > > What do those of you who insist on this eventuality expect to gain by > it? Why the constant posts about how not only is it inevitable but > those of us who do not hope for Harry's death are too foolish to > appreciate Great Literature? > > This last book is going to be hard on all of us. We're die-hard > fans for whom these books have become a sort of good friend. > Regardless of any outcome in DH itself, the ending of these books > will be a eucatastrophe for many of us. Something we love is > over. Whether Harry dies or Harry lives, the series will have > 'died', in that it's lifespan will be over. > > I think it's difficult enough for us to deal with the death of the > series itself, that for many fans the death of Harry or certain other > beloved characters is not something we like to ponder. > > There are a lot of posts hitting my inbox over the last week which > seem almost cruel in the relentless way they predict Harry's death. > Why are those of you who write those posts so insistent on that point > of view? It seems like a lot of puppy-kicking. Alla: I have to say that I think most regulars here know that I do not **want** Harry to die and I do not **believe** that he will die. Insistance that Arthur Levine sobbing proves anything amuses me I have to confess. I see an excellent public relations in making it a secret whether Harry lives or dies and keeping fans in suspence. I see **nothing else** in his interview that indicates with certainty that Harry will die. I also think that Harry alive, happy, triumphant will make an excellent literature as well ( Odyssey, anyone?) Having said that, what puppy-kicking? Fans who want Harry to die, well, they want him to die for the variety of different reasons ( none of them are convicing to me, but they are good reasons, no?) I guess it is easy for me to understand the desire to see fictional character die sometimes, LOL. I mean I do not get desire to see Harry dead, but I understand the principle, hehe. I am certainly very bloodfirsty in my desire to see Snape dead or suffer. In my case it is simple desire to see the character who hurt my favorite characters so very badly pay for it - with his life, or dignity or both. It is the same thing when people want Voldemort dead. I want Snape dead for the same reasons, or at least for the same principle. I want baddies pay in fiction. I think that while there are books when they do not, Potterverse is not one of them. In case of Harry dying, people probably just like tragedies, etc, think it is cool for him to die young and heroic or something. That is to me just as valid as me not wanting him to die so very badly. JMO, Alla. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 19:40:48 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:40:48 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Homorphus Charm In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40704020438m7103309cl5e00fd43b859a777@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167009 --- Janette wrote: > > montims: > > Innocently I ask, is this not a play on "amorphous" in > the same way as other plays on word used in the series, > with the twist of being homorphous - having the shape > of a man, rather than amorphous, having no shape at > all? I think it just reveals the shape of the man >inside the creature. > > But I'm not a great scholar... > bboyminn: I've tried to keep out of this discussion even though I enjoyed the everyone's research into the origins of 'Homorphus'. Based on my own research, 'homo' means EITHER the 'same' OR related to 'a human being , man, mortal'. One could say that 'homo sapiens' means 'All Wize' or 'All the Wize Men'. Or depending on your source, one could drop the 'All' (same, like, or alike; think homogenized milk) and simply say 'men wise' or wise men. Though, in one respect, certain aspects of history might dispute that claim of wisdom. Now the PREfix 'Morph...' refers to 'Form, Shape, or Structure'. I was unable to find anything on 'morph' as a suffix. But I did find, in the Greek and French, the implication of 'blend of form'. If we look at 'metamorphoses', which I highly suspect is related, we get - 1. A transformation, as by magic or sorcery. 2. A marked change in appearance, character, condition, or function. So, I think we can conclude from everything that has been said, that 'homorphus' mean 'all change' or 'man change'. Now let's shift into the context of the story. I always assume that what ever impression the story tends to give us is indeed the right impression with regard to the alternate universe we are viewing. In other words, whatever the books imply is right, and rather than assume it is /wrong/ and try and find a reason, we should assume it is /right/ and try and find an explanation that fits within that realm of /right/. Clearly there is no cure of Werewolf-ism in the wizard world, therefore, Homorphus is not a cure. The books impy no cure, so we assume that is correct and look for explanations within that implied boundary. So, Homorphus, while not a cure, must still do something. In this case, I agree with Carol, the Homorphus Charm transforms a man back into his natural state. That is, werewolf becomes man, but we know that it is not a cure, so I can only conclude that the change is only temporary; long enough to capture or identify the man. Once the man is captured or identified, the village would no longer be in danger because now they knew the source of the danger. They could take whatever precautions they felt were necessary; kill the man, drive the man out of the village and region, or lock the man up whenever the full moon was near. Further knowing the Homorphus Charm could be used to stop an imminent attack. If Werewolf-Lupin were about to attack Harry, Hermione could cast the Homorphus and stop the attack. It is only while in werewolf form that Lupin is a danger; only then is he not in control of himself. Once forced back to human, for however short a time, he could control himself and would not be a danger. But it seems very clear that there is no cure for werewolf-ism, which means neither the Wolfsbane Potion nor the Homorphus Charm solves the problem, but one way or another, it allows the problem to be managed. The Homorpus Charm has many practical used, but curing werewolves is not one of them. Not my best work, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From va32h at comcast.net Mon Apr 2 21:07:14 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:07:14 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Nothing about when the eye link comes into play. For all we know, > the effect of Harry's eyes on Slughorn, which he used at least twice > in HBP, is the end of it. I don't find it satisfying in light of the > hoopla everyone's made out of it, but it could be that this is the > only importance Lily's eyes in Harry's head might have, and the > hoopla was just building castles in the air. va32h here: Well I vote for hoopla (and not just because I was the one who suggested to Carol that the "Lily's eyes" thing was just about Slughorn. It may be unsatisfying, but I don't think it was JKR who made such a fuss over Lily's eyes. Fan sites proclaimed "We will find out something HUGE about Lily's eyes!!!" based on the same scant words you posted. Which they did with Mark Evans, and with "Florence". Massive theories have been based on the idea that Snape had a relationship with someone named Florence, simply because Bertha Jorkins talked about someone kissing someone named Florence, and this conversation took place after Dumbledore and Harry were having a completely different conversation about Snape. But there's no evidence that the two conversations had anything to do with each other. Bertha, the school gossip, could have been talking about anyone. JKR promised to tell us more about Harry's family - which everyone was eagerly awaiting. And then she said in an interview - oh well, they're all dead from completely ordinary causes. So sure, that's "more" but not the more people were expecting. I just don't think anything in the series is nearly as complicated as we make it out to be. when I am caught up in elaborate theorizing (which I have fallen into myself from time to time, I admit), I remind myself that when JKR wanted to create a character that was secretly a werewolf, she named him Remus Lupin. And that JKR has said she thinks her clues that Aberforth Dumbledore is the barman at the Hog's Head are clever, when they actually anvil-level obvious. Which is not to disparage the books - I love them as much as anyone. I just think we tend to get carried away. va32h From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 2 21:08:17 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:08:17 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: <5A7A1D6B-1E56-49AD-8A35-79C3C4957B30@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167011 Katherine Coble wrote: > I'm continually amazed, and now kind of > disappointed, at all of the posts which > seem to be almost GLEEFUL in their hope > that Harry die. Actually there aren't all that many posts wishing Harry would die, just mine. If Harry were a real person I would be a monster to wish death on a very nice boy like Harry, but he's not real. As a fictional character his only duty is to entertain us, he has absolutely no right to be happy unless it pleases us, the readers. I happen to think the best way for Harry to entertain us is to die, heroically of course. Yes I know, you'll say you could best be entertained by Harry living and being happy, and I think you believe it, but I don't think it's really true. If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will be completely out of your thoughts. But if Harry dies, a character you've loved for many years, well, that will stay with you. I'm not predicting this but sometimes late at night I wake up and wonder if JKR will take it up to a even higher notch; not only will Harry die but Voldemort will win. But I could be dead wrong about that, believe it or not I've been wrong before (more than once actually!), perhaps JKR will write a great book and Harry will live happily ever after; but I don't think I'm wrong. We'll know on July 21. > It seems like a lot of puppy-kicking. I would gladly kick FICTIONAL puppies all day long if a way could be found to make it interesting, but that would take a literary genius of Shakespearean caliber. So does that prove I'm guilty of blood lust? Yea, I guess it sort of does. I'll tell you one thing, I hope Quentin Tarantino directs the last movie and he renames it "Dirty Harry". Eggplant From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Mon Apr 2 20:57:05 2007 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:57:05 -0000 Subject: The Graveyard and the Amphitheatre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167012 I was just skimming through the boards and found this thread. I haven't read all the entries, but I did want to make a comment. If this has already been mentioned, I apologize. I just haven't had time to read everything on the subject. I think the picture on the new cover does indeed look to be an amphitheatre, but I believe it is more symbolic than literal. I think it represents a final showdown. Now that Voldemort is back and the Wizarding community is aware of it, the stage is set for the final showdown between him and Harry and everyone will be anxiously watching. So I don't think it's an actual place, but more of the mood of the book. Just my theory. carla.mcculley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 21:15:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:15:28 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Homorphus Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167013 bboyminn wrote: > > I've tried to keep out of this discussion even though I enjoyed the everyone's research into the origins of 'Homorphus'. > > Based on my own research, 'homo' means EITHER the 'same' OR related to 'a human being , man, mortal'. Carol responds: Yes, that's true. We encounter one meaning in "homonym" and "homosexual" and the other in "Homo Sapiens." It's true, as Goddlefrood points out, that in "homomorphous" (a real if rare English word), the prefix means "similar" (and the word itself means "having similar form"). But since most of the spells are based on Latin, the Latin root meaning ("man" or human being) seems (to me) more likely to be the one that JKR had in mind than the Greek root meaning ("same"), as does the result of the spell (apparently, revealing the werewolf's human form). And, of course, if the spell is the one used on Pettigrew, the same logic would apply. I don't see how the meaning "same" or "similar" would fit in either case since the form revealed is different from the form of the creature before the spell is cast. Steve: > Now the PREfix 'Morph...' refers to 'Form, Shape, or Structure'. I was unable to find anything on 'morph' as a suffix. But I did find, in the Greek and French, the implication of 'blend of form'. Carol responds: Many people tend to think of it, I think, as meaning "change" (as in "morph into something), but in the key word "metamorphosis" we see that it's "meta-" that means "change" and "morph" that means (as you say) "form" or "shape": 1533, "change of form or shape, especially by witchcraft," from L., from Gk. metamorphosis "a transforming," from metamorphoun "to transform," from meta- "change" (see meta-) + morphe "form" (see morphine). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=m&p=12 Which takes us back to Goddlefrood's comment: > Suspect Homo + Morphus (mixed Latin and Greek etymology) > Morphe, meaning apoproximately in English change or transform. It is the root of Morpheus, noun: Morpheus - morfeeus, the Greek god of dreams. Carol again: Let me say first that the reason I didn't comment on this point originally is that I was confused by "suspect." I was unsure whether Goddlefrood meant that he suspected this was the correct etymology or whether he thought the etymology was suspect. Also, I knew that Morpheus was the god of dreams and didn't see the connection. However, if we follow the link to "morphine" at Etymology Online, we get: "1828, from Fr. morphine or Ger. Morphin (1816), name coined in allusion to L. Morpheus, Ovid's name for the god of dreams, son of Sleep, lit. "the maker of shapes," from Gk. morphe "form, shape, beauty, outward appearance," perhaps from PIE *merph-, possible Gk. root meaning "form," of unknown origin. So called because of the drug's sleep-inducing properties." So, according to this definition, Morpheus is connected, not with change and transformation, but with "form, shape, . . . outward appearance"--and we're back to "morph" in "Homomorphus Charm" as meaning the shape or form of the person on whom the charm has been cast. If we put these two roots together, "homo" = "man" and "morph" = form, we get a charm that returns a person who has taken the shape of an animal to his human form (presumably, temporarily in the case of werewolves). bboyminn: > If we look at 'metamorphosis', [I fixed your typo; hope that's okay] which I highly suspect is related, we get - > > 1. A transformation, as by magic or sorcery. 2. A marked change in appearance, character, condition, or function. > So, I think we can conclude from everything that has been said, that 'homorphus' mean 'all change' or 'man change'. Carol: If you're deriving it from Homo Sapiens, the usual etymology is "wise man." If you've encountered "all-wise man" somewhere, the "all" relates to "Sapiens," not to "Homo." I think the question is whether "homo" drives from the Greek root meaning "same" or the Latin word meaning "man." I'm not aware of any instances in which it means "all." However, for reasons I've already given, I agree with your second suggestion that it means "man" (or "human"). As for "change," that was my original thought as well, but I realized after that post that I was mixing up "meta-" and "morph." As best I can determine, it's "meta" that means "change" and "morph" that means "shape" or "form." Which gives us "man (human) form" as the meaning for "Homorphus." Of course, I'm wholly dependent on my sources here, and sources are not infallible. (Neither, I'm all too aware, is my memory.) bboyminn: > Clearly there is no cure of Werewolf-ism in the wizard world, therefore, Homorphus is not a cure. The books impy no cure, so we assume that is correct and look for explanations within that implied boundary. Carol: I agree. What canon we have shows that lycanthropy is not curable, either by a Homorphus Charm or by Wolfsbane Potion. I'm not aware of any other charms or potions related to the condition, but the St. Mungo's Healers would surely know them. And yet we have Mr. Weasley's disgruntled werewolf roommate, of whom Mr. Weasley says, "Bitten by a werewolf, poor chap. No cure at all" (OoP Am. ed. 488). > bboyminn: > So, Homorphus, while not a cure, must still do something. In this case, I agree with Carol, the Homorphus Charm transforms a man back into his natural state. That is, werewolf becomes man, but we know that it is not a cure, so I can only conclude that the change is only temporary; long enough to capture or identify the man. Once the man is captured or identified, the village would no longer be in danger because now they knew the source of the danger. They could take whatever precautions they felt were necessary; kill the man, drive the man out of the village and region, or lock the man up whenever the full moon was near. Carol: Yes, that's my view, too, and I think it's Catlady's as well. > Bboyminn: > Further knowing the Homorphus Charm could be used to stop an imminent attack. If Werewolf-Lupin were about to attack Harry, Hermione could cast the Homorphus and stop the attack. It is only while in werewolf form that Lupin is a danger; only then is he not in control of himself. Once forced back to human, for however short a time, he could control himself and would not be a danger. Carol responds: Interesting idea. Too bad no one thought of it in PoA! I tend to think that Lupin isolates himself at full moon and that now, having learned a painful lesson in PoA, he'd come nowhere near the kids, or anyone, at full moon. An there would be no point in applying the charm for that purpose to Fenir Greyback, whose idea of self-control is to station himself to attack a particular victim, or perhaps to control whether he bites to kill or bites to transform. (I suspect that he'll be killed by Pettigrew's silver hand in repayment of the Life Debt, but we shall see.) > bboyminn: > But it seems very clear that there is no cure for werewolf-ism, which means neither the Wolfsbane Potion nor the Homorphus Charm solves the problem, but one way or another, it allows the problem to be managed. > > The Homorpus Charm has many practical used, but curing werewolves is not one of them. Carol: I agree with your basic premise and most of your points, just not with your etymology. Carol, now wondering whether there's a link between "morph" or "Morpheus" and "Morfin," whom I hope will never enter my dreams! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 21:20:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:20:26 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: >> Yes I know, you'll say you could best be entertained by Harry living > and being happy, and I think you believe it, but I don't think it's > really true. Alla: Um, I respect your right to wish that Harry would die, I think I can be trusted to know what kind of entertainment is true for me, you know? And yes, Harry living happy counts as such. Eggplant: If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you > read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will be > completely out of your thoughts. Alla: I am sorry, but you can only be sure that this holds true for you, **not** for me. I read Odyssey many many years ago. The character is with me, alive as he is at the end of his quest, triumphant in returning to wife and his son. Heroic quest more often than not brings us tragic ending. But it does not always brings us tragic ending and it can be done really, really well. And the fact that it is not just a heroic quest, but also coming of age story gives me hopes for not tragic ending for Harry. Eggplant: But if Harry dies, a character you've > loved for many years, well, that will stay with you. Alla: This character and his journey entertained me for many years. The end of his sufferings and happy life will stay with me for the longest time, please be assured of that :) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 2 21:35:50 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:35:50 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167015 "grackel13" wrote: > The end of the WW would indeed > be occasion for sobbing Indeed it would be sad, but just to prove that I'm not a fan of just any old unhappy ending I think that would suck big time. The very worst ending to the Potter series would be for Harry and all other wizards to lose their powers and become Muggles. It would be even worse if they were happy about it. Far too many fantasy and science fiction stories end with the object of wonder being destroyed, the astounding alien planet blows up, the incredible creature is killed, the secret to the amazing invention is destroyed, and the time machine is run over by a train; so everybody can go back to their safe and boring pedestrian lives. For the life of me I can't image a more unsatisfying ending, even a sickly saccharine "and they lived happily ever after" ending would be better. But I could be wrong even about that, perhaps JKR will find a way to turn a lemon into lemonade, but I don't think I'm wrong. Eggplant From va32h at comcast.net Mon Apr 2 21:48:33 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:48:33 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Yes I know, you'll say you could best be entertained by Harry living > and being happy, and I think you believe it, but I don't think it's > really true. If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you > read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will >be completely out of your thoughts. But if Harry dies, a character >you've loved for many years, well, that will stay with you. I'm not > predicting this but sometimes late at night I wake up and wonder if > JKR will take it up to a even higher notch; not only will Harry die > but Voldemort will win. va32h here: These comments are smig, presumptuous and condescending. You have no idea what other people find entertaining or memorable. Nor do you have any business telling readers what they *ought* to find entertaining or memorable. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 22:18:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:18:35 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167017 Eggplant wrote: > > If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will be completely out of your thoughts. > > Alla: > > I am sorry, but you can only be sure that this holds true for you, > **not** for me. > > I read Odyssey many many years ago. The character is with me, alive as he is at the end of his quest, triumphant in returning to wife and his son. > > Heroic quest more often than not brings us tragic ending. But it does not always brings us tragic ending and it can be done really, really well. > > And the fact that it is not just a heroic quest, but also coming of age story gives me hopes for not tragic ending for Harry. Carol responds: I agree with Alla here, not only because I share her hope of a happy ending (which I'm quite likely to cry over) and because a happy ending by no means deters me from reading a book again and again, but also because I think that the Odyssey, which focuses on a single hero and has a happy ending, is probably closer to the model that JKR is working from, to the extent that she's dealing with epic conventions at all. I think what we're dealing with here is the difference between a comic epic (not comic in the sense that all of Odysseus's companions die but comic in the sense of a happy ending) and tragic epic. Most of the heroic quests we're familiar with, Beowulf, for example, also follow the tragic convention of the hero's death after performing great deeds. Not all of them do so, however. As I said in another post, Sir Gawain, that "parfit, gentil knyght," comes home (after an adventure with the Green Knight that I don't want to spoil for those who haven't read it) having learned an important lesson in chivalric virtues. I came across a passage on the comic vs. the tragic vision of the hero that may or may not be of interest to anyone but me, but I'll quote it just in case: "Tragic heroism . . . involves absolute dedication to causes and the clash of contending forces: good vs. evil, truth against error. It embraces the warrior virtues of courage, duty and honor. It is consonant with unquestioning obedience, the fight to the death, and kudos for the champion." This sounds to me like what Eggplant is looking for, more or less. Forgive me and correct me if I'm mistaken. "The comic vision, on the other hand, is intolerant of pride and pretension, of self-righteousness, of all finite claims to the infinite; it endorses humor, humility, child-likeness and the willingness to negotiate and settle differences. It is deeply suspicious of dividing the human family into the lowly and the lofty, the unrighteous and the righteous, the cowardly and the courageous. Its loyalty to the ultimate prompts the rejection of all human professions of goodness and claims to greatness as vanity, and enjoins acknowledgment of the dignity and worth each creature before God." I'm not sure whether this is the vision that we see of humanity in the Odyssey, but it resembles what I see in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," in which King Arthur's greatest knight is humbled and brought to contrition (without any humiliation; it's a happy ending). And it seems to me that JKR, knowingly or otherwise, is operating in this same tradition. Humor, childlike humility as a virtue, the unification of the Houses and the schools, reconciliation of all but the worst, most unredeemable characters (Voldemort), second chances, the dignity and worth of house-elves and goblins and Muggles as well as wizards, the irrelevance of bloodlines." It's not a perfect parallel, of course. But it might be worth thinking about. And certainly, if JKR is writing in the comic tradition (which is different, of course, from comedy and tragedy as dramatic genres and has nothing to do with tragic flaws) then I think we can confidently expect a happy ending and at least the beginnings of an effort to reform the too-evident flaws and mend the rifts within the Wizarding World. Carol, who will, of course, abandon this idea completely if Harry dies From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 23:10:03 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:10:03 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167018 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > Katherine Coble wrote: > > > I'm continually amazed, and now kind of > > disappointed, at all of the posts which > > seem to be almost GLEEFUL in their hope > > that Harry die. > > Actually there aren't all that many posts wishing Harry > would die, just mine. ...But if Harry dies, a character > you've loved for many years, well, that will stay with > you. I'm not predicting this but sometimes late at night > I wake up and wonder if JKR will take it up to a even > higher notch; not only will Harry die but Voldemort > will win. .... > bboyminn: First I don't think there really are that many people who are WISHING Harry would die. I think there are far more who THINK he MIGHT die, and can justify that thought by referencing many literary forms and genres. Yes, the hero dying is a very valid path for an author to pursue; especially if said hero dies a very noble and heroic death, and in doing so is also able to defeat the 'Dark Lord' of the story. In literature, a hero's death is not always a hero's shame, it is far more often the central point of pride and glory for the hero. So, JKR could certainly come up with a very valid literary path that leads to Harry's death. Even those who see that as a good and noble ending, most likely still do not want Harry to die, but can accept it if he does. Personally, I hope very very much that Harry doesn't die, but at the same time, I can see the story potentially going in that direction, and can see a great storyteller pulling it off in a way that leaves us satisfied. Equally, if Harry does not die, and by some stretch of the imagination 'lives happily ever after', that too will take a great feat of storytelling. Either way, once the book is written and read, and is laying on the shelf, the measure of the ending will be how satisfied we are as readers. A good author can make either ending work, if they truly are a good author. So far Harry hasn't exactly had an easy time of it, if he represents the 'puppy' then he has been kicked more times than I can count. Yet isn't it the very fact that he is so downtrodden, yet so resilently heroic, that we like him? So, my central point is that some people might /think/ Harry will die, and as readers they might see merit in that ending if it is done well, I seriously doubt that very many of them are /wishing/ or /hoping/ that Harry will die. As a person, admittedly fictional, he is our friend, and we never wish friends dead. But we as readers can accept things that we as friends can not. So, I don't think those who /think/ Harry /might/ die are engaged in bloodlust or puppy kicking, they are simply accepting it as one of many very possible literary outcomes. Personally, I'm very much in the 'Beyond the Veil and Back' camp. Or I have thoughts, that if Harry has to die, it is merely a technicality. That is, he has to die by some measure, and in that instant of 'technical' death, Voldemort becomes vulnerable and is killed. Then Harry is revived. It happens all the time in real life. So, even 'Harry dying' is not a solid fixed event, it can go in may directions and have many variables, and doesn't necessarily have to be permanent death. Now, I'm sure, you are all ready to rush in and point out that in JKR's world 'dead is dead, and never to return'. I agree, if you are totally, truly, and completely dead then you are dead. But what if you are only 'sort of' dead? Again, in real life people are brought back from 'technical' death all the time; they don't even need magic. So, death is not necessarily bloodlust, and dead is not necessarily dead. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 2 23:31:14 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:31:14 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167019 --- "fireflyseason2" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > Now, it is possible that Harry and Riddle are > > related, but how does that change any thing? ... > > > > Many things 'could be', but to what end? > > > > If you believe they are related (Harry and Tom R.) > > then what is the plot purpose of this? > > > > ... > > firefly: > > Honestly? You don't see what impact discovering a > blood connection between Harry and Voldemort could > have on plot? Well, if I follow my own, ..., > ...train of thought, the plot point was to come > round to and illustrate JKR's running theme of the > power of personal choice over "fate". ... His "equal", > as the prophecy foresaw but the difference, with a > blood relationship established, the ONLY difference, > would be the Power of Love and of Pesonal Choice. > > That being the case, I think the plot would actually > have turned on a showdown where Harry would CHOOSE not > to be a murderer, disproving even the prophecy's power > over the human spirit. > bboyminn: Yes, but can't all that and isn't all that happening without Harry and Voldemort being related. Further, isn't it more powerful to grant mercy to a stranger than to grant it to a relative? Yes, choice is a very powerful theme, and two very similar boys with very similar background both stood at a fork in the road in their lives. To the left, the high and hard road; to the right, the low and easy road. Harry may stubble on the 'high road' on occassion, but across the long and broad term, he chooses good over evil, mercy over vengence, friendship and true loyalty over subservience. Voldemort does the opposite. So, isn't that theme already established and playing out without the addition of some distant relationship with Voldemort coming into play? Don't get me wrong, as I said before, I think this was a very valid speculation, and I certainly can't say it is wrong. All I can say is, having now given it some thought, that I don't think it adds anything to the story. Whatever theme are playing out can and will play out regardless of whether there is some distant connnection between Harry and Voldemort. The seed were definitely there for this speculation to occur, but I don't think it holds up. But then, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminnn From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 00:51:25 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:51:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Cover/Prophecy Orb In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0704021751r46bc444bg1480e72747456c3f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167020 Laura: Probably not, but I'd love to see her make something "real" out of "third time's a charm"!!!! Lynda: Well why not?! She's already given us a flying Pig! Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kamilaa at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 23:54:28 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:54:28 -0500 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: References: <460FEB4C.6060002@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167021 < Grackel13> But I don't believe it's going to happen to the whole world -- only to Voldemort. I've always suspected that Dumbledore's spell, the one with the hollow, gong-like note, was an attempt to strip Voldemort of his magic, and I've always nursed the hope that is how Harry will defeat Lord Thingy -- not by causing his death, but by stripping him of power, which would be, for Voldy, worse than death...though he doesn't realize it. That's a very interesting idea, and one that seems quite sound to me as well. I've always thought Dumbledore had something specific in mind when he told Tommy Boy that there were things worse than death, but I never could think what he might be referring to specifically. This fits the bill nicely and gets Harry out of committing murder in the deal. I know the prophecy says one must die - but I can easily see Lord Thingy offing himself (or, Wormtail doing it, either to settle real or imagined wrongs, or to pay back the life debt) if he lost his powers but not his life. (I've also always wondered if there weren't actually three people in that prophecy: the One, the Dark Lord, and the Other.) *ponders* Kamil From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 01:48:52 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:48:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: References: <460FEB4C.6060002@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0704021848u416cff4fvdeb0e51792ba5115@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167022 Eggplant: JKR was asked if she could take one of her characters to dinner who would it be? Immediately she said "Harry? to apologize to him." She then paused and said she would pick Ron and Hermione because "I know who's dead". I would interpret that to mean Ron and Hermione will survive but Harry will not. At any rate it doesn't sound like the story is going to have a happily ever after ending. Eggplant Lynda: As a writer myself, if I was asked that same question, which of my characters would I take out to dinner, my answer would also be immediate, and a character who's gone through a hard time (I did that to him) but not because I kill him off at the end of the story. Its because of all of the things I've put the character through. Troubles and tribulations. Now I don't know why JKR answered as she did, but I know that there are other reasons than a character death to have done so. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 02:16:46 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:16:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: References: <460FEB4C.6060002@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <700201d40704021916h4a14baa1k7d4c393e91e94769@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167023 > Kamil: > ...snip... > > I know the prophecy says one must die - but I can easily see Lord > Thingy offing himself (or, Wormtail doing it, either to settle real or > imagined wrongs, or to pay back the life debt) if he lost his powers > but not his life. (I've also always wondered if there weren't actually > three people in that prophecy: the One, the Dark Lord, and the Other.) Kemper now: The prophecy says 'neither can live while the other survives'. And while I agree that Lord Thingy would be in hell if he lost his powers, I do not see him as trying to off himself. With six horcruxes, it is evident that he is too afraid of Death. Lord Thingy would spend his magicless years finding a way to become magic again. Kemper From joannesthemom at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 02:11:35 2007 From: joannesthemom at yahoo.com (joannesthemom) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:11:35 -0000 Subject: Book Cover/Prophecy Orb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167024 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Molinari" > wrote: > > > > Does anyone think the image of the snake in the glass ball on the UK > > Children's cover resembles a Prophecy Orb? > > To which "grindieloe" replied: > It certainly does... although my thoughts surround some mystery with > Nagini being an animagus. I can find all the maurauders on that cover > somewhere - Peter (in Nagini's body), Sirius (behind Nagini's > shoulder), Lupin (to the bottom left of the full moon), and James (in > Patronus form). Joanne's question Do we know this is Nagini? And please help me see Peter and Sirius. (Where exactly is a snake's shoulder anyway?) I can make out a wolf shape in the clouds, and of course the stag. The only thing I see in the orb is a reflection of a window, some stars - and a snake. Joanne - wanting to see, but may have that "mundane" mind.... From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Apr 3 02:24:19 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:24:19 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Homorphus Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167025 Steve: > Now the PREfix 'Morph...' refers to 'Form, Shape, or > Structure'. I was unable to find anything on 'morph' > as a suffix. But I did find, in the Greek and French, > the implication of 'blend of form'. houyhnhnm: Endomorph, mesomorph, and ectomorph come to mind. Those are kind of pseudoscientific terms, I think, but the meaning of "morph" is clearly "form". I can't think of a legitimate biological term with the suffix "morph" off the top of my head. > Carol, now wondering whether there's a link between > "morph" or "Morpheus" and "Morfin," whom I hope will > never enter my dreams! houyhnhnm: from ancestry.com: Morfin English and French: unexplained; possibly a variant of Morfey, an unflattering nickname meaning `cursed', `ill-omened', `ill-fated', Medieval Latin malefatus. From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Apr 3 02:16:11 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:16:11 -0400 Subject: Etymology of Homorphus Charm (Was: The Things You Can Find) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167026 Carol: "As for taking werewolves "out of play," providing them all with Wolfsbane Potion as a public service would serve the same purpose--not a cure, admittedly, but it renders them peaceful and harmless." Bruce: My impression is that Wolfsbane Potion is difficult to make; not every potioner can do it. Also, what about those werewolves who LIKE being werewolves and would refuse to take it? Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 03:53:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:53:23 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167027 Carol earlier: > > I can't find the quotation I'm looking for regarding JKR's attitude toward Harry's suffering > Eggplant responded: > JKR was asked if she could take one of her characters to dinner who would it be? Immediately she said "Harry to apologize to him." She then paused and said she would pick Ron and Hermione because "I know who's dead". I would interpret that to mean Ron and Hermione will survive but Harry will not. At any rate it doesn't sound like the story is going to have a happily ever after ending. > > Eggplant > Carol responds: Thank you. That's the quote I was looking for (though there may be more than one). I vaguely recall something like "I know what he's in for," but I can't locate anything like that at Accio Quote. Anyway, I did find the one you mentioned, from the Harry, Carrie, and Garp (almost said Grawp) interview: "JK Rowling: Well I'd take Harry, to apologize to him (crowd laughs). Um, I'd have to take Harry, Ron and Hermione. "Stephen King: Sure. "JK Rowling: I would - this is - (crown shouts suggestions). "Stephen King: Hagrid, take Hagrid. "JK Rowling: See, I know who's actually dead. "Stephen King: Pretend you can take them anyways. "JK Rowling: Pretend I can take anyone? Well then I would definitely take Dumbledore. I'd take Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione...and.. (crowd shouts characters) um, Hagrid. I'd take Hagrid, yeah. " http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html She mentions Harry first, then HRH. When Stephen King mentions Hagrid, she says, "See, I know who's actually dead." When King says to pretend she can take anyone, she lists one known-dead character (Dumbledore), HRH and "yeah, um, Hagrid." There's no "because," and no distinction that I can see between Harry (except that she wants to apologize to him) and Ron and Hermione. She lists the three together immediately after the apology comment. I don't know whether anyone else reads the exchange the way I do, but to me it sounds as if the character who dies is Hagrid. (I don't mean that he's the only character who'll die, but that he seems to be the one in this group, aside from Dumbledore, who's "already dead.") The remark on knowing who's dead comes right after King suggests Hagrid, almost like a slip on JKR's part. JKR has said that as a children's author, she has to be "ruthless," and short of killing one of the Trio (which I don't think she would do though I could be wrong), the character whose death would be most traumatic for Harry is probably Hagrid. (I think a lot of readers, mostly children, will be devastated, too.) Carol, who just checked the Lexicon's list of birthdays from JKR's site and found that Hagrid's isn't there http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-birthdays.html From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 04:15:24 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:15:24 -0000 Subject: Book Cover/Prophecy Orb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167028 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "joannesthemom" wrote: > > To which "grindieloe" replied: > > I can find all the maurauders on that cover somewhere - Peter (in > > Nagini's body), Sirius (behind Nagini's shoulder), Lupin (to the > > bottom left of the full moon), and James (in Patronus form). > Joanne's question > please help me see Peter and Sirius. (Where exactly is a snake's > shoulder anyway?) I can make out a wolf shape in the clouds, and > of course the stag. The only thing I see in the orb is a > reflection of a window, some stars - and a snake. Oh, you are not alone! I can't see any rats or dogs there either. I don't even see any shapes in the clouds at all. My mind is probably even more "mundane" than yours :-). I suppose I wouldn't have much success in Trelawney's class, being unable to "broaden my mind" and "allow my eyes to see past the mundane" . zanooda, apologizing to the elves if this post is off-topic From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Apr 3 11:22:37 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:22:37 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167029 Carol: > Carol, who just checked the Lexicon's list of birthdays from JKR's > site and found that Hagrid's isn't there > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com- birthdays.html > Dana: Hagrid's birthday is listed as december 6th on the lexion website. Dana From funkeginger at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 11:04:10 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (ginger mabayoje) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 04:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <77332.76978.qm@web37003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167030 I've always thought Dumbledore had something specific in mind when he told Tommy Boy that there were things worse than death, but I never could think what he might be referring to specifically. This fits the bill nicely and gets Harry out of committing murder in the deal. I know the prophecy says one must die - but I can easily see Lord Thingy offing himself (or, Wormtail doing it, either to settle real or imagined wrongs, or to pay back the life debt) if he lost his powers but not his life. (I've also always wondered if there weren't actually three people in that prophecy: the One, the Dark Lord, and the Other.) *ponders* > funkeginger: What are you guys saying that Harry is just going to take Voldemort's powers and not kill him. Then how will the story end? DD said in the Half Blood Prince that Harry did not have to kill Voldemort, I know but he also said that if he did not, a lot of chaos would happen. And anyway even when Voldemort did not have his powers he was still danger. Even if Harry takes his power he still needs to kill him he still too evil to live . Have you ever heard the expession evil never sleeps? It means that evil will allow start trouble no mater how weak it is, you should take that in to Mind when you look at Voldemort without his power. He will still bring fear and chaos around the Wizarding world so he needs to die . From hells456 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 3 12:30:58 2007 From: hells456 at yahoo.co.uk (hells) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:30:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: Lily in Book 7. Was Re: Uncle Tom? Message-ID: <304303.1759.qm@web26313.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167032 There has been a lot of discussion on this thread about the importance of Lily's eyes. I am not speculating on whether the question of her eyes has been cleared up or not, but I think I know why people and fansites are expecting something big to happen in book 7. >From an interview in 1999: 'Now the important thing about Harry?s mother, the really, really significant thing, you?re going to find out in 2 parts. You?ll find out a lot more about her in Book 5, or you?ll find out something very significant about her in Book 5, then you?ll find out something incredibly important about her in Book 7. But I can?t tell you what those things are so I?m sorry, but yes, you will find out more about her because both of them are very important in what Harry ends up having to do.' A lot of people at the time presumed JKR was talking about the significance of her eyes. This is possible, but isn't definite by any means. Personally, I will be a little disappointed if there isn't something else regarding her eyes waiting for us. Hells [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lydiafrench at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 05:41:44 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 05:41:44 -0000 Subject: Lord V: A Fate worse than death? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167033 So here are a couple of thought's, stay with me, now... 1. Murder is a soul-rending act. Harry is no murderer. He's done much throughout the books to prevent murders, to keep his friends from becoming murderers; one of his first feelings when DD told him THE prophecy (near the end of OOP) was of not wanting his life to end in either being murdered nor murdering. Harry sees seeking out someone with the intention of killing them as murder, even LordV. 2. DD reminds LordV that "as you well know" there are things worse than death, or something to that effect. Refering, I believe, to the time LordV spent bodiless, after the death of his body and before he was reanimated with the intricate and powerful spell at the end of GOF which required blood from Harry himself. 3. During the duel between DD and LordV (OOP)when LordV possessed him, Harry was filled with love and, we assume, happiness at the thought of DD ending his life because then he could the pass though the veil and get to be with Sirius again. 4. There is very little hope that Harry will be able to find/destroy all of the Horcruxes before LordV gets to him. It took DD years to find just 2 and it's cost him a hand and Harry just isn't that good a wizard. (Do you see where I'm going with this?) If I put all that together in my tiny little mind I get a showdown where Harry can ensure that LordV can never return to power by destroying the body of LordV but leaving one horcrux so that Lord V remains a powerless bodiless vapor. Harry would then pass through the veil of his own free will to ensure that LordV cannot be reanimated, as a vital ingredient "blood of THE enemy" will be gone forever. And then we would all cry at his selfless sacrifice but trust that he was happy in the bosom of his family and no one could write another Harry Potter book because no one can return from the behind the Veil. And prophecy, shmophecy, free will wins out in the end. What do you think? firefly From lydiafrench at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 04:53:14 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:53:14 -0000 Subject: JKR's clues and Lily's eyes (Re: Uncle Tom?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167034 va32h: > I just don't think anything in the series is nearly as complicated > as we make it out to be. when I am caught up in elaborate theorizing > (which I have fallen into myself from time to time, I admit), I >remind myself that when JKR wanted to create a character that was >secretly a werewolf, she named him Remus Lupin. And that JKR has said she > thinks her clues that Aberforth Dumbledore is the barman at the Hog's Head >are clever, when they actually anvil-level obvious. firefly: I couldn't disagree more... I've been trying for nearly twenty minutes now and honestly, I just can't. The plots of these books, as you well know, are intricately and expertly woven. And what's more the subtly of the phrasing more often than not is placed and worded precisely to lay the foundation for plot events 2 and 3 books ahead! To say that readers extrapolate in unfruitful directions is more than true but in my, clearly passionate opinion, there is nothing in any of the 6 books that was obvious that wasn't meant, often tongue-in-cheek to be so. So rarely do dry wit and sarcasm translate well into print. I am quite certain there is nothing that JKR made "actually anvil-level obvious" unintentionally. Say what you will of my lame efforts but, please... I will say no more on the subject. I defer to the "Book 7" section of Mugglenet.com under "Confirmed Information" for my earlier statement. I have found their reseach to be trustworthy to this point and they state: The fact that Harry "has his mother's eyes" will prove to be an important plot point. firefly From lydiafrench at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 05:53:51 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 05:53:51 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: <23071930.1175532720593.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167035 > Bart: > I see Voldemort dying in an advanced version of the legendary monkey > trap (the one where there is a piece of fruit in a jar that is attached > to the ground. The fruit is about as wide as the opening in the jar. A > monkey reaches in, but finds there is not enough room for the fruit AND > its hand, and remains trapped because of its refusal to let go of the > fruit). Harry will be in a position where he can save Voldemort's life, >but _CAN_ (note the emphasis) only do so if Voldemort gives up > something precious (like the last Horcrux). firefly: Interesting... Harry has shown an immense capacity for mercy and is clearly not inclined to kill at first opportunity. Heck, even against Lestange he could barely muster the hurtful intent to case the Dark majic spell, it had very little effect on her. So I can see a situation where Harry is in a position to either kill or save Lord V and looks for some way to offer Lord V. redemption... I can't imagine beyond that however. I know that JKR has stated that "NOONE is beyond redemption, except Voldemort..." so whatever happens, it shan't go well for Lord V. From lydiafrench at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 06:16:57 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:16:57 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167036 Eggplant: > Actually there aren't all that many posts wishing Harry would die, > just mine. If Harry were a real person I would be a monster to wish > death on a very nice boy like Harry, but he's not real. As a > fictional character his only duty is to entertain us, he has absolutely no > right to be happy unless it pleases us, the readers. I happen to think the > best way for Harry to entertain us is to die, heroically of course. > Yes I know, you'll say you could best be entertained by Harry living > and being happy, and I think you believe it, but I don't think it's > really true. If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you > read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will > be completely out of your thoughts. firefly: I would have to agree that thematically, Harry's death would be incredibly strong and I can see the temptation to take the ending of this series in that direction. Granted it would be done in a way to further the "positive" message of the books. Free will, self sacrifice, the power of love, family and friendship. But he'd still be dead, we would all still cry for days because, yes, he's a fictional character however, we are not. For many years now, we have committed to the well-being of this character in our minds, we empathize and internalize his pathos and imagine good things for him as we would a close friend. JKR has written a drama so expertly that it is simple to become invested in the character, Harry Potter's ultimate fate. I believe Harry's life will end though I have hope that, in some way, JKR can make it a "satisfying" and a worthy death. And if Voldemort wins I will fly to England or whereever she lives and picket outside her house till she does a re-write. firefly From lydiafrench at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 07:22:01 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 07:22:01 -0000 Subject: Who Does this Sound Like to You? In-Reply-To: <872683.14715.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167037 > Dantzel replies: > Hmm.... I think the 7 were Hogwarts teachers, which Lucius and > Voldemort have not been. I think Gluttony describes Slughorn pretty > well, but he's not a DADA teacher, which all the rest were. firefly: Oh! I see! Ok, then. But we still have one year left, haven't we. Our 7th DAD teacher is yet to be named! Isn't Pride the same as Vanity? Either way that would be Lockhart. That could make Quirrell Pride, thinking he could be as powerful as LordV? Perhaps the DADA in this last book will be Gluttony... firefly From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 3 14:11:33 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:11:33 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167038 I wouldn't characterize it as blood lust either, except in a few self admitted cases. Every reader has their own idea of what would be a strong, fitting ending to the series. For some that involves a heroic death. Many (my sister in law is one) feel that Harry's death would be a bold, brave move by the author. Others seem to think that happily ever after is too hackneyed. But truly any conclusion these days involves walking over ground that is littered with the bleached bones of other author's work. It would be difficult indeed to come up with any ending that hasn't already been used to the point of hackneyism. There is nothing bold or brave these days about killing off the main character in the final battle. There is no happily ever after in the Potterverse. Its flaws guarantee that a surviving Harry will have enough heartache mixed with his joy to make him look on the possibility of his death in the final battle with some longing for that which never was. I don't see that realism, literary convention, or the ultimate judgment of the story's value demand that Harry live or die. I think we all hope that there will be a good ending, whatever Harry's fate. I think that the notion, which the author herself raised, that killing Harry kills any possibility of sequels, authorized or not, is just silly. Any future author who wants to hijack the Potterverse badly enough will find a way to to that, and to resurrect Harry if need be. Duncan Idaho's poor soul never could find rest in the Dune series. The living always found him too useful to stay dead. The author may *say* that dead is dead in the Potterverse but she herself cheats this dictum in every possible way. I expect that DH will reveal yet another way in which dead is not really dead entirely. I suspect, like many, that the final battle will take place in some realm that is neither death nor life, a realm where both Sirius and Dumbledore can operate as Harry's allies. That is why they "had" to die. I think that part of the apparent "blood lust" is just the joy of some who think they have decoded all the hints and have determined that Harry will die. It's not all joy over Harry's death, it is the joy of prising out the secret. I don't share their confidence in this, I think the clues are contradictory. All the clues to anything important in the conclusion are contradictory. Like Carol I read those dinner party invitations as indicating that Harry lives, not dies. For once the author seemed to have slipped up and revealed something there. But were those comments made before or after she decided to kill two who were supposed to have lived? The series' place in history depends not on Harry's fate but on whether the conclusion is deemed a good one. A good conclusion guarantees that we will remember and cherish the work for a long time. A living Harry could as easily be part of a good conclusion as a dead Harry. Ken From va32h at comcast.net Tue Apr 3 14:30:01 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:30:01 -0000 Subject: JKR's clues and Lily's eyes (Re: Uncle Tom?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fireflyseason2" wrote: > I couldn't disagree more... I've been trying for nearly twenty > minutes now and honestly, I just can't. > The plots of these books, as you well know, are intricately and > expertly woven. And what's more the subtly of the phrasing more >often than not is placed and worded precisely to lay the foundation >for plot events 2 and 3 books ahead! To say that readers extrapolate >in unfruitful directions is more than true but in my, clearly >passionate opinion, there is nothing in any of the 6 books that was >obvious that wasn't meant, often tongue-in-cheek to be so. So rarely >do dry wit and sarcasm translate well into print. I am quite certain >there is nothing that JKR made "actually anvil-level obvious" >unintentionally. Say what you will of my lame efforts but, please... > I will say no more on the subject. > > I defer to the "Book 7" section of Mugglenet.com under "Confirmed > Information" for my earlier statement. I have found their reseach to > be trustworthy to this point and they state: The fact that >Harry "has > his mother's eyes" will prove to be an important plot point. va32h here: Well we can agree to disagree and no harm done. I'm sorry if I have somehow hurt your feelings -- I like the books very much, I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I still think the plot twists are -- not predictable per se, but conventional. True to life, even if they take place in a fantastical world. The two huge plot twists that people usually use as examples are Scabbers being Pettigrew and Fake!Moody. And indeed those were surprises. But the entire twist was based on characters that the reader was told were dead that were in fact actually alive. So I don't fault any of us for not guessing those ahead of time. What reason did we have, prior to PoA to assume that the author would dissemble to us over the dead actually being dead? But other twists - like Lupin being a werewolf - I'm sorry but that was colossally obvious. It was obvious to my daughter who was 8 when she read PoA. I am perfectly capable of recognizing dry wit and sarcasm, and find the series very funny. But I also found many things obvious. Ron and Hermione. RAB being Regulus Black - and I know that technically the jury is still out on that, but really. If RAB isn't Regulus, I'll eat my copy of DH. Aberforth as the Hog's Head barman - yes, that is obvious. Why Harry hasn't picked up on it is a mystery, but then again, this is the same Harry who, after six years of study at Hogwart's, apparently never noticed that most of the spells are based on Latin words and that a spell called "Sectumsempra" might have to do with "cutting". It is not a criticism of the book to say that the plot twists are conventional and based on the truisms of human nature. Quite the opposite. I think too well of JKR as a writer to think that she will introduce soap-opera level plot twists into the series. As for Mugglenet - well, that's what they think. Again, I disagree. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 15:40:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:40:34 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: <77332.76978.qm@web37003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167040 funkeginger wrote: > What are you guys saying that Harry is just going to take Voldemort's powers and not kill him. Then how will the story end? DD said in the Half Blood Prince that Harry did not have to kill Voldemort, I know but he also said that if he did not, a lot of chaos would happen. And anyway even when Voldemort did not have his powers he was still danger. > Even if Harry takes his power he still needs to kill him he still too evil to live . Have you ever heard the expession evil never sleeps? It means that evil will allow start trouble no mater how weak it is, you should take that in to Mind when you look at Voldemort without his power. He will still bring fear and chaos around the Wizarding world so he needs to die . > Carol responds: I don't know about anyone else, but I agree with you that Voldemort must be utterly destroyed and that means he must die, not be turned into the world's ugliest Muggle. "Neither can live while the other survives" appears to me to mean that Harry can't truly "live" while Voldemort inhabits the earth ("survives"). And vice versa, of course, but I think Harry will not only triumph but live (with his own powers intact). However, I, personally, don't want Harry to use Avada Kedavra or any other Dark Curse. The Unforgiveable Curses, it seems to me, corrupt the mind and the soul. (Look at the Crouches, for example, or at the probably irredeemable Bellatrix Lstrange.) I wish that Harry, who knows what a Crucio feels like, would stop attempting to cast one, and I think it would be simply wrong, an inversion of the morality of JKR's world, for Harry to use the weapons of the enemy to kill him. I would prefer for him to bring about Voldemort's death in some other way, such as forcing him to go beyond the Veil (or summoning Fawkes to act as suicide bomber?) rather like the One Ring's falling into the Cracks of Doom causes Barad Dur to crumble and Sauron to fall into the abyss, never to rise again. I know that Harry thinks that he has to "kill" Voldemort. He even thinks of it, after he first hears the Prophecy, as having to commit murder or be murdered. I know all the arguments about self-defense not being murder, about soldiers having to kill, and none of them gives me any comfort. I don't want Harry to suffer the anguish of having killed anyone, even Voldemort, who is hardly human and, as you say, has to die. So I cling to the hope that Voldemort will die in some other way, and the U.S. cover fans the flames of what would otherwise be a forlorn hope. Carol in Tucson, where the birds are chirping and the lupine has finally decided to join the poppies in blooming along the roadside From kkersey at swbell.net Tue Apr 3 16:02:48 2007 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:02:48 -0000 Subject: Lord V: A Fate worse than death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167041 Snipping from Firefly's post: > If I put all that together in my tiny little mind I get a showdown > where Harry can ensure that LordV can never return to power by > destroying the body of LordV but leaving one horcrux so that Lord V > remains a powerless bodiless vapor. Harry would then pass through the > veil of his own free will to ensure that LordV cannot be reanimated, Elisabet considers: Hmmmm.... But wouldn't that just put LV right back to where he was at the beginning of the series? Vapormort was indeed mostly helpless for a decade or so, but he certainly was not powerless - the power of possession is what got him control of Quirrel and from that point on he had several avenues open to him - serial possession, gaining control of the PS, and of course the reconstitution of his body in the cauldron. Those are just the ones we know he tried, and given enough time he would possibly think of more. As long as there is one Horcrux remaining, he has in fact all the time in the world (if not all the patience for it!) Come to think of it, maybe he would have been better off just laying low in Albania leading a snakey half-life for a few decades until Harry had lived his life and died a natural death. > as a vital ingredient "blood of THE enemy" will be gone forever. I'm not convinced that Harry Potter was the only candidate for "enemy" of Voldemort - DD springs to mind here. In fact, a guy like Voldemort is going to have no shortage of enemies. Now, there may be some reason Voldemort can't go down that particular road again, and it may indeed be the reason you cite, but he has as much time as he wants to come up with a plan B, or C, or D, as long as that last Horcrux is safe. I do agree that choice - an act of free will - will likely be the key in destroying Voldemort; I think that Prophesy-Puppet!Harry following the "First, destroy all the horcruxes, then duel to the death with LV (preferably on a Rickety Catwalk Over a River of Molten Lava)" recipe would be a bit disappointing, for this reader at least. Not that I'm against catwalks, or duels, or lava - it's just that that is exactly what Harry (and the reader, or Faith anyway) are expecting. Elisabet, wondering if the Big Bang Destroyer is still patrolling Theory Bay... P.S. Just thinking some further explanation may be needed here. For those who weren't here "back in the day", as it were, Theory Bay was an imaginary landscape created by members of HPfGU, in which their favorite theories, or outlandish proposals, or critical modes, etc. were represented by various objects (usually some sort of watercraft) or character, or location. "Faith" is the personification of straightforward, what-you-see-is-what-you-get reading of the text. A more nuanced description of Faith can be found here: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#faith The Big Bang Destroyer, under the command of a particularly ruthless and bloodthirsty captain, attacked any theory which did not Bang - that is, in the immortal words of Elkins way back in message number 38898, any theory that failed to provide "opportunities for a Great Character-changing Catalyst, or for a Shocking Revelation, or for a Mind-Blowing Plot Twist, or for an Oscar-worthy Cinematic Moment." OK, so the Oscar-Worthy Cinematic Moment could happen even if Harry simply follows the straightforward "destroy Horcruxes then kill Voldemort" plan that the prophesy seems to require, but my money is on a big suprise for us readers, or at the very least for Harry. And I think that the suprise will be, at least in part, that he really does have a choice. So Firefly, I agree strongly with your point number 1, with the caveat that Harry will be tempted by vengence, or the perceived necessity of murder, and think he is capable of murder, or for that matter, possibly actually be capable of murder - but he will in the end make the choice not to do it. (And Voldemort will not win.) Elisabet, signing off on this message for real this time... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 16:10:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:10:33 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167042 firefly wrote: > And if Voldemort wins I will fly to England or whereever she lives > and picket outside her house till she does a re-write. Carol responds: It's extremely unlikely--in fact, I'd venture to say the probability is zero--that Voldemort will win. Not only would that ending violate the conventions of every genre she's working in (and enrage her readers), but JKr has also taken pains since SS/PS to depict the WW as a world within the mundane world of Muggles, hidden from our eyes. We readers are supposed to willingly suspend our disbelief in magic, to believe that Muggles "don't see nuffink, do they?" in part from our denial of our own sense perceptions and in part because of Muggle-repelling spells. But if Voldemort won, events such as the murders and the collapsed bridge and the "hurricane" caused by giants would become more common, impossible to hide from Muggle eyes. The Obliviators would be working full time. Now granted, Voldemort was powerful in VW1 and the Muggles didn't know about him, but he had not yet won the war. He had not yet taken over the Ministry and the WW and started a full-fledged campaign of genocide, wiping out Muggles and killing or enslaving Muggleborns. JKR is not going to let that happen, not only because the various genres require that Harry save the WW but because her readers, who live in the Muggle world that surrounds the WW, will not by any stretch of the imagination, by any willing suspension of disbelief, be able to swallow that ending. We're not talking about Middle Earth in a legendary and forgotten past. We're talking about Britain in the 1990s. The victory of Voldemort did not and will not happen or even the Muggles, including her readers, would know it. Unlike the existence of Hogwarts, hidden from Muggle eyes by its disguise as a ruin, such an event could not be disguised from Muggle eyes by any spell, nor would there be any need for an Epilogue exlaining what happened afterwards to the survivors. Carol, who believes that the victory of Voldemort is the one ending that JKR could not get away with (and probably never contemplated) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Apr 3 16:54:38 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:54:38 -0000 Subject: JKR's clues and Lily's eyes (Re: Uncle Tom?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167043 firefly: > > I defer to the "Book 7" section of Mugglenet.com under "Confirmed > > Information" for my earlier statement. I have found their reseach to > > be trustworthy to this point and they state: The fact that > >Harry "has his mother's eyes" will prove to be an important plot point. > va32h here: > It is not a criticism of the book to say that the plot twists are > conventional and based on the truisms of human nature. Quite the > opposite. I think too well of JKR as a writer to think that she will > introduce soap-opera level plot twists into the series. > > As for Mugglenet - well, that's what they think. Again, I disagree. Jen: Aw, one of my favorite topics is winding down, but I wanted to throw out one more thought on the subject of Lily's eyes. While I don't expect Lily's eyes to play a literal role in DH like they did in HBP, I'm convinced the real importance of Lily's eyes will be thematic. Harry has yet to learn about his mom or understand that he carries part of Lily within himself just as surely as he found James inside himself in POA. 'Yes, Harry, you can love,' said Dumbledore [...] which given everything that has happened to you, is a great and remarkable thing. You are still too young to understand how unusual you are, Harry.' (HBP, chap. 23, p. 476, UK edition) If eyes are the window to the soul, then Harry's 'untarnished and whole' soul will be his connection to Lily and he will finish what his mom started with her self-sacrifice. What draws me to JKR is not her plot twists so much as how poetic and emotional her symbolism is at crucial moments. Jen From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 3 17:04:46 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:04:46 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167044 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > However, I, personally, don't want Harry to use Avada Kedavra or any > other Dark Curse. The Unforgiveable Curses, it seems to me, corrupt > the mind and the soul. (Look at the Crouches, for example, or at the > probably irredeemable Bellatrix Lstrange.) I wish that Harry, who > knows what a Crucio feels like, would stop attempting to cast one, and > I think it would be simply wrong, an inversion of the morality of > JKR's world, for Harry to use the weapons of the enemy to kill him. I > would prefer for him to bring about Voldemort's death in some other > way, such as forcing him to go beyond the Veil (or summoning Fawkes to > act as suicide bomber?) rather like the One Ring's falling into the > Cracks of Doom causes Barad Dur to crumble and Sauron to fall into the > abyss, never to rise again. > > I know that Harry thinks that he has to "kill" Voldemort. He even > thinks of it, after he first hears the Prophecy, as having to commit > murder or be murdered. I know all the arguments about self-defense not > being murder, about soldiers having to kill, and none of them gives me > any comfort. I don't want Harry to suffer the anguish of having killed > anyone, even Voldemort, who is hardly human and, as you say, has to > die. So I cling to the hope that Voldemort will die in some other way, > and the U.S. cover fans the flames of what would otherwise be a > forlorn hope. > > Ken: You are not alone in this hope but I for one fail to see the distinction that you are trying to make here. Actively killing someone differs not at all from causing someone's death whether by action or inaction. I've never looked at going beyond the veil as any different from death. The veil is the boundary between life and death and it can only be crossed in one direction (although maybe DH will portray and exception to this). Forcing Voldemort through the veil somehow or simply not grabbing him to keep him from falling through accidently is the same as killing him with a rifle or a wand. If you went into a confrontation with him with the intent to kill him then it is a premeditated killing, a murder. Killing is an awful thing and it isn't an easy thing for decent people. In rare instances it is the right thing. Harry should do the right thing no matter the cost to himself. There are some burdens worth bearing. The only real way to avoid the anguish you want to spare Harry is to have someone else kill Voldemort. I'd say that there is a reasonable chance that Pettigrew or Snape will do just that. Severus has already spared one Hogwarts student the life long burden of knowing that he killed someone. I think that Gandalf said that it was unimaginable that Sauron would ever rise again. I don't believe he said it was *impossible*. That door might be open the barest crack. I'd prefer that Voldemort's fall be truly permanent. My better side would like to see all the rest redeemed but perhaps some outcomes *are* too trite to be suffered. Ken From shawn.beach.sp54 at statefarm.com Tue Apr 3 13:36:24 2007 From: shawn.beach.sp54 at statefarm.com (Shawn Beach) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 06:36:24 -0700 Subject: Tommy's looks In-Reply-To: <1175566709.4264.44530.m51@yahoogroups.com> References: <1175566709.4264.44530.m51@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20253DF9635FD5438442BBC8397BBE740317B18E@WPSCV6NF.OPR.STATEFARM.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 167045 Does anyone think that as each Horcrux is destroyed, Riddle's looks will start to un-blur and the final showdown will take place between Harry and human looking Tom Riddle? Shawn From betsymarie123 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 3 16:35:33 2007 From: betsymarie123 at hotmail.com (Betsy Corts) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:35:33 +0000 Subject: Eyes Theory In-Reply-To: <000901c7717f$978b42e0$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167046 Ronin: >Somebody mentioned how Harry has discovered his father's power inside him >and that his mother's power still lies within him, undiscovered. >This got me to thinking...JKR has said that something about Harry's eyes >being like his mother's was going to play a big part in DH. Lily's eyes >were green, as are Harry's. As is the light of the Avada Kedavra curse. Maybe >the power she transferred to him, the protection is in his eyes. I was reading your post and it got me thinking. Perhaps the eye color is important as JKR mentioned, but what if is not saving Harry's life the way we imagine?? I think maybe it has something to do with Harry recognizing his mother from a place that perhaps is in another place... inside the veil maybe. That way the eye color is really important. Maybe I'm just rambling here. What do you all think???? Betsy From audreynstuff at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 17:27:37 2007 From: audreynstuff at yahoo.com (audreynstuff) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:27:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's reason to trust Snape: my theory...... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167047 I was rereading Half Blood Prince last night and at the very end of the book , just after Dumbledore gets killed, everybody had gathered in the hospital wing to discuss what had just happened. When the discussion turned to how Dumbledore always had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape, I got an idea that maybe Snape had made an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore renouncing his loyalty to Voldemort and pledging to help the Order from then on. Does anybody have any opinions?. audreynstuff From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 18:07:42 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:07:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who Does this Sound Like to You? In-Reply-To: References: <872683.14715.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704031107u57b14eb3s5d4785f00eba174@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167048 "lust for vengeance and retribution" doesn't really fit - lust is _lust_. your description almost seems to fits Wrath (alternate name for anger) better. We could put Umbridge as Greed, maybe... (Umbridge for Lust is just too horrible to contemplate) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 18:53:54 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:53:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's reason to trust Snape: my theory...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167049 --- "audreynstuff" wrote: > > I was rereading Half Blood Prince last night and at > the very end of the book , just after Dumbledore gets > killed, everybody had gathered in the hospital wing to > discuss what had just happened. When the discussion > turned to how Dumbledore always had an ironclad reason > for trusting Snape, I got an idea that maybe Snape had > made an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore renouncing his > loyalty to Voldemort and pledging to help the Order > from then on. Does anybody have any opinions?. > > audreynstuff > bboyminn: Let me talk about something that will seem only tangentally related, but trust me I will bring it back to your topic. When ever this subject comes up, I always wonder who or what is the arbiter of Unbreakable Vows? Exactly when and how is the /failure/ of a Vow determined? For example, in past discussions I have said that as long as Snape maintained the /intent/ to kill Dumbledore, he didn't necessarily have to kill him on the spot, referring to the Tower here. Snape could say, in the moment, too many distractions, I'll never get away with it, so instead of killing him now, I will poison his morning juice. I'm not saying this is realistic, just illustrating that Snape has a clear plan and intent for fulfilling his Vow. Then the next morning, Snape is running late and says, I'll kill him in his sleep tonight. Then later that night it rains and Snape says, too gloomy and dreary, plus too messy to try and escape in the rain, I'll kill him tomorrow. So, let us further say that this is a conscious plan on Snape's part, to keep coming up with excuse after excuse for not killing Dumbledore, but at the same time, maintaining a clear and willfull intent to do so /later/. Under these circumstances, could Snape put off the consequences of the Vow for years, for decades? Now for your idea, first I wouldn't think much of Dumbledore if he was going around coercing people into making Unbreakable Vows of loyalty to him. Next, and again relating to who or what is the arbiter of the Vow, hasn't Snape already violated his Vow of loyalty by killing Dumbledore? How does the 'who or what - arbiter' determine that Snape killing Dumbledore was an act of loyatly, and further accurately determine that Snape returning to Voldemort is /still/ an act of loyalty to Dumbledore? Further, Snape harrassed Harry and tried, or at least threatened, to get Harry, the last and greatest hope of the wizard world, thrown out of school. That certainly can't be good for the cause? Why didn't the Vow kick in then and kill Snape? My point is that since the final determination of a Vow is so grey and uncertain, I just don't see it enhancing the story at all. Still if Snape is able to /play/ the Vow with willfull intent, then perhaps he really can delay the consequences indefinitely. Plus, when Snape made the second Malfoy Vow, wouldn't that envoke the first Loyalty Vow? It just seem much too complicated for JKR to go there. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 19:16:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:16:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's reason to trust Snape: my theory...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167050 audreynstuff wrote: > > I was rereading Half Blood Prince last night and at the very end of the book , just after Dumbledore gets killed, everybody had gathered in the hospital wing to discuss what had just happened. When the discussion turned to how Dumbledore always had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape, I got an idea that maybe Snape had made an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore renouncing his loyalty to Voldemort and pledging to help the Order from then on. Does anybody have any opinions?. > Carol responds: That idea has been suggested by a variety of people. (I tried to search for old posts on the subject, but the server was busy.) I agree that we have not yet heard Dumbledore's "ironclad reason," but I doubt that it's an Unbreakable Vow, which strikes me as very Dark magic indeed since breaking the vow results in death. (Or so the only canon we have so far indicates.) I think that even if young Snape had offered to make such a vow, Dumbledore would have refused. Moreover, a UV requires a Bonder, a third party who would be in on the secret, and the only other person besides Dumbledore who seems to trust Snape completely (at least until he sees DD's body) is Hagrid, whom DD would trust with his life but would be foolish indeed to entrust with a secret. I think that "trust completely" means what it says: Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape completely, not because Snape has made an Unbreakable Vow with him (as opposed to the one we know he took with Narcissa) but because Snape has proven himself worthy of Dumbledore's trust by, among other things, spying on LV "at great personal risk," saving Harry's life, revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge, reporting Harry's dreams from the Occlumency lessons to DD, sending the Order to the MoM, and stopping the curse from the ring Horcrux from killing Dumbledore. None of these incidents is likely to be his "ironclad reason," which evidently predates all of them except perhaps the spying, but IMO they reinforce the trust DD has already placed in him. IMO, "trust completely" means that Dumbledore confidently expects Snape to do what he must do to fight against Voldemort and protect Harry. It means that DD has no fears or misgivings relating to Snape's motives or methods (including taking a UV with Narcissa to "do the deed" should it prove necessary. He knows (or believes that he knows) exactly where Snape's loyalties lie. (As a DDM!Snaper, I'm quite confident that he's right.) Trust is not enforced. A UV would indicate a *lack* of trust. Certainly, Bellatrix the Bonder doesn't trust Snape, as she states openly to his face. It appears that Bellatrix's doubts, or her own knowledge that DEs often work against each other, prevent Narcissa, too, from trusting Snape completely, so she begs him to bind himself to keep his word. Look at the imagery: chains of fire ominously *binding* Snape: "Bellatrix's face glowed red in the blaze of a third tongue of flame, which shot from the wand, twisted with the others, and bound itself thickly around their clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake" (HBP Am. ed. 37). I found that passage more terrifying than almost anything in the books so far. The imagery is hellish, or, rather, the fire suggests hell, the chains and rope suggest binding, the snakes suggest Slytherin. Snape has just robbed himself of his free will; he must either keep the vow or die (though, IMO, he fights to the last to "slither out" of his fiery chains, and it's only Dumbledore's pleading that leads him to keep rather than break the vow). Would Dumbledore, who believes in choice, who tells Harry that he is free to disregard the Prophecy, *bind* Snape to keep his word? If the UV is indeed Dark magic, would he stoop to using it? Such an action seems to me completely inconsistent with a man who would keep an eye on young Tom Riddle but say nothing about him to the other teachers; who would allow Draco to continue his unknown preparations to kill him, again only watching him through Snape and perhaps other trusted spies; who gave other characters, notably Hagrid, second chances based on trust alone (but extended no such trust to Voldemort when he applied to teach at Hogwarts or to Lucius Malfoy when he was revealed to have placed the diary in Ginny's cauldron). No doubt others disagree with me. I'm only presenting my own views and my reasons for holding them. But I, for one, am hoping for an ironclad reason based on *trust* and not compulsion. Carol, who still can't get Yahoo!mort to cooperate but remembers writing at least one previous post on this topic From cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 19:21:51 2007 From: cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com (cassandralee1120) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:21:51 -0000 Subject: Hi! I'm new and theory about the new cover Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167051 Hello, My name is Cassandra and I'm a 22 year old 'Harry Potter' fan. I'm new to this group. *waves* On to my theory: Does anyone think that the necklace around Harry's neck on the new cover could possibly be a time-turner instead of the infamous locket? Like the one Hermione used in POA. I read once that J.K.R said that Harry might be doing some more time traveling in later books, but of course she could have been referring to his lessons with Dumbledore in HBP. I would like to know what others think. Cassandra Lee From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 19:21:06 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:21:06 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > I think that Gandalf said that it was unimaginable that Sauron would > ever rise again. I don't believe he said it was *impossible*. That > door might be open the barest crack. I'd prefer that Voldemort's fall > be truly permanent. My better side would like to see all the rest > redeemed but perhaps some outcomes *are* too trite to be suffered. > > Ken > I think the actual LOTR quote was that if the ring is destroyed Sauron will fall so low that "none can foresee him arising again." As you say, not saying it won't happen, just that it would be in the unforeseeable future if ever. However, I think we are dealing with apples and oranges. Sauron was a quasi-immortal being to begin with, a different order of life altogether from the inhabitants of Middle-Earth. He might be best considered a fallen angel of intermediate status. Voldy, on the other hand, was mortal to begin with, a wizard like all others. He is trying to achieve something of a Sauron-like status, but the whole purpose of the horcrux-hunt is to deny him that possibility. Absent his achieving some form of immortality, which would certainly represent a victory for him, any long-term solution to the Voldy- problem seems to entail his death. It does seem to be pushing the envelope for EVERYONE (i.e. all major and intermediate bad guys) other than Voldemort to live and be redeemed. That would be Snape, Draco, and Wormtail at the very least, which strikes me as at least one happy ending beyond swallowing capacity. If I had to give probabilities, I'd say that Snapey-poo has a 99% chance of biting the big one, Wormtail a 99% chance as well, and Draco a 50% chance. With regard to redemption, that is such a loaded word it's hard to say. If you mean that they'll end up going against Voldemort, I'd give Snapey-poo a 75% chance, Wormtail a 50% chance, and Draco a 50% chance (in Draco's case I'd say the alternative to being against Voldemort isn't being for Voldemort, but being in a useless state of shock). Lupinlore From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Apr 3 19:51:19 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:51:19 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: The Riddle of He Who Must Not Be Named Message-ID: <22544707.1175629879227.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167053 Even Muggleborns seem to have the prejudice against saying "Voldemort". Yet, Dumbledore, Lupin, and Sirius seem to have no problem saying it. I suspect that, if Dumbledore had not specifically told him to use the name, Harry would have developed the same prejudice. Yet, the reason behind this has never been revealed in the canon, as far as I know (it might have been revealed in interviews). Any theories? My best guess: Anybody who a DE or agent overheard using the name, "Voldemort" was targeted for Something Bad (but probably not death, because dead men don't spread rumors). They were subtle enough that the victims had no idea that it was done by a human agent, and therefore assumed that Voldemort had managed to curse the pronunciation of the name itself. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 19:54:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:54:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's reason to trust Snape: my theory...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167054 bboyminn wrote: > When ever this subject comes up, I always wonder who or what is the arbiter of Unbreakable Vows? Exactly when and how is the /failure/ of a Vow determined? > > For example, in past discussions I have said that as long as Snape maintained the /intent/ to kill Dumbledore, he didn't necessarily have to kill him on the spot, referring to the Tower here. > > Snape could say, in the moment, too many distractions, I'll never get away with it, so instead of killing him now, I will poison his morning juice. I'm not saying this is realistic, just illustrating that Snape has a clear plan and intent for fulfilling his Vow. Then the next morning, Snape is running late and says, I'll kill him in his sleep tonight. Then later that night it rains and Snape says, too gloomy and dreary, plus too messy to try and escape in the rain, I'll kill him tomorrow. > > So, let us further say that this is a conscious plan on Snape's part, to keep coming up with excuse after excuse for not killing Dumbledore, but at the same time, maintaining a clear and willfull intent to do so /later/. Under these circumstances, could Snape put off the consequences of the Vow for years, for decades? Carol responds: I don't think any such conscious intent (which, in any case, would be a lie) is necessary. Snape hasn't vowed to kill Dumbledore, period. Had he done so, I'd have difficulty sustaining my belief in DDM!Snape. He vowed, first, to watch over and protect Draco and then, in the crucial clause, to do the deed if Draco seems about to fail: "And should it prove necessary . . . if it seems that Draco will fail . . . will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" (HBP Am. ed. 36; ellipses indicate pauses and omitted context but no omissions in the wording of the third provision itself). IOW, Snape can discourage Draco from "amateurish" tactics likd eursed necklaces (an, by implication, poisoned mead) without breaking the vow. He has no need to make any such attempts himself, or to "intend" to do so, or to help Draco do whatever he's doing while his friends stand guard; he knows that killing Dumbledore is Draco's job. He is only compelled by the wording of the vow to step in "should it prove necessary, if it seems that Draco will fail." And, IMO, that moment (which he and DD probably thought or hoped could be postponed indefinitely) comes when Amycus tells Snape, "the boy doesn't seem able--." Unlike Amycus, Dumbledore knows what this moment means, as his first "Severus" indicates. Snape meets his eyes, looks angry, but still procrastinates, not lifting his wand until Dumbledore says, "Severus, please" (595). Snape is only compelled to kill DD or die because Draco has faced Dumbledore with a raised wand and failed to kill him, even with the DE backup he's been waiting for. The moment Snape realizes that this has happened, the vow is triggered. DD's words and look force him to make the choice. It's not clear how much time he would have had to act or refuse to act (hesitation doesn't seem to break the vow), but the desperation in Dumbledore's voice as he says, "Severus, please. . ." suggests to me that it isn't very long. He fears, I think, that worse disaster than his own death will strike if Snape doesn't act now. Regarding who or what is the arbiter, I think the wording of the vow determines when and under what conditions it is fulfilled or violated. The magic, like that of the DADA curse and the Goblet of Fire's "binding magical contract" or Hermione's "sneak" hex, acts independently of any human arbiter. bboyminn: > Now for your idea, first I wouldn't think much of Dumbledore if he was going around coercing people into making Unbreakable Vows of loyalty to him. Carol: Nor do I. I don't think that DD would coerce, or request, any such vow from anyone, nor accept the offer to take one. Such an idea violates everything he stands for, including second chances for those who have erred, trust of those who have earned it, and the importance of choice for everyone, even Voldemort. Carol, agreeing with Steve that DD would not have asked or allowed Snape to make a UV but not with the mechanics of the vow we know he did make From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 19:56:08 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:56:08 -0000 Subject: Envy & Snape / 7 Deadly Sins & DADA Profs (was:Re: Who Does this Sound) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167055 > >>Red Eye Randy: > I found some descriptions of Envy from Greek mythology and other > sources on the internet. Who does this sound like to you? > > In Harry Potter .... > He lives in a dark place with snakes and has a sallow complexion. > He may have had passions for someone who he could not have, and is > tortured by the memory of this lost love. He never smiles except > at the sight of someone else's troubles(like Harry's). He wanders > the halls at night ( he does not sleep well). > Someone else got all the attention and all the glory. Someone else > took something important away from him which he can never have. He > is now reminded of this every day by the son who looks just like > the man who did this to him. > SEVERUS SNAPE ? Betsy Hp: My first instinct is to throw my arms around poor, maligned Snape and cry, "Not my Snapey-poo!". After which, of course, I'd suffer a horrible and oddly creative death. But while I think you exaggerate (ie Snape *has* smiled at things other than "someone else's troubles": Draco's offer to put in a good word with Snape's friend Lucius for example), I must admit, envy does play a part in the makeup of our dear Severus. Especially, I think, in the trials of his youth. Not, I hasten to add, that I think Snape wanted to *be* James Potter, to live his life etcetera. But I do think it makes sense that Snape was envious of how *easy* things appeared to be for James. Rich, handsome, pure-blooded, coddled and adored not only by his parents, but possibly the Hogwarts staff as well (I'm sure James used his charm to good effect), James was everything that the poor, awkward, (and most killingly, I suspect easily driven to tears especially when young) Snape was not. And I'm quite sure that galled. And I agree that it *still* galls Snape to this day. It's hard to fight a dead man, especially a dead *hero*. (Snape has quite successfully, I think, put his issues with the other Marauders behind him. Lupin proved untrustworthy, Sirius unhinged, and Peter pathetic. But James lingers.) I'm fairly confident it was Snape's issues with James that led to him pushing Harry so hard in their very first lesson together. However, I don't know that I'd list envy as a primary issue with Snape's interactions with Harry. I don't get the sense that Snape is *competing* with Harry as I think he may have with James back in the day. Oh, and this is a bit of an aside, but Snape doesn't live in the dark with snakes. He lives in the well set up dungeons of Hogwarts with *children*. I don't think we can write the Slytherins off as less than human yet. > >>Red Eye Randy: > > 1.Quirrell was Pride (could not see himself as he truly was in > mirror) > 2. Lockhart was Greed ( wanted what others had done for his own) > 3. Lupin was Sloth ( was slow to act due to his regrets about life) > 4. Moody was Lust (for vengence and retribution) > 5. Umbridge was Anger ( it seemed to bubble up to the surface) > 6. Slughorn was Gluttony ( he drinks and eats to much) > 7. Snape could be Envy ( he is bitter and resentful toward Harry?) > Or you could just make a case for Voldemort who seems to fit this > description too. > What do you think? Betsy Hp: I think that while you could make a case for one of the sins with each of the DADA teachers (though hang on, what's up with Slughorn?), I doubt JKR wrote them in such an allegorical manner. I mean, I think it'd have been a bit more obvious if each teacher was supposed to represent one, and only one, deadly sin. If I were to do it (because while I don't think it's purposeful, I do agree it's possible, and also, kind of fun ), I'd go: Quirrel = Lust (wanting to be strong enough to take power) Lockhart = Greed (stealing others' works for his own gain) Lupin = Sloth (I agree with this: hiding in inaction and self-pity) Fake!Moody = Envy (need to be recognized as the *most* loyal DE) Umbridge = Gluttony (wanting more and more power, never satisfied) Snape = Pride (able to handle anything all by himself, eg the Vow) Which, since we've not had seven DADA instructors yet, leaves Wrath. If there's not a seventh year at Hogwarts, I can see Harry getting trapped in this particular sin (lord knows, he's got reason). Though of course he'll find a way through it and prevail in the end. Betsy Hp (feels like she's been away *forever*) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Apr 3 21:38:46 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:38:46 -0000 Subject: The Riddle of He Who Must Not Be Named In-Reply-To: <22544707.1175629879227.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167056 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Even Muggleborns seem to have the prejudice against saying "Voldemort". Yet, Dumbledore, Lupin, and Sirius seem to have no problem saying it. I suspect that, if Dumbledore had not specifically told him to use the name, Harry would have developed the same prejudice. Yet, the reason behind this has never been revealed in the canon, as far as I know (it might have been revealed in interviews). > > Any theories? > > My best guess: Anybody who a DE or agent overheard using the name, "Voldemort" was targeted for Something Bad (but probably not death, because dead men don't spread rumors). They were subtle enough that the victims had no idea that it was done by a human agent, and therefore assumed that Voldemort had managed to curse the pronunciation of the name itself. > > Bart > Quick_Silver: This is really a two point answer. The first point is that having Dumbledore, Sirus, and Lupin highlights a division within the good side (other then the Order vs. Ministry divide). Dumbledore is the only wizard that Voldemort ever fear so it makes sense that he would say Voldemort (or Tom when in person). The Marauders (since Sirius and Lupin make up two thirds of the "good" Marauders) come across as highly talented, reckless, and with a certain disregard for convention so their saying Voldemort's name has a certain crazy logic to it. However at the same time the Marauders (especially Sirius but James and Lupin too) come across, to me at least, as chafing slightly under the leadership/watch of Dumbledore. They seem willing to act in their own interests without requiring the "permission" of Dumbledore. I'm not saying that they disrespect Dumbledore so much as their not beholden to him like other characters (Hagrid, Mrs. Weasley, even Snape). The second point is that perhaps at some point Voldemort spread rumors that the name actually was cursed/invoked his attention/etc. This is the man who has apparently managed to curse a teaching position. Quick_Silver From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 21:50:38 2007 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:50:38 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > Carol: > > Carol, who just checked the Lexicon's list of birthdays from JKR's > > site and found that Hagrid's isn't there > > > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com- > birthdays.html > > > > > Dana: > Hagrid's birthday is listed as december 6th on the lexion website. > > Dana > and Kelly asks: Does anyone remember if JKR wished Hagrid a Happy Birthday on her website this past December? From andie1 at earthlink.net Tue Apr 3 22:42:29 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:42:29 -0000 Subject: Book Cover/Prophecy Orb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167058 > Joanne's question > > > please help me see Peter and Sirius. (Where exactly is a snake's > > shoulder anyway?) I can make out a wolf shape in the clouds, and > > of course the stag. The only thing I see in the orb is a > > reflection of a window, some stars - and a snake. Yes, I suppose you're right. Snakes don't have shoulders... but if they DID, Sirius would be behind it. :) I also see the reflection in the window as well and have been trying to think about what that might mean. Here's where I see the dog/rat. Find the snake's head. To the right (your right) behind the head of the snake, there is a darker, black area. If you look at the dark area, you can see two eyes, a mouth, and a nose of a black dog. You don't see the body, just the head. Next, pretend that the orb is the globe/Earth. Find the equator. Then, look just to the right and slightly below. Within the snake's body, you can see a rat (looks more like a mouse actually)... but you can see a small nose, eye, and two little ears. Both the mouse (rat) and the dog are facing the right hand side of the orb. Did that help? (It could just be that they really are not there and I'm crazy... highly likely. :) grindieloe From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 3 23:19:30 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:19:30 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167059 Alla (April Fooling): > > This is a sad day for me, people. I have to go and absorb the > > Dumbledore who could ask Snape to do that. Bye. > > > > Alla, shrieking in the Shack. > > Alla: Pippin: Well, I have to admit I took Alla's post seriously. If I had not been busy preparing a Seder dinner following a weeklong family emergency, I would have embarrassed myself handsomely. :) But as it is, I think the joke's on you, Alla, because your comment above started me thinking about what *I* would expect Dumbledore to do if he ever supposed, even remotely, that he might have to order Snape to kill him. He would have prepared Snape, and that would be why Snape also shows no surprise. But he also would have prepared Harry. Dumbledore had ample opportunities, most prominently when he was having his chat about ways and means with Draco. If he had thought it might ever be acceptable to take one innocent life in order to save another, that would have been the time to mention it. But he never does. What Dumbledore does emphasize, though, is that if Draco were a killer he would have acted immediately, as soon as he saw that Dumbledore was defenseless. That makes it very strange that SupposedKiller!Snape did not do so. He took in the situation, was told that the boy doesn't seem able, he pushed Malfoy out of the way -- and *then*, it seems, he hesitated, long enough to gaze at Dumbledore, long enough for Harry to register with shock that Dumbledore was pleading. It's easy to understand why DDM!Snape hesitated -- he was waiting first for orders, orders which he received but then hesitated to obey. But why should OFH! or ESE! Snape hesitate at all ? If he has already decided that he will kill Dumbledore, and that he must do so to survive, what on earth would he be he waiting for? Enquiring minds want to know. But what was Dumbledore's command? Hitherto, I've been open to the idea that Dumbledore might have ordered Snape to kill him, though I never liked it and I didn't think it fit with the evidence that shows Dumbledore survived his fall. But now I've got to rule it out. There may have been a ruse on the tower, but I don't think there can have been a killing. Harry wasn't prepared for it, and that to me means that Dumbledore never envisioned a scenario where a loyal Snape would have to kill him. However, Dumbledore's lessons, all of them, are exercises in the art of craftiness and deception, and not only on the part of the baddies. Dumbledore makes it clear that, like parseltongue (and isn't it interesting that to speak with a forked tongue means to practice deception), craftiness and deception are also used by the great and good. I think Dumbledore made it obvious that both he and Snape would be perpetrating deceptions in order to fool the enemy, and that they might not have an opportunity to take Harry into their confidence before doing so. The text itself does not give us any justification for thinking that Dumbledore would ask to be killed. Characters do ask to be killed, but only when they are in intolerable pain, or when they think it would somehow appease the killer, who would then not seek another deaths. But neither of those circumstances apply on the tower. While thinking about the circumstances in which characters plead to be killed, I wondered once again about Lily. She pleads as if her death would appease Voldemort -- as if he were attacking to slake his bloodlust or to take revenge on the Potters for defying him. In the Shrieking Shack, Sirius imputes a similar motive to Voldemort; he says that no one will dare to accuse Peter of treachery to the Dark Lord if he delivers up the "last of the Potters." In other words, it doesn't sound as if either of them knew about the Prophecy. I'd been certain that Dumbledore *must* have told James and Lily. But now I wonder. Lily's plea "Take me instead " makes no sense if she knows that Voldemort considers Harry an enemy in his own right. Either she was so distraught that she made no sense, which would undermine the idea that her choice was powerful because she undertook it knowingly, or she was unaware of the prophecy. That reinforces the idea that Sirius, who didn't seem to know about the prophecy in PoA, later learned of it from Lupin, and that Lupin could not have learned about it from James -- or from Dumbledore. I think that although JKR does want us to think about whether it's ever right to take one life to save another, she's already telegraphed her position by having the evil Narcissa be the first to think Dumbledore must die in order to save Draco. I think in Book Seven this may be the moral error which led the real villain to the Dark Side -- a belief that it would be justified to take other lives in order to save those who are dearest to him. This isn't an evil belief, exactly... even Dumbledore couldn't help valuing Harry's life and happiness more than those of innocent strangers. I think JKR shows us that this is a normal moral instinct, and without those instincts we would have no more reason to pursue goodness than Voldemort does. But I think JKR's thesis is that moral instincts are not enough. The world we have created for ourselves, like that which JKR has created for her characters, is too complex to be navigated by instinct alone. At some point we have to step beyond instinct and act, consciously and counter-intuitively, for the common good, doing what is right instead of what is easy, or we will end up destroying the lives that we hoped to save. Pippin From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 00:09:22 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tommy's looks In-Reply-To: <20253DF9635FD5438442BBC8397BBE740317B18E@WPSCV6NF.OPR.STATEFARM.ORG> Message-ID: <89158.65255.qm@web35001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167060 Shawn Beach wrote: Does anyone think that as each Horcrux is destroyed, Riddle's looks will start to un-blur and the final showdown will take place between Harry and human looking Tom Riddle? Deborah writes: I think it's very unlikely. The horcruxes are bits of Voldemort/Tom's soul; the lack of soul within Voldemort is what makes his appearance less than human. Destroying the Horcruxes will not change this. If you could get the soul bits back into Voldemort's body, there might be a chance that Voldemort could change back to a more Tom Riddle-ish form. I think there is a chance more of Tom Riddle's true self could re-emerge from Voldemort if he could get control from his narcissistic false self, Lord Voldemort, but it seems to be not related to Horcrux destruction. --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 03:13:51 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:13:51 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167061 > Pippin: > The text itself does not give us any justification for thinking that > Dumbledore would ask to be killed. Characters do ask to be killed, but > only when they are in intolerable pain, or when they think it would > somehow appease the killer, who would then not seek another deaths. > But neither of those circumstances apply on the tower. zgirnius: I have to disagree. "when they think it would somehow appease the killer, who would then not seek another deaths" is precisely the circumstance I see on the Tower. (Just, make that "killers", not "killer"). Snape is not alone. There are four other adult, and presumably loyal to Voldemort, Death Eaters on the Tower, who I think might definitely have been willing to kill Draco and Harry. But Dumbledore knows whose death they seek - his. By having one of their number (Snape, as they believe) kill Dumbledore, I think it did precisely have the effect that the killers decided not to seek other deaths. They took Draco along, never even realized Harry was present, and left the school without killing anyone else. What would have happened if Snape tried to make a battle of it could have been quite different. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 03:38:20 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:38:20 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167062 > Pippin: > > What Dumbledore does emphasize, though, is that if Draco were > a killer he would have acted immediately, as soon as he saw that > Dumbledore was defenseless. That makes it very strange that > SupposedKiller!Snape did not do so. He took in the situation, was told > that the boy doesn't seem able, he pushed Malfoy out of the way -- > and *then*, it seems, he hesitated, long enough to gaze at > Dumbledore, long enough for Harry to register with shock that > Dumbledore was pleading. > Neri: I never got the impression Snape *hesitated*. I fact it seems to me that JKR precisely contrasts his behavior with that of Draco. Snape takes exactly half a page from bursting in to doing the deed. Unlike the talkative Draco he says nothing at all to Dumbledore or to anybody else except "Avada Kedavra!" Before that he merely "gazes for a moment" with hatred at the pleading Dumbledore, exactly the dramatic pause that would be appropriate before the most fateful murder of the series, you know. Just enough time for the reader to say "Nahhh, he wouldn't..." and then Bang! In comparison with Draco's indecisiveness it strikes me as a very "if you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk" kind of moment. > Pippin: > Hitherto, I've been open to the idea that Dumbledore might > have ordered Snape to kill him, though I never liked it and I didn't > think it fit with the evidence that shows Dumbledore survived his > fall. But now I've got to rule it out. There may have been a ruse on the > tower, but I don't think there can have been a killing. Harry wasn't > prepared for it, and that to me means that Dumbledore never > envisioned a scenario where a loyal Snape would have to kill him. > Neri: I agree. If Snape is to be DDM then there wasn't a murder on the tower and Dumbledore had never asked Snape to kill him. Not that I think Snape is DDM, but *if* he is, then complete and absolute innocence is the only solution that would be dramatic enough after the tower. I think Rushdie has also realized this, which was why he was so sure that Dumbledore couldn't be dead. The problem is that Dumbledore *is* dead, and a botched ruse would most certainly not be dramatic enough. What I'm surprised at, Pippin, is that you haven't yet blamed Dumbledore's murder on ESE!Lupin (unless you have and I've missed it, in this case my apologies). If we assume there wasn't a murder on the tower then Lupin doesn't have a clear alibi. He could have run up the tower after clearing the remaining DEs in the corridor, see the living Dumbledore lying below and AK him from the tower while Snape and Harry were trading insults near the gate. This scenario still leaves a few big holes, and of course I don't think Lupin is ESE, but it's still easier for me to buy than Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him, or Dumbledore faking his own death and botching it. Neri From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 04:00:38 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:00:38 -0000 Subject: Tommy's looks In-Reply-To: <20253DF9635FD5438442BBC8397BBE740317B18E@WPSCV6NF.OPR.STATEFARM.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Beach" wrote: > Does anyone think that as each Horcrux is destroyed, Riddle's looks > will start to un-blur and the final showdown will take place between > Harry and human looking Tom Riddle? zanooda: I suppose that depends on where you believe a soul-bit goes after it is released from a distroyed Horcrux. If you think that it returns to the "main soul", then maybe you are right. But it seems more logical to me that the soul-bits go through the veil, or wherever the souls of the departed are supposed to go. Even if a soul-bit cannot pass through the veil because the rest of the Horcruxes prevent it from going, I don't believe it can rejoin the "main soul". This is JMO, of course. Besides, if your theory is right, wouldn't LV start changing already, with two Horcruxes destroyed? Wouldn't he suspect something? And don't forget LV on the US book cover! Still as ugly as ever, isn't he :-)? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Apr 4 15:29:46 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:29:46 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167064 > > Pippin: > > Hitherto, I've been open to the idea that Dumbledore might > > have ordered Snape to kill him, though I never liked it and I didn't > > think it fit with the evidence that shows Dumbledore survived his > > fall. But now I've got to rule it out. There may have been a ruse on > > the tower, but I don't think there can have been a killing. Harry wasn't > > prepared for it, and that to me means that Dumbledore never > > envisioned a scenario where a loyal Snape would have to kill him. > Neri: > I agree. If Snape is to be DDM then there wasn't a murder on the tower > and Dumbledore had never asked Snape to kill him. Not that I think > Snape is DDM, but *if* he is, then complete and absolute innocence is > the only solution that would be dramatic enough after the tower. I > think Rushdie has also realized this, which was why he was so sure > that Dumbledore couldn't be dead. The problem is that Dumbledore *is* > dead, and a botched ruse would most certainly not be dramatic enough. Jen: I agree as well. It's beyond Harry's characterization to understand Snape is loyal if he really AK'd Dumbledore (orders or no orders). Harry's learned that an Avada Kedavra is the Killing Curse, it was used to murder his parents, that it is considered Unforgiveable and that murder is the 'supreme act of evil'. I could follow a gray area reading of Snape's AK, but I don't believe Harry is set up to do that. The Potterverse moral view on murder was made even more explicit in the same book as an AK was cast. I would expect if JKR wanted to examine the gray area of mercy killings or killing on the order of a commander in a time of war, she would have set up this premise by diluting the significance of using an AK for Harry rather than strengthening it. Reversing her position now will say that Unforgivables are not Wrong with a capital W but only wrong in certain circumstances. Once again I can't see Harry getting to the point of understanding that after everything he's learned and what he believes. I don't view the potion in the cave as parallel to Snape using an AK on the tower. An AK holds a different moral weight in Potterverse than an unknown potion which is said not to kill immediately and has an unknown effect in Harry's eyes. Had Snape used anything besides an AK on the tower, Harry might come to understand it was a mercy killing or a killing on orders in a time of war and understand Snape's loyalty is like his own. Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 16:21:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:21:16 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167065 Jen wrote: > I agree as well. It's beyond Harry's characterization to understand Snape is loyal if he really AK'd Dumbledore (orders or no orders). Harry's learned that an Avada Kedavra is the Killing Curse, it was used to murder his parents, that it is considered Unforgiveable and that murder is the 'supreme act of evil'. I could follow a gray area reading of Snape's AK, but I don't believe Harry is set up to do that. > > The Potterverse moral view on murder was made even more explicit in the same book as an AK was cast. I would expect if JKR wanted to examine the gray area of mercy killings or killing on the order of a commander in a time of war, she would have set up this premise by diluting the significance of using an AK for Harry rather than strengthening it. Reversing her position now will say that Unforgivables are not Wrong with a capital W but only wrong in certain circumstances. Once again I can't see Harry getting to the point of understanding that after everything he's learned and what he believes. > > I don't view the potion in the cave as parallel to Snape using an AK > on the tower. An AK holds a different moral weight in Potterverse than > an unknown potion which is said not to kill immediately and has an > unknown effect in Harry's eyes. Had Snape used anything besides an > AK on the tower, Harry might come to understand it was a mercy > killing or a killing on orders in a time of war and understand Snape's loyalty is like his own. Carol responds: I don't agree, naturally. Harry is starting to view himself as a soldier (or rather a gladiator) who will have to kill, and his motive at the moment is revenge. The only means of killing in the WW that he knows of (short of an attack from Fenrir Greyback, a potentially fatal curse like the one on the necklace, or a poison without an antidote) is Avada Kedavra. (He's not going to kill Voldemort with a handgun.) I don't think that Harry will end up killing Voldemort in that way (Dumbledore thinks that the purity of his soul has kept him from being attracted to the Dark Arts, and surely his temptation to use the Cruciatus Curse is intended to be a *bad thing*, as is his desire for revenge on Snape. (I won't get into Dumbledore's mixed messages here or whether he knows that Harry tried to Crucio Bellatrix.) If Snape really killed Dumbledore (rather than faking an AK or whatever) then he had no choice but to use Avada Kedavra, the Killing Curse, the curse that the DEs would expect him to use. Anything else would be suspect. And dead is dead; if Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him to prevent Snape from dying himself (with terrible consequences for Draco, Harry, and the WW), it doesn't matter whether Snape used an AK or sent him off the tower to die from the fall. The AK would actually be kinder. There are different kinds of murder. If Snape was intending all year to kill Dumbledore, if he wanted him dead and was plotting his death, then he's ESE! and has committed "the supreme act of evil." But the story doesn't read that way, at least not to me. I see no indication of loyalty to Voldemort, no indication that Snape wants Dumbledore dead. The anger and hatred that Harry sees on his face are inconsistent with any feelings we've seen Snape demonstrate toward DD so far. The closest he's come to anger is his resentment that Dumbledore won't listen to him with regard to Lupin in PoA. That's not a motive for murder, and Snape comes through time and again, either on his own or in conjunction with Dumbledore, to help or protect Harry (who, of course, fails to see it every time). And yet, there are glimmers of understanding. There's the Pensieve scene in which he feels compassion for the young Snape. There's the gratitude and empathy, even friendship, that he feels for the HBP, whose comment on Bezoars saved Ron's life. (Hermione comments that Harry would have known about Bezoars if he'd paid attention in Snape's first lesson.) Harry knows, but conveniently ignores, that Snape saved Katie's and Dumbledore's lives with his anti-Dark Arts Healing skills. He *saw*--and can't forget--that Snape saved Draco's life. In the cave, after he knows that Snape is the eavesdropper, and in the hospital wing, after he has seen Snape kill Dumbledore, he remembers Snape healing Draco's gaping wounds. I think Harry will come to understand that the last thing Snape wanted was to kill Dumbledore, that Snape believed he could put off or evade the Unbreakable Vow indefinitely (or, if worse came to worst, die himself), that Dumbledore knew, and silently persuaded Snape, that Snape *must* kill him because if Snape broke his vow and died, the DEs would kill DD and Harry would come rushing out to fight them. Given Dumbledore's attitude toward death, "Severus, please . . ." cannot mean that he's begging Snape to spare him. He appears to be dying, in any case. And since *Snape does not raise his wand*, even after Amycus tells him that the boy can't do it and Dumbledore says "Severus" in a pleading tone, even after Snape meets DD's eyes and his face takes on that expression of revulsion (surely at the deed, not at Dumbledore) and (self?) hatred, until Dumbledore says, "Severus, please . . . ." I don't think there was any prearranged plan for Snape to kill or pretend to kill Dumbledore, but Dumbledore made Snape promise something (the argument in the forest) that Snape didn't want to do. I think that promise was that, if there was no other way to save Draco (or Harry, if he got involved despite all there efforts to keep him from doing so) that he must keep his vow. And that, in my view, is exactly what happened on the tower. If Snape did indeed split his soul, than he has made a great sacrifice for the common good. His action not only saved Draco and got the DEs off the grounds, but saved Harry, who is released from his freezing spell only as the last DE is leaving the tower. And he saves him again as the DEs are leaving Hogwarts, stopping the Crucio and ordering the DEs off the grounds. I don't think we underestimate Harry if we assume that understanding such circumstances and such motives is beyond his comprehension. I think that he will and must learn to understand, forgive, and even trust Severus Snape. I don't, however, expect Harry or Snape ever to like one another. Carol, who thinks that the consequences if Snape had not sent DD over the battlements are too horrible to contemplate From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 16:28:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:28:56 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167066 Carol earlier: > I don't think we underestimate Harry if we assume that understanding such circumstances and such motives is beyond his comprehension. I think that he will and must learn to understand, forgive, and even trust Severus Snape. I don't, however, expect Harry or Snape ever to like one another. Carol again: I meant, of course, "I think we underestimate Harry . . . ." Carol, apologizing for the one-liner and hoping this doesn't count as a post From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 16:30:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:30:30 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167067 > Jen: > The Potterverse moral view on murder was made even more explicit > in the same book as an AK was cast. I would expect if JKR wanted > to examine the gray area of mercy killings or killing on the order of > a commander in a time of war, she would have set up this premise > by diluting the significance of using an AK for Harry rather than > strengthening it. Reversing her position now will say that > Unforgivables are not Wrong with a capital W but only wrong > in certain circumstances. Once again I can't see Harry getting > to the point of understanding that after everything he's learned > and what he believes. > Alla: Yeah, agreed 100%. But to not make it complete me too let me bring an example that I certainly brought in the past, but did not for quite some time, so I hope it would not sound too parroting :) To the best of my recollection the only time in the books when good guys use AK( and even that is not specified in details) is when Barty Sr. allows aurors to do so. I do not think that narrator sounds very approving of Barty's decision, no? And that is the **only** time I can remember. To me it speaks volumes of how bad AK is in Potterverse. IMO of course. From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 16:53:48 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:53:48 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167068 > Jen: > Harry's learned that an Avada Kedavra is the Killing Curse, it was > used to murder his parents, that it is considered Unforgiveable > and that murder is the 'supreme act of evil'. I could follow a gray > area reading of Snape's AK, but I don't believe Harry is set up to do that. > > The Potterverse moral view on murder was made even more explicit > in the same book as an AK was cast. I would expect if JKR wanted > to examine the gray area of mercy killings or killing on the order of > a commander in a time of war, she would have set up this premise > by diluting the significance of using an AK for Harry rather than > strengthening it. Annemehr: Dumbledore was not specific as to the method to be used, but wouldn't you consider his HBP pep talk with Harry a dilution of the view on murder? Dumbledore took Harry from this attitude: "it was still very hard to believe as he sat here that his life must include, or end in, murder . . . " [OoP ch. 38] To this: ---------------------------------------------------------------- "But, sir," said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound argu? mentative, "it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I've got to try and kill him, or ?" "Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you've tried! We both know it! Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now? Think!" Harry watched Dumbledore striding up and down in front of him, and thought. He thought of his mother, his father, and Sirius. He thought of Cedric Diggory. He thought of all the terrible deeds he knew Lord Voldemort had done. A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing his throat. "I'd want him finished," said Harry quietly. "And I'd want to do it." [HBP ch. 23] ----------------------------------------------------------------- The "Potterverse moral view on murder" may have been made very explicit in this book, but so has Dumbledore's intention that Harry *seek to* kill Voldemort, and not reluctantly, either. Harry doesn't just want the Voldemort problem solved, *he wants to kill him.* Jen: > Reversing her position now will say that > Unforgivables are not Wrong with a capital W but only wrong > in certain circumstances. Once again I can't see Harry getting > to the point of understanding that after everything he's learned > and what he believes. Annemehr: Well, again, Harry went from believing that killing Voldemort would be murder (OoP) to wanting to kill him himself (HBP). He and DD are silent on the question of whether either would still call it murder or justified killing, but in any case Harry's "understanding" of that point has certainly changed dramatically. More changes are certainly possible, and I expect this to occur in his views on what Snape did on the tower. I still wonder about the question of whether it is worse to kill LV with an AK than something else -- why it is "Wrong with a capital W" as you (and others) say. Who says AK, Crucio, and Imperio are Unforgivable Curses? Who defined them as such? Was it the Ministry, or the Wizengamot, one of which must have attached the Azkaban life sentence as well? By what standard did they make this judgment? I recall long-ago discussions on what Harry thought he was going to do to Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, when he thought he was going to kill him. I think it was Steve (bboy) who suggested he might point his wand at Sirius's neck and shout "Diffindo!" Would this *really* be "better" than casting an AK, if he could have? It probably would have hurt Sirius more, but would it have made Harry any less guilty? Is Avada Kedavra a form of Dark Magic because of what it does (kill someone)? If that *is* the reason it is Dark, than so must Diffindo be if you do it to someone's neck. And then, so must Love be, if you use it as a lethal weapon. If the AK is Dark for some *other* reason than for what it does, then we have no hint from canon what that other reason might be. Conversely, if AK used for malicious murder makes it Dark, but then Harry uses it for an entirely justified killing, would it cease to be Dark in that case? No worse than using Diffindo or anything else? I am not saying I am sure that Harry will end up AKing LV. I am only saying 1)needful killing is apparently endorsed by the epitome of goodness, Dumbeldore; 2)what Snape did on the tower may prove to have been needful, and 3)I'm questioning the moral judgments about the various possible means to achieve the killing that DD has charged Harry with. Annemehr From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Apr 4 16:55:50 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:55:50 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167069 > > Jen: > > > The Potterverse moral view on murder was made even more explicit > > in the same book as an AK was cast. I would expect if JKR wanted > > to examine the gray area of mercy killings or killing on the order > of > > a commander in a time of war, she would have set up this premise > > by diluting the significance of using an AK for Harry rather than > > strengthening it. Reversing her position now will say that > > Unforgivables are not Wrong with a capital W but only wrong > > in certain circumstances. Once again I can't see Harry getting > > to the point of understanding that after everything he's learned > > and what he believes. > > > > Alla: > > Yeah, agreed 100%. But to not make it complete me too let me bring an > example that I certainly brought in the past, but did not for quite > some time, so I hope it would not sound too parroting :) > > To the best of my recollection the only time in the books when good > guys use AK( and even that is not specified in details) is when Barty > Sr. allows aurors to do so. > > I do not think that narrator sounds very approving of Barty's > decision, no? > > And that is the **only** time I can remember. To me it speaks volumes > of how bad AK is in Potterverse. > > IMO of course. Magpie: Actually, even acknowledging that's true, I don't know if it's really that bad. I mean, Crucio seems like it should be pretty bad too, but Harry almost uses it. Granted, I think there is a difference between what Harry (and imo Draco) are throwing at their enemies and the true use of Crucio, which is why Harry's doesn't work. But I don't think AK in itself is necessarily something the good guys would just never use. JKR uses it sparingly in the narrative, but I don't know whether that's because she's saying the good guys would never use it. Iirc, Moody is described as always trying to take people alive, so he didn't always do it, and while Barty's allowing them to use Unforgivables led to bad things, I don't think it made Moody necessarily bad. It gets back to that question of Dark Magic again, what it is, what it does to you. Is it like Star Wars where we should worry that Harry tried to throw a Crucio? I thought it would be in OotP, and then in HBP I thought oh no, it's not. Sectumsempra was a deadly curse the way Harry used it in HBP, yet a few chapters later he's reaching for it again--granted, against the Inferi, but if it's Dark Magic and it had horrific results should he be using it at all? Yet it doesn't seem like it's a big deal that he did. So I don't know. I can imagine that Snape knows that in this situation he ought to kill Dumbledore and that AK isn't any worse way to do that than anything else. The way it's written in the scene it actually seems like a pretty good way to go. I mean, it's dignified...it's more like Snape just saying, "You're dead now." I don't meant to underestimate it--that's part of why the scene's so dramatic. But it's dramatic because what AK is is just the wish for someone else to be dead spoken aloud. That's powerful--and I think there's a reason that Crucio (the desire to cause someone else pain in some way) can be something JKR has Harry and try at and fail while she doesn't have Draco even try AK. But I don't really get the feeling that AK as a spell stands alone from other spells or from other ways to kill. I think it's just that the intent to kill is a big deal; using it has effects on you and using it a lot has severe effects. I think the big deal is that Snape is killing, and the AK symbolizes that intent itself, which is more formidable than any of the almost-murders throughout the books. -m From homeboys at comcast.net Wed Apr 4 17:13:41 2007 From: homeboys at comcast.net (Adesa) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:13:41 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Carol: However, I, personally, don't want Harry to use Avada Kedavra or any other Dark Curse. The Unforgiveable Curses, it seems to me, corrupt the mind and the soul. (Look at the Crouches, for example, or at the probably irredeemable Bellatrix Lstrange.) I wish that Harry, who knows what a Crucio feels like, would stop attempting to cast one, and I think it would be simply wrong, an inversion of the morality of JKR's world, for Harry to use the weapons of the enemy to kill him. I would prefer for him to bring about Voldemort's death in some other way, such as forcing him to go beyond the Veil (or summoning Fawkes to act as suicide bomber?) rather like the One Ring's falling into the Cracks of Doom causes Barad Dur to crumble and Sauron to fall into the abyss, never to rise again. AND Ken: > Killing is an awful thing and it isn't an easy thing for decent > people. In rare instances it is the right thing. Harry should do the > right thing no matter the cost to himself. There are some burdens > worth bearing. The only real way to avoid the anguish you want to > spare Harry is to have someone else kill Voldemort. I'd say that there > is a reasonable chance that Pettigrew or Snape will do just that. > Severus has already spared one Hogwarts student the life long burden > of knowing that he killed someone. NOW Adesa: Remember, too, that JKR believes (rightly, IMHO) that no one is *all* good or *all* evil. So even if Harry is the "good guy," that doesn't mean he won't resort to only "good" methods of fighting evil. I kinda like that he's tried unforgivables; he's more human to me when he's not quite so morally righteous. Voldemort, on the other hand? Hmm. I can't say that I see him as being redeemed in the end, but I *can* see (if this were the real world) someone like him finding redemption. Maybe not changing his life for good, perhaps, but certainly feeling regret. I know he seems more like someone who is clinically psychotic, but I have a hard time investing this much into a story where that's true. "Sorry he's crazy, no hope. The end." To me, it's either he's redeemable or he's psycho. Therefore, he either finds redemption or gets killed. Harry is our hero; he'll either hand Voldemort redemption or take care of business himself. My money's on Harry offing the guy. Of course he'll feel guilty about such an act (he *is* a good guy), but he's a man with the Wizarding World on his shoulders, and he's up to it. JMHO~ Adesa in Virginia From homeboys at comcast.net Wed Apr 4 17:26:43 2007 From: homeboys at comcast.net (Adesa) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:26:43 -0000 Subject: Hi! I'm new and theory about the new cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167071 Cassandra: > Does anyone think that the necklace around Harry's neck on the new > cover could possibly be a time-turner instead of the infamous locket? > Like the one Hermione used in POA. I read once that J.K.R said that > Harry might be doing some more time traveling in later books, but of > course she could have been referring to his lessons with Dumbledore in > HBP. NOW Adesa: Hi Cassandra! You bring up an interesting point: we all assume that to be *the* locket (and I'm still leaning that way), but it is rendered without much detail--or even clean lines. Is this artistic license or author's intention? I'm really hoping it's the locket; that time-turner made things a bit too sci-fi for my tastes. But a time-turner is certainly another possibility. Adesa in Virginia From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Apr 4 17:38:30 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:38:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape: ESE or DDM? Message-ID: <25555866.1175708310904.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167072 From: Jen Reese >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of >Jen: I agree as well. It's beyond Harry's characterization to understand >Snape is loyal if he really AK'd Dumbledore (orders or no orders). The arguments for DDM!Snape vs. ESE!Snape are usually based on events within the books. I want to state, with reasons within the canon but not part of the storyline, why I find it difficult to impossible to believe in ESE!Snape. In many mysteries, there is something that Alfred Hitchcock called the McGuffin. This is an object that serves to drive the plot, but is meaningless to the audience; the audience often never even finds out what it is. Sometimes an unexplained story device is never explained, as a kind of joke on the readers (Steve Gerber, creator of Howard the Duck, Omega the Uknown, and a very well-liked run on Marvel Comics' THE DEFENDERS, put in a plot device. At unexpected points in the story, action would shift to people meeting an elf, who would take out a gun, and shoot them. When Gerber left Marvel, the story was unfinished, so one writer finished in a way very much in the style of Steve Gerber: the elf got hit by a car while crossing the street without looking first. A major mystery through the books was: Why did Dumbledore trust Snape so much? Dumbledore let it be known that he had an ironclad reason to do so, but, other than hints, he never actually stated his reason. And, on what appears to be an obvious level, Snape not only kills him, but he does so using an "unforgivable" curse. So, frankly, if Snape was in fact ever so evil, then Dumbledore's reasons, whatever they were, are effectively the elf with the gun. It raises our curiosity and expectations, and turns out to be meaningless. It's like offering a kid a bite out of a candy bar, and pulling it away just as the kid was about to bite. It's not a writing style, it's a pratical joke. And I just don't believe that JKR is playing a practical joke on the audience. Therefore, I am willing to go through Rowlingish hoops of logic to explain how Snape was and still is DDM. Bart From penhaligon at gmail.com Wed Apr 4 17:40:27 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Suzanne Chiles aka Panhandle) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:40:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hi! I'm new and theory about the new cover In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4613E30B.2070204@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167073 Adesa wrote: > Is this artistic license or > author's intention? I'm really hoping it's the locket; that time-turner > made things a bit too sci-fi for my tastes. But a time-turner is > certainly another possibility. > Panhandle: Hermione clearly states in the HBP that the Ministry's entire stock of time turners was destroyed in the battle at the Ministry at the end of OOTP. Of course, I'm sure there are other time turners around, but as they are in private ownership, they may be harder for Harry to get a hold of one. My money is on the Locket. -- Suzanne Chiles aka Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com homescribe.wordpress.com From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Apr 4 17:50:28 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:50:28 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167074 Carol: > If Snape really killed Dumbledore (rather than faking an AK or > whatever) then he had no choice but to use Avada Kedavra, the Killing > Curse, the curse that the DEs would expect him to use. Anything else > would be suspect. And dead is dead; if Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill > him to prevent Snape from dying himself (with terrible consequences > for Draco, Harry, and the WW), it doesn't matter whether Snape used an > AK or sent him off the tower to die from the fall. The AK would > actually be kinder. > > There are different kinds of murder. Jen: People talk about seeing the 'beats' for a situation and all I'm saying is I haven't seen any beats yet that will lead Harry to understand your last point there, that there are different kinds of murder. In his mind Lupin and Sirius would have been killers if they acted on their intentions in POA. Draco would have been a killer if he'd cast an AK at Dumbledore on the tower. Snape was a killer because Harry thinks he cast an AK at Dumbledore. Harry has always been portrayed as very literal in that repsect. After hearing the prophecy he believed he would be a 'murderer or victim' in respect to Voldemort, but despite the fact that Dumbledore told Harry he believes the prophecy means one will kill the other, DD doesn't proceed to train Harry how to kill or use an AK in his quest to rid the world of Voldemort. Even if Harry is now a warrior walking into the ring with his head held high instead of being dragged in, he is never shown getting past the words to think how he might actually kill Voldemort. Instead, the beat I see in HBP is Harry watching a young man like himself learn from his own mentor that 'you are not a killer' and 'killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe.' (chap.27, pp. 546-548, UK ed.) Those are the words I expect to come back to Harry when finds himself in the situation Draco was in, to kill or be killed. Those are the two whom I expect to be compared, Draco and Harry. I'm not disagreeing with some of your other arguments about a set-up between Harry and Snape; I'm only saying this is the hurdle to get across before the other points can sink in for Harry. I'm sure there are believeable ways for JKR to make this happen if that's her story. Carol: > Given Dumbledore's attitude toward death, "Severus, please . . ." > cannot mean that he's begging Snape to spare him. He appears to be > dying, in any case. And since *Snape does not raise his wand*, even > after Amycus tells him that the boy can't do it and Dumbledore says > "Severus" in a pleading tone, even after Snape meets DD's eyes and his > face takes on that expression of revulsion (surely at the deed, not at > Dumbledore) and (self?) hatred, until Dumbledore says, "Severus, > please . . . ." Jen: All I'm saying is we have no reason to believe Dumbledore condones using an AK. We know he's not afraid to die. We know he is more than willing to sacrifice himself. We know he is willing to place the good of the community over the good of one. We don't yet have canon where DD states the use of an AK is considered okay if the end is good enough. Carol: > I don't think we underestimate Harry if we assume that understanding > such circumstances and such motives is beyond his comprehension. I > think that he will and must learn to understand, forgive, and even > trust Severus Snape. I don't, however, expect Harry or Snape ever to > like one another. Jen: I'm not underestimating Harry. I'm pointing out the canon available to show how JKR has constucted his moral belief system so far. She can change the course she is on, but I haven't seen evidence for that happening yet. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 15:56:28 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:56:28 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167075 > Jen: I agree as well. It's beyond Harry's characterization to > understand Snape is loyal if he really AK'd Dumbledore (orders > or no orders). Harry's learned that an Avada Kedavra is the Killing > Curse, it was used to murder his parents, that it is considered > Unforgiveable and that murder is the 'supreme act of evil'. I could > follow a gray area reading of Snape's AK, but I don't believe Harry >is set up to do that. Weeellllll... The big problem is that JKR isn't all that great when it comes to consistency, outlines or no outlines. An even bigger problem is that she isn't all that great on consistent characters -- which is very much a product of the tyranny of her outlines. It is very clear that JKR settled long ago on an ironclad plot that the characters are going to follow, will they or nil they, consistency or not. If a character has grown and shifted over time, or if the character's previously stated emotions don't fit the plot, or if character's revealed traits don't fit the plot -- too bad. Shoehorned into the plot they go. So, I could easily see her doing just precisely this. Snape reveals that DD ordered him to do the AK. Harry then pretty much says "oh, I don't like you but ok," and that takes care of that. Or maybe she'll pull the old memory-from-the-pensieve trick and let DD do the explaining. In any case, shoehorn employed, dust hands together, move along. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 18:08:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:08:14 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167076 > Annemehr: > Dumbledore was not specific as to the method to be used, but wouldn't > you consider his HBP pep talk with Harry a dilution of the view on > murder? > > Dumbledore took Harry from this attitude: > "it was still very hard to believe as he sat here that his life must > include, or end in, murder . . . " [OoP ch. 38] > > To this: > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > "But, sir," said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound argu? > mentative, "it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I've got to > try and kill him, or ?" > > "Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not > because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until > you've tried! We both know it! Imagine, please, just for a moment, > that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about > Voldemort now? Think!" > > Harry watched Dumbledore striding up and down in front of him, and > thought. He thought of his mother, his father, and Sirius. He thought > of Cedric Diggory. He thought of all the terrible deeds he knew Lord > Voldemort had done. A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing > his throat. > > "I'd want him finished," said Harry quietly. "And I'd want to do > it." > [HBP ch. 23] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The "Potterverse moral view on murder" may have been made very > explicit in this book, but so has Dumbledore's intention that Harry > *seek to* kill Voldemort, and not reluctantly, either. Harry doesn't > just want the Voldemort problem solved, *he wants to kill him.* Alla: I read this quote differently. I am quite convinced that Harry wanting to kill Voldemort will not come true precisely because of what **for me** is very clear view Potterverse has abut the murder. Could be wrong definitely. And I also think that the fact that AK is not mentioned here is very important. To me AK personifies the murderous intent, the desire to kill, something which is bad in itself. Ugh, I am not making sense, but I am trying to say that I do not consider this conversation as dilution of DD's views on the murder. I also think it is very significant that DD says that "you will never rest till you tried". I read "you got to" and this sentence together. I do not think that DD thinks that Harry has to kill Voldemort at all. Got to try to get rid of him - yes, maybe to see that murder is not a good thing and in the meantime to get rid of him in some other unexpected way. IMO of course. Of course I believe that Harry will get rid of Voldemort, but I do not believe that he will do so with AK or with any other deliberate means. > > > Annemehr: > Well, again, Harry went from believing that killing Voldemort would > be murder (OoP) to wanting to kill him himself (HBP). He and DD are > silent on the question of whether either would still call it murder > or justified killing, but in any case Harry's "understanding" of that > point has certainly changed dramatically. More changes are certainly > possible, and I expect this to occur in his views on what Snape did > on the tower. Alla: Yes, I believe that more changes are coming :) Magpie: But it's dramatic because what AK is is just the wish for > someone else to be dead spoken aloud. That's powerful--and I think > there's a reason that Crucio (the desire to cause someone else pain > in some way) can be something JKR has Harry and try at and fail > while she doesn't have Draco even try AK. But I don't really get the > feeling that AK as a spell stands alone from other spells or from > other ways to kill. I think it's just that the intent to kill is a > big deal; using it has effects on you and using it a lot has severe > effects. I think the big deal is that Snape is killing, and the AK > symbolizes that intent itself, which is more formidable than any of > the almost-murders throughout the books. Alla: Well, I agree that intent to kill is a big deal, and that is why AK is a big deal IMO. Does it make sense? Of course AK is not a bad spell just because it is called so? I am not sure what we are disagreeing over here. I agree that AK personifies intent to kill, I do not think that there are any other spells that do so, and that is why IMO this is one of the very worst sins of Potterverse to use it, because you have to have an intent to do so. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 19:17:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:17:51 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167077 Magpie: > Actually, even acknowledging that's true, I don't know if it's really that bad. I mean, Crucio seems like it should be pretty bad too, but Harry almost uses it. Granted, I think there is a difference between what Harry (and imo Draco) are throwing at their enemies and the true use of Crucio, which is why Harry's doesn't work. Carol responds: I think it's clear that the Cruciatus Curse *is* Dark. Bellatrix, an expert on the subject, says that to cast it successfully, you have to enjoy causing pain, which is why Harry's righteous anger resulted in a failed curse. And he *wanted* to hurt Bellatrix, to punish her for killing Sirius Black, just as he *wants* to hurt Snape (but doesn't get the opportunity because Snape deflects the curse). Much as he hates Snape and wants revenge on him, I don't think he would have succeeded in Crucioing him because, unlike Bellatrix and Voldemort and the DE who cast the Crucio that Snape stopped, he doesn't *enjoy* inflicting pain. It's a sadist's weapon, altogether evil (IMO), which can have no good uses that I can think of. (There are other ways, less cruel and more effective ways, to punish criminals, for example.) IMO, Harry needs to get beyond the temptation to use the Cruciatus Curse on anyone, for any reason. (I could be wrong, of course, but I'll be very disappointed if it turns out that JKR thinks it's acceptable for the good guys to torture an enemy--and very surprised as well, given what we know of her politics.) Magpie: > But I don't think AK in itself is necessarily something the good guys would just never use. JKR uses it sparingly in the narrative, but I don't know whether that's because she's saying the good guys would never use it. Iirc, Moody is described as always trying to take people alive, so he didn't always do it, and while Barty's allowing them to use Unforgivables led to bad things, I don't think it made Moody necessarily bad. > Carol responds: I agree regarding Moody, but the case with Mr. Crouch may be different. He's the one who authorized the Aurors to use the weapons of the Death Eaters against them and who kept his own son under the Imperius Curse for years after helping him escape from Azkaban. And that same son had used the Cruciatus Curse to help torture the Longbottoms into insanity and later had no compunction at all about demonstrating all three Unforgiveables to his student (torturing the spider in front of Neville is an act of supreme cruelty, IMO), Imperioing his own students, Imperioing Krum to make him Crucio Cedric, and AKing his own father. The Crouches *seem* to illustrate Alla's perspective that the Unforgiveables are altogether evil and corrupt the soul. Certainly, Barty Jr. was irredeemably evil and his father, though he repented, did so too late and paid the price. But, still, there's Moody, who only killed when he had to and only, it would seem, in self-defense against DEs like Evan Rosier, who put up a good fight. (Why Rosier didn't just kill Moody is unclear; maybe he wanted to maim and mutilate him rather than kill him. Or the story required him to blow a hunk out of Moody's nose before Moody killed him.) It's all very confusing, at least to me. Magpie: > It gets back to that question of Dark Magic again, what it is, what it does to you. Is it like Star Wars where we should worry that Harry tried to throw a Crucio? I thought it would be in OotP, and then in HBP I thought oh no, it's not. Carol responds: I *do* worry about Harry throwing Crucios, not so much because they're the weapon of the Dark side (cf. using the One Ring against Sauron, which would be folly of the first order) but because of the sadistic intent required to cast a successful Crucio and the clearly evil nature of the successful casters (Voldemort, Bellatrix, Barty Jr.). I can't imagine Moody casting one, or Dumbledore, either. I think that Harry is passing through a phase that he doesn't even recognize as the temptation to use the Dark Arts against the Dark side, to hurt them as they've hurt him. (And, of course, he sees Snape as being on the Dark side, whether he really is or not, and wants revenge against him.) But that temptation is, IMO, an obstacle to be overcome along the road to confrontation with the Dark Lord. The desire to inflict pain is, I think, antithetical to the Love magic he needs to be focusing on. Rather than thinking about revenge, maybe he should put that "saving people thing" to good use. Magpie: > Sectumsempra was a deadly curse the way Harry used it in HBP, yet a few chapters later he's reaching for it again--granted, against the Inferi, but if it's Dark Magic and it had horrific results should he be using it at all? Yet it doesn't seem like it's a big deal that he did. > Carol: I think using Sectumsempra against animated corpses is different from using it on a living enemy. (The Inferi can't feel or bleed and they're already dead.) Harry's horror at the results when he used it on Draco is surely the appropriate response (unfortunately rather short-lived). But, of course, it's hard to think properly or worry about ethical implications when a horde of Inferi is coming at you. Expelliarmus isn't going to work. I'm not sure that Stupefy would, either. (Shooting flames from his wand, though . . . ) I think that Snape is right, though not for the reasons he gives (not his real reasons?), when he says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter," and when he expresses disapproval of Harry's use of Dark magic, even a curse that he, himself, invented at the same age: "Where did you learn such Dark magic, Potter?" Sectumsempra, as he knows all too well, is intended to cause pain and bleeding and death. The only thing better about it than about the AK is that Sectumsempra can be cured by a wizard who knows the countercurse (quite possibly, only Snape himself). Magpie: > So I don't know. I can imagine that Snape knows that in this situation he ought to kill Dumbledore and that AK isn't any worse way to do that than anything else. Carol: Not to mention that it's quick and efficient and doesn't require preparation or administration as poisons do, and it's what the DEs would expect, and, unlike Sectumsempra, it's apparently painless. (The terrified expressions on the Riddles' faces did not result from the AK itself or Cedric would have had a similar expression. Maybe Tom tortured them before he killed them. Hepzibah Smith's death from poison was probably more painful than theirs or Frank Bryce's or Cedric's. If you're going to be murdered, better to die instantly from a shot through the brain than suffer the agony of being cut up with a chainsaw and left to bleed to death. Or that's my view.) Which is not to say that Avada Kedavra is *good*, by any stretch of the imagination. But I think it's Dark (and Unforgiveable) because it's intended for killing and no other purpose and because there's no countercurse (in contrast to Sectumsempra, which is Dark but might or might not be classified as Unforgiveable if the MoM knew about it). *If* Snape was forced by circumstances to kill Dumbledore (and really did kill him rather than letting the poison or ring curse do so), a quick and painless AK is better than leaving him to lie in his own blood and bleed to death. (Snape, of course, would not be able to wait around and save him as he saved Draco.) And an AK seems to me less cruel than having Dumbledore die from the fall. (If Dumbledore is dying from the poison and/or the ring curse, the AK is also a coup de grace though that in itself doesn't justify it, I admit.) It seems to me that Snape is faced with a choice between two evils. Which would be worse from DDM!Snape's and Dumbledore's perspective, having Snape kill DD or having him die in some other way (assuming, as I do, that DD's escape from the Death Eaters is not an option)? And if the answer is that "dying in some other way" is worse, for whatever reason, then Snape has to kill him. And, if that's the case, AK is the obvious method, the one that would be most efficient and least painful and arouse least suspicion. (If killing DD splits Snape's soul, I don't see why an AK would tear it but some other method wouldn't. Hepzibah Smith's murder by poison seems to have torn LV's soul quite efficiently.) Magpie: The way it's written in the scene it actually seems like a pretty good way to go. I mean, it's dignified...it's more like Snape just saying, "You're dead now." I don't meant to underestimate it--that's part of why the scene's so dramatic. But it's dramatic because what AK is is just the wish for someone else to be dead spoken aloud. Carol responds: Well, yes and no. Dignified, yes (at least by comparison with Sectumsempra), but mainly because Snape sends DD's body over the battlements and prevents Fenrir Greyback from having it for "afters," which would have been considerably worse than undignified. Also, DD has just that fraction of a second to prepare himself, to close his eyes and compose his features (I'm assuming a real AK here though I'm open to other possibilities). If we can judge from the peacefully sleeping portrait, this is the way that Dumbledore wanted to go, given the limited possibilities now available. Dying peacefully in his sleep fifteen years later is not an option. Magpie: > But I don't really get the feeling that AK as a spell stands alone from other spells or from other ways to kill. I think it's just that the intent to kill is a big deal; using it has effects on you and using it a lot has severe effects. I think the big deal is that Snape is killing, and the AK symbolizes that intent itself, which is more formidable than any of the almost-murders throughout the books. Carol: I don't entirely agree. I don't think that Snape intended to kill Dumbledore (much less wanted to do so, though I know that's not what you're implying). I think he had no choice, or rather, had only Hobson's choice (he had to kill DD himself because not to do so would have even more devastating consequences), and he chose the only spell that would serve that terrible necessity without additional pain and degradation for Dumbledore. What's terrible for Snape, IMO, is that he had to kill Dumbledore, the only man who believed in him and trusted him and saw the good in him. And that--the killing rather than the intent to kill--is, IMO, why he's suffering such anguish when Harry calls him a coward. If I'm right, it has nothing to do with having used an AK per se and everything to do with having been forced by circumstances to choose between killing his mentor or dying himself, and with having chosen to kill DD rather than die himself because that was what Dumbledore wanted him to do. He has chosen what was right (or what DD thought was right) over what was easy and no one, he thinks, will ever understand. It's almost as if, rather than Snape betraying Dumbledore, he feels, at least for the moment, as if Dumbledore has betrayed him. (Draco, who has no close relationship with Dumbledore, could not possibly feel what DDM!Snape must feel, whether he killed DD at a distance through a cursed necklace or poisoned mead or murdered a weak and disarmed old man that he sees as foolish and deluded. He would simply know what Wormtail knows, how it feels to kill someone you don't care about on Voldemort's orders.) Carol, wondering whether JKR has fully thought out the implications of the Unforgiveable Curses but fearing that plot takes precedence over theme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 19:40:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:40:00 -0000 Subject: Locket or Time Turner? (Was: Hi! I'm new and theory about the new cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167078 Adesa wrote: > You bring up an interesting point: we all assume that to be *the* locket (and I'm still leaning that way), but it is rendered without much detail--or even clean lines. Is this artistic license or author's intention? I'm really hoping it's the locket; that time-turner made things a bit too sci-fi for my tastes. But a time-turner is certainly another possibility. Carol responds: I suppose that Hermione could be mistaken in saying that all of the Time Turners were destroyed in their battle at the MoM, but still, Time Turners were central to PoA whereas it looks as if Horcruxes will be central to DH (and the locket Horcrux depicted on the Bloomsbury adult cover reinforces that impression). The admittedly blurred and undetailed rendering of the object around Harry's neck does make it somewhat ambiguous (if it weren't for the R.A.B. note and so forth in HBP, I doubt that I'd suspect a locket. More likely, I'd think, "What's Harry doing with DD's pocketwatch around his neck?"). But Voldemort wouldn't have the moment of terror seeing DD's pocketwatch--or a Time turner--that he'd have seeing a deactivated Horcrux around Harry's neck. There's also the description of Hermione's Time Turner in PoA to consider--it looks like a small hourglass on a chain--and Grandpre's drawing of it in the chapter art: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/pa/rg-pa21.html Scroll down a bit to see it. All in all, I think the thing around Harry's neck is the Slytherin locket, which is probably not a Horcrux at this point or Harry would not be wearing such a serene expression. Carol, who thinks that time travel in DH, if any, would involve going back to Godric's Hollow rather than what appears to be the final confrontation with Voldemort, which will occur in the present (as Harry is experiencing it) rather than in the past From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 19:51:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:51:48 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167079 > Alla: > I am not sure what we are disagreeing over here. I agree that AK > personifies intent to kill, I do not think that there are any other > spells that do so, and that is why IMO this is one of the very worst > sins of Potterverse to use it, because you have to have an intent to > do so. zgirnius: A person who takes a ton of bricks, deliberately Wingardium Leviosa's them over someone's head, and then deliberately drops them, also has intent to kill. So does a Muggle who puts a deadly poison in someone's drink, no magic involved at all. I hope we can agree that these acts, too, would be among the very worst sins in any universe. Which again raises the question - is the AK any more evil than any other way of deliberately killing a human being? Personally, I think the idea that it is worse undermines the applicability of any moral lessons people might take away from the books to real life. Because, as it happens, the AK is not available to us. I mean, if I were in Snape's situation on the Tower, and I made Snape's choice, would the fact that I would need to push Dumbledore off the tower make me a better person than Snape? And if not, why would it make him a worse person, that he did not? From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 4 19:54:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:54:08 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167080 > > Neri: > I never got the impression Snape *hesitated*. I fact it seems to me > that JKR precisely contrasts his behavior with that of Draco. Snape > takes exactly half a page from bursting in to doing the deed. Unlike > the talkative Draco he says nothing at all to Dumbledore or to anybody > else except "Avada Kedavra!" Before that he merely "gazes for a > moment" with hatred at the pleading Dumbledore, exactly the dramatic > pause that would be appropriate before the most fateful murder of the > series, you know. Pippin: So, um, Snape's dramatic pause means he's *not* acting? How do you work that out? There's no dramatic pause before the killing of Cedric or Sirius. Canon makes it wonderfully clear: killers don't pause for drama, *actors* do. > > Neri: > I agree. If Snape is to be DDM then there wasn't a murder on the tower > and Dumbledore had never asked Snape to kill him. Not that I think > Snape is DDM, but *if* he is, then complete and absolute innocence is > the only solution that would be dramatic enough after the tower. I > think Rushdie has also realized this, which was why he was so sure > that Dumbledore couldn't be dead. The problem is that Dumbledore *is* > dead, and a botched ruse would most certainly not be dramatic enough. Pippin: Not dramatic enough for what? Harry's horrible, shocked realization that the prejudice he thought he was too noble to feel led him to accuse an innocent man of murder, and that he himself fed Dumbledore the poison that killed him -- that's plenty dramatic, even without any further damage to Snape at Harry's hands, which I'm sure will happen before Harry discovers the truth. And there will be plenty of dramatic interest in Snape if the reader realizes that he must be innocent before Harry does. Will Snape escape Harry's vengeance? If he does, how will Harry ever learn the truth? And so on. Neri: > What I'm surprised at, Pippin, is that you haven't yet blamed > Dumbledore's murder on ESE!Lupin (unless you have and I've missed it, > in this case my apologies). Pippin: Oh no, I think Lupin's shock and horror at Dumbledore's death are quite genuine. He never meant Dumbledore to die -- he assumed, like everyone else, that Draco would be incapable of killing and that Dumbledore could easily dispose of any threat that Draco posed. But if ESE!Lupin was Draco's minder, responsible for putting Rosmerta under Imperius, for making sure that Voldemort's threats reached their target, and for assembling the raiding party, then yes, he may be responsible for Dumbledore's death, if the necessity of getting the raiding party out of the castle meant that Snape couldn't be spared to heal Dumbledore of the poison. Anway, ESE!Lupin does have an alibi: he was Stupefying the DE left on the tower (whom Harry had only frozen) so that he could steal Harry's abandoned invisibility cloak, and use it to smuggle Fenrir Greyback out of the castle. :) Neri: of course I don't think Lupin is ESE, but it's still > easier for me to buy than Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him, or > Dumbledore faking his own death and botching it. Pippin: It's not that Dumbledore botches it, except that the DE raid forced him to fake his death at a time when only Snape's healing skills might have allowed him to survive. He could have dropped the plan to fake his death and asked Snape to attempt to heal him, but that would have thrown out any plans that involved Voldemort believing that Snape was indeed a traitor to Dumbledore. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 20:00:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:00:14 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167081 > > Alla: > > I am not sure what we are disagreeing over here. I agree that AK > > personifies intent to kill, I do not think that there are any other > > spells that do so, and that is why IMO this is one of the very > worst > > sins of Potterverse to use it, because you have to have an intent > to > > do so. > > zgirnius: > A person who takes a ton of bricks, deliberately Wingardium Leviosa's > them over someone's head, and then deliberately drops them, also has > intent to kill. So does a Muggle who puts a deadly poison in > someone's drink, no magic involved at all. I hope we can agree that > these acts, too, would be among the very worst sins in any universe. > > Which again raises the question - is the AK any more evil than any > other way of deliberately killing a human being? > > Personally, I think the idea that it is worse undermines the > applicability of any moral lessons people might take away from the > books to real life. Because, as it happens, the AK is not available > to us. I mean, if I were in Snape's situation on the Tower, and I > made Snape's choice, would the fact that I would need to push > Dumbledore off the tower make me a better person than Snape? And if > not, why would it make him a worse person, that he did not? > Alla: How about the strongest personification of the intent to kill? Because of course what you described is also very bad, probably equally bad, BUT Potterverse is an interesting place, you know and I do believe that metaphors for actions do exist there together with those actions itself. Okay, that was a confusing sentence. Let me try to make sense with example. We know for a fact that Dementors personify the effects of the depression in Potterverse, yes? I believe that JKR was very direct in saying so. Does it mean that the characters cannot be depressed for other reasons than meeting Dementors? Of course not. I think it is clear that Cho is depressed in OOP, Sirius is depressed, etc. But when I think of depression in Potterverse, I think of dementors first and foremost as strongest metaphor for that. Same thing for me with AK. AK means to me that person intends to kill, period. Of course there are other situations when person can intend to kill and use other means ( we do not see any of them by the way being used by good guys, no?), but to me when author wants to stress how bad it is, she will use AK first and foremost. Does it make sense? JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Apr 4 20:19:10 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:19:10 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167082 > Magpie: > > > But it's dramatic because what AK is is just the wish for > > someone else to be dead spoken aloud. That's powerful--and I think > > there's a reason that Crucio (the desire to cause someone else pain > > in some way) can be something JKR has Harry and try at and fail > > while she doesn't have Draco even try AK. But I don't really get > the > > feeling that AK as a spell stands alone from other spells or from > > other ways to kill. I think it's just that the intent to kill is a > > big deal; using it has effects on you and using it a lot has severe > > effects. I think the big deal is that Snape is killing, and the AK > > symbolizes that intent itself, which is more formidable than any of > > the almost-murders throughout the books. > > Alla: > > Well, I agree that intent to kill is a big deal, and that is why AK > is a big deal IMO. Does it make sense? Of course AK is not a bad > spell just because it is called so? > > I am not sure what we are disagreeing over here. I agree that AK > personifies intent to kill, I do not think that there are any other > spells that do so, and that is why IMO this is one of the very worst > sins of Potterverse to use it, because you have to have an intent to > do so. Magpie: I guess what I'm saying is that I do think AK is a big deal, but not in the sense that it's like a demonic thing that a good person can't use. It's just a big deal because it's the desire to end a life. So if there's some justified reason for ending a life-and don't ask me what that is, but I'm speaking hypothetically-then it's a big deal for the "good" person to do it, but they still might do it. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that those times when Moody tried to take people in alive and couldn't he used the AK. So it's kind of, to me, that the real question is "Would DD ever kill or kill someone as part of his strategy?" and there I think maybe he would, and if he were going to do that AK wouldn't necessarily be the worst way-- it might just be the most honest. Like, if someone needed to be put out of their misery because they were being slowly killed by poison (not saying that's DD in the scene--just creating a hypothetical) so taht it was truly a mercy killing, I think a good person might use an AK and not feel they had to kill the person by some other means. But I could be wrong about that in canon. One reason, btw, that I think this is that it doesn't seem like JKR's style to go that way, with the emphasis being on the magic rather than what the magic is symbolizing. Magpie: > Actually, even acknowledging that's true, I don't know if it's really that bad. I mean, Crucio seems like it should be pretty bad too, but Harry almost uses it. Granted, I think there is a difference between what Harry (and imo Draco) are throwing at their enemies and the true use of Crucio, which is why Harry's doesn't work. Carol responds: I think it's clear that the Cruciatus Curse *is* Dark. Bellatrix, an expert on the subject, says that to cast it successfully, you have to enjoy causing pain, which is why Harry's righteous anger resulted in a failed curse. And he *wanted* to hurt Bellatrix, to punish her for killing Sirius Black, just as he *wants* to hurt Snape (but doesn't get the opportunity because Snape deflects the curse). Much as he hates Snape and wants revenge on him, I don't think he would have succeeded in Crucioing him because, unlike Bellatrix and Voldemort and the DE who cast the Crucio that Snape stopped, he doesn't *enjoy* inflicting pain. It's a sadist's weapon, altogether evil (IMO), which can have no good uses that I can think of. Magpie: Yes, that's basically what I mean. I think that Harry *thinks* he wants to throw a Crucio, but that's because he doesn't really understand what it is to be a sadist on Bellatrix's level. What Harry wants to do is throw his pain at somebody else. Basically, he's doing just what he wants to do to Malfoy on the Quidditch pitch where he's only thinking about "hurting" him and punching every inch he can reach. It's very different than someone actually torturing someone. Crucio is Dark Magic, definitely, but Harry's trying to cast it doesn't seem to me to have been a red flag in the same way it might have been in, say, Star Wars where we'd take it as a sign that he was going over to the Dark Side. I do think Harry needs to get beyond the temptation to use it--there's nothing good about trying to use it that I can see. But it wasn't taken as being as significant as I thought it might be when I read OotP. With AK I feel like it technically works the same way. As Moody says, all the kids could throw AKs at him at once without giving him as much of a nose bleed if they don't mean it. But unlike Crucio, JKR doesn't seem to use it that way, with Harry hurling it at someone without really meaning it. We have seen a failed Crucio, and I suspect would have seen more if there were more actually completed, but we've never seen a failed AK. It seems like she saved that for people who know what they're doing, maybe because with AK people do have an inherent understanding of when they do or don't mean it, even if they don't really understand death. Magpie: > But I don't think AK in itself is necessarily something the good guys would just never use. JKR uses it sparingly in the narrative, but I don't know whether that's because she's saying the good guys would never use it. Iirc, Moody is described as always trying to take people alive, so he didn't always do it, and while Barty's allowing them to use Unforgivables led to bad things, I don't think it made Moody necessarily bad. > Carol responds: I agree regarding Moody, but the case with Mr. Crouch may be different. He's the one who authorized the Aurors to use the weapons of the Death Eaters against them and who kept his own son under the Imperius Curse for years after helping him escape from Azkaban. And that same son had used the Cruciatus Curse to help torture the Longbottoms into insanity and later had no compunction at all about demonstrating all three Unforgiveables to his student (torturing the spider in front of Neville is an act of supreme cruelty, IMO), Imperioing his own students, Imperioing Krum to make him Crucio Cedric, and AKing his own father. The Crouches *seem* to illustrate Alla's perspective that the Unforgiveables are altogether evil and corrupt the soul. Certainly, Magpie: I agree--I think the Crouchs in particular are showing that, particularly with the idea that Crouch's decision to use them to go after criminals, showed that he was turning into them. I just don't see it as being...how do I put it? Like a chemical magical process. Voldemort's use of Dark Magic warps his looks, the Crouch's are warped by their longterm use of them etc. But I think the lines a little blurry in terms of cause and effect and what's symbolic of what. So for instance, if Snape did AK Dumbledore flat-out and is DDM, I think he would still feel his soul had been torn because he had done something awful and knew it, something he didn't want to do. There's no time where killing a human being just means nothing at all. But I don't think it would necessarily mean that Snape had to be ESE because a good person would never use an AK any more than a good person could never kill another person. Moody, I think, could use an AK in self-defense and have it be different than Barty using it to kill a DE aggressively. And I also don't know if killing someone via poison would be considered any different than killing them via AK in terms of what it meant to the person's soul. I could be wrong that this is how it works in canon, though. Magpie: > It gets back to that question of Dark Magic again, what it is, what it does to you. Is it like Star Wars where we should worry that Harry tried to throw a Crucio? I thought it would be in OotP, and then in HBP I thought oh no, it's not. Carol responds: I *do* worry about Harry throwing Crucios, not so much because they're the weapon of the Dark side (cf. using the One Ring against Sauron, which would be folly of the first order) but because of the sadistic intent required to cast a successful Crucio and the clearly evil nature of the successful casters (Voldemort, Bellatrix, Barty Jr.). Magpie: Me too--but I think if he grows beyond it it will be about Harry's maturing rather than the idea he has to fight being taken over by Dark Magic. One of the weird things in canon, of course, is the way Dumbledore talks about how Harry is so not tempted by Dark Magic when from what we see, he is! What does Dumbledore mean, exactly, when he says that? Sure Harry's not like young Snape--a kid who got a reputation for being into them. Harry and James both seem to feel they hate Snape and Draco for their obsession with the Dark Arts. But Harry's tried to throw Crucios, he was drawn to Sectumsempra that sounded dark, and he threw it again at an Inferi after he knew it was Dark. So what gives? Isn't Ron or Neville at this point far less tempted by the Dark Arts than Harry? Magpie: > Sectumsempra was a deadly curse the way Harry used it in HBP, yet a few chapters later he's reaching for it again--granted, against the Inferi, but if it's Dark Magic and it had horrific results should he be using it at all? Yet it doesn't seem like it's a big deal that he did. Carol: I think using Sectumsempra against animated corpses is different from using it on a living enemy. Magpie: I think so too--but the curse itself is identified as "Dark Magic" and Harry doesn't worry about using it as opposed to anything else. So it seems to me that whether a spell is labelled Dark or Light, the effects of that spell on the caster areless about the properties of the magic than they are about the real ethical implications of whatever you did. So if anyone kills someone using AK, the bad effects and soul-ripping come from having the intention to kill and doing it, not from using this particular curse to do it. To me it seems like Snape pushing Dumbledore off the Tower and killing him that way would not be different than him using an AK in terms of Snape's soul. Magpie: > So I don't know. I can imagine that Snape knows that in this situation he ought to kill Dumbledore and that AK isn't any worse way to do that than anything else. Carol: Not to mention that it's quick and efficient and doesn't require preparation or administration as poisons do, and it's what the DEs would expect, and, unlike Sectumsempra, it's apparently painless. Magpie: Definitely seemed like the way to go to me. Painless, efficient. And honest, really. Snape just has to wish him dead. It's sort of killing in its most pure form. Magpie: > But I don't really get the feeling that AK as a spell stands alone from other spells or from other ways to kill. I think it's just that the intent to kill is a big deal; using it has effects on you and using it a lot has severe effects. I think the big deal is that Snape is killing, and the AK symbolizes that intent itself, which is more formidable than any of the almost-murders throughout the books. Carol: I don't entirely agree. I don't think that Snape intended to kill Dumbledore (much less wanted to do so, though I know that's not what you're implying). I think he had no choice, or rather, had only Hobson's choice (he had to kill DD himself because not to do so would have even more devastating consequences), and he chose the only spell that would serve that terrible necessity without additional pain and degradation for Dumbledore. Magpie: So what is the difference you're seeing, exactly? Because I do agree with your description of what's terrible for Snape, and that (imo) he didn't want to kill Dumbledore at all. I think he had the intention in the most basic sense because he had to do it--much as Harry didn't want to feed Dumbledore the Potion, but did it on purpose. So what is different in his using the AK here in your view? Are you saying that it's different because of the positive aspects of it, like that in that situation the way Snape chose to kill Dumbledore was the best way because it was quick and got him away from Fenrir etc.? -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 20:30:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:30:05 -0000 Subject: Locket or Time Turner? (Was: Hi! I'm new and theory about the new cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167083 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > ... > > The admittedly blurred and undetailed rendering of the > object around Harry's neck does make it somewhat > ambiguous ... > > All in all, I think the thing around Harry's neck is > the Slytherin locket, which is probably not a Horcrux > at this point or Harry would not be wearing such a > serene expression. > > Carol, who thinks that time travel in DH, if any, > would involve going back to Godric's Hollow rather > than what appears to be the final confrontation with > Voldemort, ... bboyminn: On the issue of Time Turners, I agree with what others have said, just because the Ministries Time Turners were destroyed doesn't mean every time turner in existance was destroyed. Yet, I'm troubled by any Time Turner solution, whether direct or indirect. I'm especially against it, if it involves someone going back and pretending to be someone else. Also, keep in mind that we have only seen /Hour/ Time Turners. That somewhat rules out any Time Turning that goes beyond a few days. I've taken the Cover Image into my photo editing program and tried adjusting the Gamma, Contrast, Hue, Saturation, and other parameters, and while I can make the object more distinct, it still remains unclear what it is. There is a definite flare at the top, but it is too asymmetrical to be a time turner. The top is very much smaller than the bottom. The /flare/ at the top could simply be the part of the locket that holds it to the chain. But it seems too big to be the Locket, though that could simply be artistic distortion. I agree with others that it seem more like an amulet bag; a small leather pouch that contains some type of protective amulet for Harry. Further, it could be an amulet pouch that holds Horcrux objects. For those who have followed my 'Objects of Power' theory, I have speculated that when the four founder objects are brought together, their /special/ non-horcrux magic will provide Harry with some kind of unanticipated power or protection. So, Harry could be carrying some of the smaller objects in the pouch. In reality, the 'object' is just too poorly drawn to determine exactly what it is. We will have to wait for the book to find its real significants. Still, it must certainly BE significant for the artist to put such a small detail into the image. I think its presence is real relative to the story, not just artistic license. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 20:35:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:35:36 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167084 Alla wrote: > > How about the strongest personification of the intent to kill? > > But when I think of depression in Potterverse, I think of dementors first and foremost as strongest metaphor for that. > > Same thing for me with AK. AK means to me that person intends to kill, period. > > Of course there are other situations when person can intend to kill and use other means ( we do not see any of them by the way being used by good guys, no?), but to me when author wants to stress how bad it is, she will use AK first and foremost. Carol responds: I understand your feelings about the AK and to some extent, I share them. I certainly don't want Harry to find himself in DDM!Snape's position, forced to use an AK because no other means is available. But I don't want him to push Voldemort off a cliff or use a gun, either. So I'm holding out hope for the Veil or the Love Room. But DDM!Snape's position is different. He has to kill DD and I fail to see why using an AK would be any worse than using any other method. (I've already presented reasons why it's actually better, at least for the victim, than other methods of murder that we've seen. DD certainly suffered much less from Snape's AK, if that's what it was, than from drinking the green potion in the cave.) I'm not sure that we have any evidence that an AK requires an intent to kill beyond Bellatrix's words, "You have to mean them, Potter." But then she focuses specifically on Crucios, which require the *enjoyment* of the victim's suffering to be cast correctly. Righteous anger, or even the simple (not so righteous) desire to get revenge for pain that the victim has caused you, doesn't work. To sustain the Crucio, you have to be a sadist. (And presumably, to sustain an Imperious Curse, you have to want to control the person, to force them to do your will against their own wishes.) But an AK is not sustained. If you cast it and it strikes the victim, the victim dies instantly. Hatred isn't required, as we see when Wormtail kills Cedric, a boy he's never seen before and cares nothing about one way or the other. So intent to kill, if that's what's required to cast an AK, doesn't require either hatred or premeditation. It only requires an intent to kill on a level with pulling the trigger of a gun. Nor, if Snape really is DDM! does it require the caster to *want* to kill his victim. Apparently, it can be cast against the will and desires of the caster. All it requires, in Snape's words, is "the power and the nerve." I think what makes the killing curse Unforgiveable is that there's no countercurse, no way of saving the victim once he's struck by the curse. But in other ways, it's no worse than other ways of deliberately killing a victim--loosing a Basilisk on them, poisoning them, beheading them, causing a bridge to collapse so that the people in the cars on the bridge drown. If we're looking for a metaphor for murder--the horrific act of killing for personal gratification--I think we see it in the revolting person of Fenrir Greyback. There's a person for whom the intent to murder requires neither wand nor spell. Carol, who does not want Harry to find himself in anything like Snape's position and yet thinks that, for DDM!Snape in his terrible predicament, AK was the best if not the only option From bgrugin at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 18:46:09 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:46:09 -0000 Subject: Why AK is a big deal (was:Re: I HAD A DREAM...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167085 > >>Magpie: >> >> But it's dramatic because what AK is is just the wish for someone else to be dead spoken aloud. >> >> I think it's just that the intent to kill is a big deal; using it has effects on you and using it a lot has severe effects. I think the big deal is that Snape is killing, and the AK symbolizes that intent itself, which is more formidable than any of the almost-murders throughout the books. << > >>Alla: >> >> I agree that AK personifies intent to kill, I do not think that there are any other spells that do so, and that is why IMO this is one of the very worst sins of Potterverse to use it, because you have to have an intent to do so. << MusicalBetsy here: I agree with both Magpie and Alla that the intent to kill when saying the AK is what makes it so bad, and I think this is why Snape will die in Book 7. Although he may have had good intentions for doing the AK, I don't think he will be able to live with the knowledge that he has killed his mentor (yes, I believe in DDM!Snape). And it is for this reason that I don't think Harry will get rid of Voldy by using an AK - maybe Hermione will come up with some ancient spell that will be used against Voldy to get rid of his powers - maybe something that involves uniting all the Houses? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 21:54:29 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:54:29 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167086 Lupinlore wrote: > Weeellllll... The big problem is that JKR isn't all that great when it > comes to consistency, outlines or no outlines. An even bigger problem > is that she isn't all that great on consistent characters -- which is > very much a product of the tyranny of her outlines. > > It is very clear that JKR settled long ago on an ironclad plot that the > characters are going to follow, will they or nil they, consistency or > not. Neri: Plot was actually my original argument, before Jen took it in a slightly different direction. If there's one thing you can't fault in JKR's writing, it's her ability to deliver Bang. Her books usually have multiple climax combinations, One-Two and sometimes One-Two-Three, with no climax ever undermined or turned into an anticlimax by a following one. The tower scene is one of her most dramatic climaxes and it is undeniably the current peak of the Snape plot. Therefore any following reversal must be at least as dramatic, and it must not undermine the drama of the tower scene. I think a reversal of the type "well, Snape *did* kill Dumbledore but it doesn't *really* counts because Dumbledore had asked him to and Unforgivables are actually OK in certain circumstances" just doesn't cut it dramatically. Not enough Bang. Given that JKR had plotted all this even before she published the first book, I just don't see her planning to end the series that way. So, which reversals can actually fit the bill now? Given our situation with only one book to go there isn't much of a choice. I see two basic options: 1. Snape didn't do it, ESE!X did (insert X of your choosing, preferably unexpected). 2. At the moment of truth, Villain!Snape severs his ties with Voldemort and saves Harry's life because of Y (insert Y of your choosing, preferably unexpected). And then there's always the default option: 3. No reversal at all. This last one would be kind of disappointing, but at least it won't undermine the Bang of the tower scene. Snape can be a villain in Book 7, have a great final confrontation with Harry and die a dramatic villain's death. My money is on Option 2, but I don't deny the possibility of 1 and 3. > Pippin: > So, um, Snape's dramatic pause means he's *not* acting? How do you > work that out? There's no dramatic pause before the killing of > Cedric or Sirius. Canon makes it wonderfully clear: killers don't pause for > drama, *actors* do. > Neri: I don't think canon makes that clear at all. Diary!Tom delivers a darn speech before calling in the basilisk. Voldemort takes two whole chapters in the graveyard before trying to kill Harry. Crouch!Moody rambles for several pages. Even Voldy in the Ministry utters a longer sentence than "hasta la vista, baby" before trying to AK Harry. What canon makes wonderfully clear is that killers pause for any amount of time that JKR requires for the plot and/or dramatic effect at the particular moment . As for Snape, I have the feeling that he too would normally like to take his time taunting his victims (see under Shrieking Shack) but in this case he was kind of pressed, as he needed to kill Dumbledore before the Vow decided to kick in, and besides, a speech would reveal more than JKR was ready to reveal about Snape's motives in HBP, so Snape had to make do with a dramatic pause. I just think that within this chapter alone Snape's manner is strongly contrasted with that of Draco. > Pippin: > Not dramatic enough for what? Harry's horrible, shocked realization > that the prejudice he thought he was too noble to feel led him to > accuse an innocent man of murder, and that he himself fed Dumbledore > the poison that killed him -- that's plenty dramatic, even without > any further damage to Snape at Harry's hands, which I'm sure will > happen before Harry discovers the truth. > Neri: You are talking about a completely innocent Snape here. I was talking about Snape who killed Dumbledore because Dumbledore had asked him to. And even with a completely innocent Snape, in order to maintain dramatic effect Harry should probably realize Snape is innocent in less than a two chapters complicated explanation. A pretty effective way to achieve this would be if ESE!Lupin or another ESE holding Harry at wand point would say: "Snape?? Killing Dumbledore?? It was *I* who killed Dumbledore!!!" > Pippin: > Oh no, I think Lupin's shock and horror at Dumbledore's death > are quite genuine. He never meant Dumbledore to die Neri: Ah well, there goes my Option 1. > Pippin: > It's not that Dumbledore botches it, except that the DE raid forced > him to fake his death at a time when only Snape's healing skills > might have allowed him to survive. > > He could have dropped the plan to fake his death and asked Snape to > attempt to heal him, but that would have thrown out any plans that > involved Voldemort believing that Snape was indeed a traitor to > Dumbledore. Neri: "Except that"... "might have"... "could have"... "would have"... Cm'on, this isn't a Bang. It's a Dud. Do I have to break some furniture with a big paddle to make the point? Neri From jhenderson at ithaca.edu Wed Apr 4 22:24:46 2007 From: jhenderson at ithaca.edu (jhenderson9) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:24:46 -0000 Subject: Lily in Book 7. Was Re: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: <304303.1759.qm@web26313.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167087 --- hells wrote: > A lot of people at the time presumed JKR was talking about the significance of her eyes. This is possible, but isn't definite by any means. Personally, I will be a little disappointed if there isn't something else regarding her eyes waiting for us. > > Hells I have long been of the opinion that the importance of Lily's eyes was manifest in Book 6, when because Harry had Lily's eyes, Slughorn was unable to withhold information about the horcruxes. I haven't seen any statement by JKR or argument by others yet to convince me otherwise. jhenderson9 From marklb2 at comcast.net Wed Apr 4 21:48:11 2007 From: marklb2 at comcast.net (det_okse) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:48:11 -0000 Subject: New take on the book cover Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167088 Anyone think that with Harry's Expression on the cover, and the outstretched hand of Uncle Voldy, that perhaps this is depicting a scene where Voldy has Harry under the imperious Curse? Just a thought.... det_okse From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 23:22:10 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:22:10 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Sitting His Tests Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167089 Ok so I am rereading OoTP and I just came across something that I hope someone can clarify. P.326 "Me?" said Harry now grinning more broadly than ever. "No I'm not you've beaten me in everyt test-" "Actually, I haven't,: said Hermione cooly. "You beat me in our third year - the only year we both sat the test and had a teacher who actually knew the subject. But I'm not talking about test results, Harry. Look what you've done." Ok so I get why he didn't sit the exam 1st year. He was in the hopsital wing. I guess the same goes for his second year. But did the school champions get a pass on their exams? Is that why he didn't have to take it in his 4th year? And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being passed onto the next grade? Just something I noticed. Tandra From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Apr 5 00:13:47 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:13:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1284656368.20070404171347@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167090 Tandra: T> But did the school champions get a pass on their exams? T> Is that why he didn't have to take it in his 4th year? T> And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being T> passed onto the grade? Just something I noticed. Dave: I think it's indeed Canon that the champions were given special dispensation from exams, but I think it's the only exam he skipped. I think he took the exams in 1st and 2nd year, but Hermione isn't counting them because Quirrell and Lockhart cannot be said to have "actually known the subject". Dave From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Apr 5 00:35:15 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:35:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Locket or Time Turner? (Was: Hi! I'm new and theory about the new cover) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <605420327.20070404173515@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167091 Steve: S> On the issue of Time Turners, I agree with what others S> have said, just because the Ministries Time Turners S> were destroyed doesn't mean every time turner in S> existance was destroyed. Yet, I'm troubled by any S> Time Turner solution, whether direct or indirect. I'm S> especially against it, if it involves someone going S> back and pretending to be someone else. Dave: Here is my theory on Time Turners in Book 7: I think Hogwarts is going to stay open and our new Headmistress is going to *insist* that Harry "be cool, stay in school", especially when he won't tell her why he doesn't plan to. In the end, Minerva will propose a compromise, that the Trio can go off to do whatever task Dumbledore has assigned to them, on the condition that they use a Time Turner to do their Seventh Year at Hogwarts at the same time. This will both allow Harry to finish his formal education (after such a build-up over the previous books, how can he *not* take his NEWTs??), and also throw Umbridge off the scent, as I predict the Ministry will assign her to the new post of Breather-Down-Potter's-Neck-In-Chief. So I think a Time Turner will be used, but only as a means of allowing the Trio to go to Hogwarts and hunt the horcruxes at the same time -- Hopefully no further Sci-Fi-ish temporal paradoxes will be brought into play. Dave From drdara at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 01:15:36 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Not Sitting His Tests Message-ID: <907949.12766.qm@web60718.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167092 Tandra: T> But did the school champions get a pass on their exams? T> Is that why he didn't have to take it in his 4th year? T> And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being T> passed onto the grade? Just something I noticed. Dave: I think it's indeed Canon that the champions were given special dispensation from exams, but I think it's the only exam he skipped. I think he took the exams in 1st and 2nd year, but Hermione isn't counting them because Quirrell and Lockhart cannot be said to have "actually known the subject". Dave Harry took end of year exams 1st year, no one took them 2nd year, Harry took exams 3rd year and the champions didn't have to take exams in the GOF, so Harry took end of year exams twice in the 1st 4 books. Then of course he ended up taking the OWLS in OOPT. I don't remember did the trio do NEWTS??? Danielle ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 01:30:17 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:30:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40704041830u2ed310d1xde1421e17367b4a0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167093 On 04 Apr 2007 16:56:53 -0700, Tandra wrote: > Ok so I am rereading OoTP and I just came across something that I hope >snip< > And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being passed onto the > next grade? Just something I noticed. montims: In Britain, at least in the 80s - I don't know if this has changed recently - students move up each year regardless of the results of their tests/exams - nobody redid the same year. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From penhaligon at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 01:40:13 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Suzanne Chiles aka Panhandle) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:40:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: <907949.12766.qm@web60718.mail.yahoo.com> References: <907949.12766.qm@web60718.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4614537D.40709@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167094 danielle dassero wrote: > Harry took end of year exams 1st year, no one took them 2nd year, > Harry took exams 3rd year and the champions didn't have to take exams in the GOF, > so Harry took end of year exams twice in the 1st 4 books. Then of course he ended up taking the OWLS in OOPT. > I don't remember did the trio do NEWTS??? As NEWTS come at the end of the 7th year, I don't think they would have taken those yet. It will be interesting to see if any of the trio take them in their 7th year, though. Panhandle -- Suzanne Chiles aka Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com homescribe.wordpress.com From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 5 02:57:34 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:57:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of References: Message-ID: <00b701c7772e$29ff59f0$dc78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167095 Carol again: I'm a bit confused myself, actually. But my objection to the word "intent" is that (to me) it implies premeditated murder. It suggests that he wanted to kill DD and that he was planning to do it. There's no premeditation. IOW, "intend," to me, suggests an attitude toward a future action. Draco *intended* to kill Dumbledore (until he was confronted with the prospect of actually doing it) just as I *intend* to do my income tax. (Not a good example, but I don't have any bad intentions at the moment to use for comparison, ;-) ) Snape, AFAIK, had no intention of killing DD. He and DD together seem to have been trying to prevent a confrontation between Draco and DD from occurring (and triggering the vow). Magpie: Just to be clear, I'm using "intend" and "wish" basically the same way here, to refer to Snape's action. I don't think he really wanted DD to be dead at all, and he certainly didn't want to do it. I'm just describing the act of the AK being the intent to kill by pointing a stick at somebody and saying words that will make the person die. I'm using "wish" because it's magical, just saying that a spell is like saying a word to make the word come true, like a magic wish. I'm not saying that Snape underneath had a real desire for Dumbledore to be dead. Actually, I think HBP plays around with splitting all these things--you can take actions that can kill someone without truly wishing for it. I think the reason Snape can do an AK while the fourth years couldn't isn't because he has some underlying desire for Dumbledore to be dead but more because he's an adult, knows what he's doing, and is able to perform the curse if necessary. And I do agree that given the options of the scene, Snape's AKing Dumbledore the way he did was a better choice than what he seemed to be facing otherwise. Neri: So, which reversals can actually fit the bill now? Given our situation with only one book to go there isn't much of a choice. I see two basic options: 1. Snape didn't do it, ESE!X did (insert X of your choosing, preferably unexpected). 2. At the moment of truth, Villain!Snape severs his ties with Voldemort and saves Harry's life because of Y (insert Y of your choosing, preferably unexpected). And then there's always the default option: 3. No reversal at all. This last one would be kind of disappointing, but at least it won't undermine the Bang of the tower scene. Snape can be a villain in Book 7, have a great final confrontation with Harry and die a dramatic villain's death. Magpie: I think JKR's got more options than the kind you've laid out here. The idea that Snape was DDM when he killed Dumbledore sounds lame when you describe it the way you did, but I think it's more like a double or nothing gamble. It doesn't have to undermine the bang of HBP at all because if Snape is DDM then that moment was even more dramatic than it appeared. ESE!Snape is just killing a guy he's been ordered to kill by Voldemort. DDM!Snape was killing his mentor that he cared about. Maybe right now we can't see how JKR could pull that off, but I can't limit her to ESE or ESE at the time!Snape yet. If Snape switches sides at the last minute that seems a little convenient to be bangy. I'm letting it all ride--whatever Snape is (ESE or DDM) I think he was that from the beginning of the series to the end. -m From juli17 at aol.com Thu Apr 5 03:40:47 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:40:47 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167096 > > Neri: > Plot was actually my original argument, before Jen took it in a > slightly different direction. If there's one thing you can't fault in > JKR's writing, it's her ability to deliver Bang. Her books usually > have multiple climax combinations, One-Two and sometimes > One-Two-Three, with no climax ever undermined or turned into an > anticlimax by a following one. The tower scene is one of her most > dramatic climaxes and it is undeniably the current peak of the Snape > plot. Therefore any following reversal must be at least as dramatic, > and it must not undermine the drama of the tower scene. I think a > reversal of the type "well, Snape *did* kill Dumbledore but it doesn't > *really* counts because Dumbledore had asked him to and Unforgivables > are actually OK in certain circumstances" just doesn't cut it > dramatically. Not enough Bang. Given that JKR had plotted all this > even before she published the first book, I just don't see her > planning to end the series that way. > Julie: I think you underestimate JKR. First, we don't even know if the AK killed Dumbledore. It certainly appears so, but it could be that Snape used another spell to kill Dumbledore while faking the AK (just speaking it means nothing, IMO, unless the intent is there and the power is deliberately channelled toward that end). Or he used another spell to send Dumbledore over the Tower while faking the AK, and Dumbledore died on the ground. Faking an AK is not out of the realm of possibility by any means, and we know JKR introduces new spells and concepts for a reason, just as she introduced nonverbal spells in HBP. Not so we can see Harry mostly fail at them (up to this point anyway) but so we have the concept in mind when it is revealed in DH that Snape faked the AK and delivered a totally different spell nonverbally. That is one possibility anyway. Tie it in with Harry feeding Dumbledore the poison in the cave. We don't know yet the level of damage that poison did to Dumbledore. Was it fatal? Was it treatable within a certain period of time (hence his insistence Harry go fetch Snape), but at some point became untreatable? Did it undo whatever Snape did to save Dumbledore from the Ring Horcrux curse? Could it have turned Dumbledore into an Inferi, or in some other way interfered with his ability to die naturally and move beyond the veil? Did Snape finishing off Dumbledore save him from a fate worse than death? Did it also keep Harry from being the actual "killer" (as the one who fed Dumbledore the poison in the first place against all his own instincts)? Again, this is all a bunch of *possible* conjectures from what we observed on the Tower, but the key word is possible. And that's only scratching the surface. I have no doubt JKR can think of 50 more ways to reinterpret the events on the Tower in a manner that will be both bangy and logically workable. Certainly she is not constrained by the lack of full knowledge about the characters and their real motivations as we are! Julie, still deeply suspicious of Snape's AK that didn't have the same drop-dead-on-the-spot-with-eyes-wide-open effect of every other AK we've seen. From renee at thephoenixrises.org Thu Apr 5 04:43:52 2007 From: renee at thephoenixrises.org (merihastyent) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:43:52 -0000 Subject: Keynote Events for Phoenix Rising Sold Out Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167097 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2007 Contact: Amy Tenbrink, Lead Event Organizer press at thephoenixrises.org KEYNOTE EVENTS FOR PHOENIX RISING SOLD OUT NEW ORLEANS, La., April 4, 2007 ? Two of the keynote presentations for Phoenix Rising, a Harry Potter conference to be held in New Orleans May 17-21, 2007, have sold out. There are no remaining tickets for Transformation: From Influence to Inspiration with Dr. Anne Heibert Alton, or for Transformation: From Fan to Fandom, which is a unique walking dinner at the Aquarium of the Americas that will be followed by a panel on the fan community and include Dr. Henry Jenkins of MIT, Melissa Anelli (The Leaky Cauldron), Simon Branford (formerly of FictionAlley), Jennie "Zsenya" Levine (The Sugar Quill), and moderator Catherine Tosenberger. If there are any unclaimed tickets, they will be available at the door. Phoenix Rising also announced a reminder today that online registration for the conference closes on April 11, 2007, at 12:01 a.m. While passes and limited tickets will be available at the door, those who wish to reserve a place in the Borders Riverside Quidditch Tournament are encouraged to register in advance, as no tickets for the tournament will be sold after the close of online registration. The tournament will include the Alivan's Winged Lions, the Knight 62442 Werewolves; the Whimsic Alley Sea Serpents; the Borders Potion Masters; the Shrieking Shack Marauders; the Owl Appreciation Society Fighting Owls; the World Confederation of Pirates and Ninjas Pontchartrain Pirates; and the Betas Anonymous Punctuation Pixies. All teams will play at least three matches of outdoor Quidditch, complete with spectators, and at the end of the tournament, the winners will take home the famed Delta Cup. Registered attendees may visit and use the "change my registration" option to add the tournament to any registration. Additionally, non-attendees may take part in the tournament by visiting and using the "purchase tickets only" option. Until 12:01 a.m. on April 11, anyone may purchase Quidditch tournament registration, tickets for the Storyville wizard rock event on Bourbon Street, and for the other keynote events, presented by Susan Aikens of Borders, Inc., Danny Bilson of Electronic Arts, and Jon Burlingame of the University of Southern California. Registrations include admission to all five days of the conference, including lectures, panels, workshops, roundtable discussions, hands-on programs, and special programming such as Squashy Purple Sleeping Bag Movie Night, a live PotterCast, a live Spellcast as part of Artists and Authors Night, and the Snape: Friend or Foe? panel; the Overture Dinner and Coda Breakfast; a ticket to Phoenix Rising's New Orleans-style Masquerade Ball; and a conference t-shirt. Links: About Phoenix Rising Phoenix Rising (), a Harry Potter conference for adult scholars, students, professionals and fans, is presented by Narrate Conferences, Inc. (), a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that produces dynamic, innovative events. Phoenix Rising is an unofficial event, and is not endorsed, sanctioned or any other way supported, directly or indirectly, by Warner Bros. Entertainment, the Harry Potter book publishers, or J. K. Rowling and her representatives. From lydiafrench at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 03:58:38 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:58:38 -0000 Subject: Tommy's looks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167098 > wrote: > > > Does anyone think that as each Horcrux is destroyed, Riddle's > > looks will start to un-blur and the final showdown will take > > place between Harry and human looking Tom Riddle? I personally think that once the body is gone, it's gone. The soul can't retain any shape or the ability to reform its owners body. In fact that is why the form that Lord V ends up with after his re- incarnation spell in GOF barely resembles a human at all. It could even be that the shape the spell creates is simply a physical expression of the soul that cast the spell. Either way, all physical resemblance to Tom Riddle, IMO is long gone, never to return. And the soul pieces definitely don't rejoin the original soul. That soul stays fractured forever since there is no healing of the soul from the act of murder. firefly From lydiafrench at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 04:16:05 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:16:05 -0000 Subject: The Riddle of He Who Must Not Be Named In-Reply-To: <22544707.1175629879227.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167099 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Even Muggleborns seem to have the prejudice against saying "Voldemort". Yet, Dumbledore, Lupin, and Sirius seem to have no problem saying it. > Any theories? I don't think there was ever anything actually cursed at all, not even the DADA post. I think that JKR is trying to illustrate the power of myth and of mass hysteria. The characters in the book that are strong of will refuse to be intimidated. I believe that not saying his name is seen as a sign of respect, either for the man or at least his power. They refuse to give him that respect. I know that Tom Riddle expressed pride that the name he created for himself was feared by many. In COS he mentioned that it was his secret name, known only by his select few. I imagine that's how it started, as his infamy spread it became known that only his followers spoke his name and then it just took on a life of its own. You wanted a theory, that's mine. firefly From lydiafrench at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 04:30:46 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:30:46 -0000 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? In-Reply-To: <25555866.1175708310904.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167100 Bart wrote: > A major mystery through the books was: Why did Dumbledore trust Snape so much? \ > And I just don't believe that JKR is playing a practical joke on the audience. > Therefore, I am willing to go through Rowlingish hoops of logic to explain how Snape was and still is DDM. I believe that we will be made privy to a as yet unseen memory of Snape's in which we discover the reason for DD hard and fast faith in Snape's intentions. The one thing that DD values above all else is the power of love and so I assume that will be involved. Perhaps a hidden yet deep love of Snape for Lily. She who was his champion and seemed to dislike the same side of James that Snape despised. She may have been Snape's first and only and clearly unrequited love. Who knows, it may even bring us round again to the importance of her eyes. Firefly PS.Either way, Snape is DDM and he DID NOT kill DD. DD would never have asked him too, for that would have been murder and split his soul. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 05:49:08 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 05:49:08 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167101 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > *snippage of Tandra providing cannon of how few exams harry had taken during his stay at Hogwars.* > Tandra wrote: > And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being passed onto the> next grade? Just something I noticed. > > Tandra > Doddie here: Clearly Harry is being passed upon DD's orders...However, I do believe that he is passed or not passed after DD has conferred to professors..(hence the one prof. who took it too literally--- Trelawney! LOL (after harry missed an exam she appears to be harder upon harry and even ron in class.) Also we must remember in OOP said commentary of the examiners...where they speak about things DD had done with a Wand that they had never seen before...(perhaps DD wanted to protect Harry's abilities--(why else the age restriction of the Tri-Wiz. Tornament? Why else should DD be in disarray in OOP--is it because DD truly couldn't instruct his staff...or to have harry develop on his own to some extent or to gain extra instruction in a non- ministry approved manner? Harry shouldn't sit too many tests as his results are privy to the ministry...the early years of testing mean not to much(but it allowed DD to keep Harry's academic progress from the ministry....later years...the ministry would want to take advantage. ( Harry's OWL results were probably the reason why the ministry tried to press Harry into their service so much during HBP--"O" DADA, winner of tri-wiz, E in potions, transfig, charms...despite one of their own making his life miserable..). We as readers do know that Harry probably did better than anyone at Hogwarts in DADA....seeing as Hermione didn't get an Outstanding... and the twins attended his DADA classes-as did Cho and Co... there has to be something more than books and "schooling"..My theory is that talent can be nurtured by life, education, expectation, ambition and expression...individually and cumulatively...Hence one of the reasons why JKR allowed the "drop-out" twins to be successful in HBP! I don't think that Voldie had much nurturing... Voldie is on his own- -as he chooses... Harry is never on his own..even in his most desolate hours...which means that Harry has a greater development of self than Riddle ever did... DD gives us readers our assurance as he states in HPB, "I'm not worried Harry. I am with you.""(afterwhich not only does Harry have to disapparate, he has to do "sidealong aparation" .. probably something voldie never did in his life until the MOM battle in oop..) Anyhoo.... I think there IS something about the non-sitting of exams...I think it may have been part of the arrangements of DD, OOP, and even the mOM ..) From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Apr 5 06:38:46 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:38:46 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: <1284656368.20070404171347@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167102 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > > Tandra: > > T> But did the school champions get a pass on their exams? > T> Is that why he didn't have to take it in his 4th year? > T> And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being > T> passed onto the grade? Just something I noticed. > > Dave: > > I think it's indeed Canon that the champions were given special > dispensation from exams, but I think it's the only exam he skipped. > I think he took the exams in 1st and 2nd year, but Hermione isn't > counting them because Quirrell and Lockhart cannot be said to have > "actually known the subject". > Leah: I agree with Dave, and would also ask if there is any canon that suggests passing the exams is necessary to proceed to the year above. JKR said in an interview that Marcus Flint was kept down a year, but that was due to deal with the Flint itself, that he remained at Hogwarts for too long, and I don't think she indicated that it was due to exam failure. JKR seems to base Hogwarts broadly on the English system and there is no specific rule in England that children have to pass one year of school to proceed to the next. State schools don't even have to set end of year exams if they don't want to, although many do. Public schools of course can do what they want. The only exams children should sit are the public ones, GCSEs (OWLS) and Alevels (NEWTS). Studying for Alevels is currently voluntary; you can leave school after GCSEs, and most schools make passing Maths, English and your Alevel subjects at a certain grade compulsory if you want to take Alevels, like Snape's O requirement for NEWT level potions. However, you do not have to pass every subject you take at GCSE level to take Alevels. Leah From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 06:50:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:50:38 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167103 --- "Tandra" wrote: > > ... > > ... > > And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being > passed onto the next grade? Just something I noticed. > > Tandra > bboyminn: Others seem to have answered the question, but I'll try and expand on one aspect. Your yearly school grades are merely guidelines to let you know how you are doing in your classes. Everything you do in class is leading up to OWL and NEWT tests. These are the tests that count, these are the test upon which your 'qualifications' and future job prospects will be based. Notice that Crabbe and Goyle, who are obviously not too bright, have been passed along each year UNTIL they take their OWL tests. The year after OWLs they are repeating some old classes most likely because they failed those OWLs and have little or no hope of getting a decent job without them. So, they must take them again and pass to have the OWLs that will give them the qualification they will need to get good jobs. Is suspect that OWL qualifications alone are enough to get you a job. They are the wizard world equivalent of a high school diploma, or in Britian, the equivalent of GCSE's or O-Levels. NEWTs are probably the USA equivalent to a year or two of technical school or Junior College. In Britain, they are probably the equivalent of A-Levels which are the advanced classes for students who plan to go on to university level studies. In the Wizard world, there are no universities, so I suspect beyond NEWTs, you must engage in some form of Independant Studies to futher your education. That's not quite true in the USA. In the USA, each school sets their own standards, which must fit the State guidelines, but it is the school that issues your diploma and therefore your 'qualifications'. In the UK, it is not the school but Government standardized tests that determine your 'qualifications', and that is also true of the wizard world. Don't know if that helps, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 5 06:57:23 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:57:23 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40704041830u2ed310d1xde1421e17367b4a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167104 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: Tandra: > > And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being passed onto the > > next grade? Just something I noticed. montims: > In Britain, at least in the 80s - I don't know if this has changed recently > - students move up each year regardless of the results of their tests/exams > - nobody redid the same year. Geoff: In England and Wales, a pupil is never held back in a year except under exceptional circumstances - for example if the student has been off school because of illness or an accident. Just to draw parallels between UK education in the real world and Hogwarts as we see it in canon, the following may help. There are usually exams at the end of the summer term in the UK, certainly in higher years just to look at a pupil's performance. They may have a bearing on which class the student goes into in the following year because, although most classes are mixed ability, some subjects such as Maths or languages are set according to the pupil's ability. Hogwarts holds similar end of years tests but since classes seem to be taught in house groups without any sub-division, presumably they are just to test the students' ability and failing students can be identified for help by Professors Snape and McGonagall etc. In the last few years, there have also been Government set targets - SATS - which are taken at specified ages to give a standardised check on the progress of pupils and also give a snapshot of how the school is coping. When it somes to public exams, UK pupils take General Certificate of Education (GCSE) subjects at the end of Year 11 (The old Fifth Year). These correspond to OWLs at Hogwarts and, like wizarding pupils, results will have a bearing on what they can take if they stay into the Sixth Form. It is not currently mandatory for pupils to stay beyond Year 1. A level GCE papers are taken at the end of the Upper Sixth and results in these will affect the student's choice for further education such as university in the same way that, in the Wizarding World, someone seeking Auror training would have to reach specified targets in NEWTs. From lydiafrench at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 05:43:44 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 05:43:44 -0000 Subject: Lord V: A Fate worse than death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167105 > Elisabet considers: > Hmmmm.... But wouldn't that just put LV right back to where he was at the beginning of the series? > I do agree that choice - an act of free will - will likely be the key in destroying Voldemort; So Firefly, I agree strongly with your point number 1, with the caveat that Harry will be tempted by vengence, or the perceived necessity of murder, and think he is capable of murder, or for that matter, possibly actually be capable of murder - but he will in the end make the choice not to do it. (And Voldemort will not win.) Firefly Responds: That would indeed put LV back at the beginning. And I agree, unless something else can be done to permanently keep him as simply a lost soul then my premise won't work. However, I just keep coming back to DD's words of warning. What did he mean by "there are things worse than death, as you well know"? Fates worse than death... 1. What if Lord V had what is left of his soul eaten by a Dementor? Could Lord V even conjure a Patronus since it requires a truly happy memory? 2. What if Lord V incured a life debt to Harry? That would be awesome! Harry gets the chance but refuses to murder Lord V and so Lord V. finds that he can't kill Harry. Lord V. would have to feel the debt is honestly owed and that may be a stretch for him. 3. For Lord V being forced to be in the presence of deep and overwhelming love, possessing Harry while Harry is filled with positive emotion. That event sent Lord V. running like mad in COS. And DD keeps saying that Love is Harry's secret and most powerful weapon! How can Love be used as a weapon to cause a fate worse than death? (Firefly slips off to bed to see if her subconcious has any answers...) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 09:42:34 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:42:34 -0000 Subject: Lord V: A Fate worse than death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167106 > Firefly: > Fates worse than death... > 1. What if Lord V had what is left of his soul eaten by a > Dementor? Could Lord V even conjure a Patronus since it > requires a truly happy memory? Goddlefrood: It appears that if what is left of LV's soul had been eaten or sucked by a Dementor there would be little point in conjuring a Patronus to then drive it away ... If however what you mean is would LV be able to repel said Dementor before it ate what was left of his soul then I would have to remind you that the duplicitous one is aware of other methods of repelling Dementors. These other methods, of which we so far have little information would, IMO, be known to LV. > Firefly: > 2. What if Lord V incured a life debt to Harry? That would > be awesome! Harry gets the chance but refuses to murder Lord > V and so Lord V. finds that he can't kill Harry. Lord V. would > have to feel the debt is honestly owed and that may be a > stretch for him. Goddlefrood: Harry is not terribly likely to save LV from the brink of death. That is my reading of how a life debt could be incurred. If Harry does indeed get an opportunity to kill LV then is it likely that he would call it of, just so he could put LV in his debt? Merely a little thought :) > Firefly: > 3. For Lord V being forced to be in the presence of deep and > overwhelming love, possessing Harry while Harry is filled with > positive emotion. That event sent Lord V. running like mad in > COS. And DD keeps saying that Love is Harry's secret and most > powerful weapon! > How can Love be used as a weapon to cause a fate worse than > death? Goddlefrood: There are ways, often used in my own hosehold :) From hells456 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Apr 5 10:48:33 2007 From: hells456 at yahoo.co.uk (hells) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:48:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: The cover could be a Pensieve scene Message-ID: <937565.8819.qm@web26311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167107 I know Pensieves have already been well used in the series, but my first thought when looking at the American cover was that we are looking at a scene in a Pensieve. So many things about the cover didn't seem to gel with me. I find it odd that Harry and Voldemort are so close together, but are focused on something else. I also thought the way their arm movements appear to be opposite to each other stood out a lot. The very fact that we can't see Ron or Hermione with Harry speaks volumes to me. Harry's expression is very relaxed considering the situation he is in, and I could understand him moving his arms automatically, even if he knew he wasn't in any danger. I like to think he is witnessing a scene that involves Snape somehow. So, what do you think? Hells From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 13:40:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:40:09 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167108 > Magpie: > I guess what I'm saying is that I do think AK is a big deal, but not > in the sense that it's like a demonic thing that a good person can't > use. It's just a big deal because it's the desire to end a life. So > if there's some justified reason for ending a life-and don't ask me > what that is, but I'm speaking hypothetically-then it's a big deal > for the "good" person to do it, but they still might do it. Alla: Oh. Okay. I guess we do disagree about the degrees of badness of Avada Kedavra then. I guess to me in the Potterverse, and again I can obviously be wrong, but this is how I read this, the good person would never use AK, unless maybe in self-defense or under duress and even then IMO would pay a price for that. So, I get that you are saying that this is a big deal for you as well, but from what you described for me it is much worse, it seems (the use of AK). Now, of course if Snape is DD!M and killed Dumbledore on his orders, then obviously I am wrong. But the fact that we had not seen any of the good guys use AK makes me think that among other things. Magpie: I > wouldn't be shocked to learn that those times when Moody tried to > take people in alive and couldn't he used the AK. So it's kind of, > to me, that the real question is "Would DD ever kill or kill someone > as part of his strategy?" and there I think maybe he would, and if > he were going to do that AK wouldn't necessarily be the worst way-- > it might just be the most honest. Alla: Yes, of course it is possible that Moody used it, although my bet on self defense if he did, since it is already said that he tried to bring DE in alive. And DD killing someone, well, no I do not believe he would. I think that "defeated" (this is the word, yes?) Grindelwald is on that card for a reason. I believe that the fact that DD never mentions the possibility of killing Voldemort with AK to Harry in that scene Anne quoted is also there for a reason. Wouldn't that be a good time for JKR to stick in the hint something along the lines - Hey, Harry, **any** killing method is good for Voldemort? And still she did not. I can be wrong of course. Magpie: > Like, if someone needed to be put out of their misery because they > were being slowly killed by poison (not saying that's DD in the > scene--just creating a hypothetical) so taht it was truly a mercy > killing, I think a good person might use an AK and not feel they had > to kill the person by some other means. But I could be wrong about > that in canon. Alla: Well, that is the thing, isn't it? Would JKR or would she not explore the mercy killings as theme? If she would, then I can see you being right, if she would not, I believe that she would stick with the theme of AK being a very horrible thing ( as I see it of course, other people may not see it as horrible) Magpie: > One reason, btw, that I think this is that it doesn't seem like > JKR's style to go that way, with the emphasis being on the magic > rather than what the magic is symbolizing. > > Alla: Eh? I lost you in this paragraph. You do not think that it is JKR style to go what way? That AK is horrible or that is not? Because it seems to me that AK symbolising intent to kill is very much in tact with the theme of what magic is symbolising. JMO, Alla. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 5 14:50:28 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:50:28 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167109 > Magpie: > > One reason, btw, that I think this is that it doesn't seem like > > JKR's style to go that way, with the emphasis being on the magic > > rather than what the magic is symbolizing. > > > > > > Alla: > > Eh? I lost you in this paragraph. You do not think that it is JKR > style to go what way? That AK is horrible or that is not? > > Because it seems to me that AK symbolising intent to kill is very > much in tact with the theme of what magic is symbolising. Magpie: The distinction I'm making is that I think for JKR it's always the thing that she's symbolizing that has the real power--she doesn't transfer that power to the spell. That makes even less sense. Like, with the AK, I think what's terrible about it is that it is the intent to kill, distilled into two words. What I think is bad about it is that the person killed someone. That, imo, is what causes the soul to tear. What I think isn't JKR's style is to focus on the mechanics of magic, so that, for instance, the AK is bad because using that particular spell causes some sort of magical reaction akin to if you killed someone using a nuclear device and you got radiation poisoning yourself. Because I don't think the mechanics of magic really interest JKR--they seem more like they're interesting because of the situation they represent. That's why I don't often think it's profitable to focus on the mechanics of how spells are supposed to work to figure out what's going on, be they Life Debts or Unbreakable Vows or TriWizard Tournament Contracts. I think they seem to usually be best understood in the most general sense: it's like you feel really indebted to the person, you've promised to do something and if you don't you die, you have to compete in the Tournament even though you don't want to. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 5 15:08:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:15 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167110 > Neri: > I don't think canon makes that clear at all. Diary!Tom delivers a darn > speech before calling in the basilisk. Voldemort takes two whole > chapters in the graveyard before trying to kill Harry. Crouch!Moody > rambles for several pages. Even Voldy in the Ministry utters a longer > sentence than "hasta la vista, baby" before trying to AK Harry. What > canon makes wonderfully clear is that killers pause for any amount of > time that JKR requires for the plot and/or dramatic effect at the > particular moment . > Pippin: If this is a plot-driven story, how come we're arguing about the nature of Snape instead of, say, how Harry is going to locate and destroy all those horcruxes? Wondering why Dumbledore trusted Snape and whether he was right to do so is a character issue, not a plot question. And I find that JKR is consistent in providing her characters with what she sees as sufficient motive for their actions, except when there's a deliberate mystery. We aren't supposed to know yet why Dumbledore trusted Snape, but I have no doubt that JKR means to tell us in the end. Of course Crouch/Moody and Voldemort/Riddle gloat. So does Lockhart, for that matter. Narcissists are always "on", always performing for their audience of one. Crouch/Moody and Voldemort qualify. But no one that I recall has ever suggested that Snape is consumed by self-love. If he's pausing, it's not because he's caught up in his own show and out of touch with reality. And he does pause, not as long as Draco did, but noticeably, which is all that matters. Snape does taunt -- when he has no intention of killing, as we saw in the Shrieking Shack. "Give me a reason and I swear I will"--doesn't that tell us that in fact Snape is not there to kill anyone? He *talks* about handing Sirius and Lupin over to the dementors, but he knows at the time that Dumbledore would never stand for it. And in the event, when he has the opportunity, he takes Sirius to the castle, just as Sirius had asked. Neri: > As for Snape, I have the feeling that he too would normally like to > take his time taunting his victims (see under Shrieking Shack) but in > this case he was kind of pressed, as he needed to kill Dumbledore > before the Vow decided to kick in, and besides, a speech would reveal > more than JKR was ready to reveal about Snape's motives in HBP, so > Snape had to make do with a dramatic pause. I just think that within > this chapter alone Snape's manner is strongly contrasted with that of > Draco. > Pippin: Would normally like to? in this case? make do? What kind of drama is that? JKR even gave Snape another opportunity, when he had all the time in the world. "KIll me like you killed him, you coward," just begs for the riposte, "My pleasure!" or "Oh, Potter, if only I could, but you see, the Dark Lord wants you alive and unspoiled." Instead, we get Snape screaming in capslock and looking like he's being burned alive. There's a serious lack of gloat there.:) > Neri: > And even with a completely innocent Snape, in order to maintain > dramatic effect Harry should probably realize Snape is innocent in > less than a two chapters complicated explanation. A pretty effective > way to achieve this would be if ESE!Lupin or another ESE holding Harry > at wand point would say: "Snape?? Killing Dumbledore?? It was *I* who > killed Dumbledore!!!" Pippin: Or Hermione throws herself in front of Snape and says "NO, Harry! Snape didn't kill Dumbledore. YOU did!!" *Then* we get the explanations. > Neri: > "Except that"... "might have"... "could have"... "would have"... > Cm'on, this isn't a Bang. It's a Dud. Do I have to break some > furniture with a big paddle to make the point? Pippin: Look at PoA. Wouldn't it have been more bangy if the Potters *had* been betrayed by their best friend? Instead of insane killer Sirius we got wussy little Peter, and he never would have had the opportunity if the Potters and Sirius hadn't planned an elaborate ruse and then botched it. The secret keeper switch *was* a dud -- and that's the bang, that the Potters weren't so perfect and Sirius was not monstrously evil after all. The showdown between Harry and Sirius we were expecting to happen didn't. The main conflict in PoA turned out to be between Harry and the dementors, though it was treated as a sideshow until Harry drove them off and saved the day. Because the main conflict was *not* between the Potters and their betrayer, JKR could sacrifice the drama of having them betrayed by their closest friend for the pathos of the botched secret keeper switch. It makes their loss all the more heartrending because they're more human in their capacity for error. They concocted this elaborate scheme to save themselves and all it did was lay the blame for their deaths at the door of the one person who tried the hardest to save their lives. Similarly the conflict between Snape and Dumbledore is not the main conflict in the series (and cannot become so without displacing Harry and Voldemort from their roles.) Therefore I see no problem with sacrificing the drama of Traitor!Snape and Betrayed!Dumbledore for the pathos of DDM!Snape and Toocleverbyhalf!DD. Will it lessen Harry's grief, or the reader's, to learn that Dumbledore and Snape had a plan that failed? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 15:16:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:16:52 -0000 Subject: Why Avada kedavra is a bad spell WAS: Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167111 > Magpie: > The distinction I'm making is that I think for JKR it's always the > thing that she's symbolizing that has the real power--she doesn't > transfer that power to the spell. > > That makes even less sense. > > Like, with the AK, I think what's terrible about it is that it is > the intent to kill, distilled into two words. What I think is bad > about it is that the person killed someone. That, imo, is what > causes the soul to tear. Alla: Well, I guess I disagree? Sort of? As I told Zara I believe that AK is the strongest metaphor of intent to kill in action, that does not mean to me that the soul would not split from the murder by other means. I think JKR does transfer the the power of the thing which is symbolised to that metaphor. Let me go back to the Dementors, which symbolise depression. Their effects **are** terrible, but Dementors are horrible by themselves, are they not? NOT just as symbols, but as species as well ( among the foulest creatures, etc). Dumbledore is angry that Dementors themselves, NOT metaphors for depression are in Hogwarts. He warns students to stay away from Dementors, not symbols. Does it make sense? To me they bad because of what they symbolise, but things themselves are powerful too. So, by the same token I believe that AK as metaphor for intent to kill and bad in itself as spell. Magpie: > What I think isn't JKR's style is to focus on the mechanics of > magic, so that, for instance, the AK is bad because using that > particular spell causes some sort of magical reaction akin to if you > killed someone using a nuclear device and you got radiation > poisoning yourself. Because I don't think the mechanics of magic > really interest JKR--they seem more like they're interesting because > of the situation they represent. That's why I don't often think > it's profitable to focus on the mechanics of how spells are supposed > to work to figure out what's going on, be they Life Debts or > Unbreakable Vows or TriWizard Tournament Contracts. I think they > seem to usually be best understood in the most general sense: it's > like you feel really indebted to the person, you've promised to do > something and if you don't you die, you have to compete in the > Tournament even though you don't want to. > Alla: But I agree that mechanics of magic is not what interests JKR. I do not believe that AK is bad because this is this particular spell. I believe it is bad because author chose it to symbolise something which is horrible and **because of that** this particular spell is so bad. Like Life Debt too, it is powerful because of what it symbolises, but because of that it can be powerful in itself IMO. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Apr 5 15:20:32 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:20:32 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Uncle Tom? References: Message-ID: <012c01c77795$f428de60$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167112 I am snipping all the previous quotes of Rowling's interviews about Lilly's eyes- no doubt if you have been following this thread, you've already read then a dozen times by now. I too, think that the question of Lilly's eyes might have first only been about the color and shape, reminding everyone of just how much Harry looked like her. But then, the series seems to be saying that his mother's eyes are also a point of view, that Lilly had a compassion and a certain way of looking at life. I think this phrase will evolve even further, to include abilities, such as the ability to do nonverbal spells- that Lilly could make her powers work by just directing her eyes. I think if we see any further developement of the Harry/Lilly's eyes in DH, that it will be in Harry consciously directing his gaze to make Voldemort suffer, to reflect his mother's love onto Voldemort to do damage, or to reflect back Voldemort's hatred back at him, or to do some spell that he hasn't yet learned but has the power to summon up- (the prophesy: having a power that the Dark Lord knows not, and LV can't read Harry's thoughts to see it coming, because it is also a power that "Harry knows not" until that very second.) About bloodline, I don't think Voldemort's an "uncle" to Harry, but I have always thought that if you trace bloodlines far enough back, that you would find some common ancestor- kind of like someone today could trace their roots back to George Washington or The Duke of York, but that those bloodlines are so watered down and removed that there is practically no commonality between the modern decendents. Shelley From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 5 15:55:58 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:55:58 -0000 Subject: Why Avada kedavra is a bad spell WAS: Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167113 > Alla: > > Well, I guess I disagree? Sort of? As I told Zara I believe that AK > is the strongest metaphor of intent to kill in action, that does not > mean to me that the soul would not split from the murder by other > means. Magpie: But if Snape had pulled out a gun and shot Dumbledore, would that have been less of a murder? Because to me it seems like it would be exactly the same. He points a weapon at the guy and does what he needs to do to deploy it. I think it's murder, not magic, that splits the soul. Otherwise I don't see how the metaphor really works, because murder isn't tearing the soul, the AK curse is. Voldemort could kill a hundred people and not damage his soul at all as long as he didn't use AK, and that seems to go against what Dumbledore is saying about what murder does to you. Alla: > I think JKR does transfer the the power of the thing which is > symbolised to that metaphor. Let me go back to the Dementors, which > symbolise depression. Their effects **are** terrible, but Dementors > are horrible by themselves, are they not? NOT just as symbols, but as > species as well ( among the foulest creatures, etc). Magpie: They are horrible by themselves, but they don't leech power from actual depression at the same time. Tonks is not dealing with Dementors in HBP, and yet she loses her powers. Merope lost her will to live and died without meeting any Dementors. There are certain qualities that are unique to Dementors--you can't cure depression with a Patronus, for instance. But I think the Dementors are creatures created around the idea of depression, which also exists as itself in the WW. They don't entirely take the place of it. Alla: > Dumbledore is angry that Dementors themselves, NOT metaphors for > depression are in Hogwarts. He warns students to stay away from > Dementors, not symbols. Does it make sense? To me they bad because of > what they symbolise, but things themselves are powerful too. > > So, by the same token I believe that AK as metaphor for intent to > kill and bad in itself as spell. Magpie: But what's bad about it, besides that it is the intent to kill? Why should it split the soul where murdering someone by shooting them does not? How is it like regular murder and how is it not like it? And if it is the spell itself that is bad, why would it be okay to use it in self-defense? > Magpie: > > What I think isn't JKR's style is to focus on the mechanics of > > magic, so that, for instance, the AK is bad because using that > > particular spell causes some sort of magical reaction akin to if > you > > killed someone using a nuclear device and you got radiation > > poisoning yourself. Because I don't think the mechanics of magic > > really interest JKR--they seem more like they're interesting > because > > of the situation they represent. That's why I don't often think > > it's profitable to focus on the mechanics of how spells are > supposed > > to work to figure out what's going on, be they Life Debts or > > Unbreakable Vows or TriWizard Tournament Contracts. I think they > > seem to usually be best understood in the most general sense: it's > > like you feel really indebted to the person, you've promised to do > > something and if you don't you die, you have to compete in the > > Tournament even though you don't want to. > > > > Alla: > > But I agree that mechanics of magic is not what interests JKR. I do > not believe that AK is bad because this is this particular spell. I > believe it is bad because author chose it to symbolise something > which is horrible and **because of that** this particular spell is so > bad. > > Like Life Debt too, it is powerful because of what it symbolises, but > because of that it can be powerful in itself IMO. Magpie: I agree--but isn't the thing that it symbolizes also as bad? Like with the Dementors, they are bad in themselves, but I think they draw their power from depression and not vice versa. I don't think Harry will be performing any AK's, but Snape's use of one seems to be appropriate in this situation no matter what letters precede his name. -m From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 5 16:06:50 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:06:50 -0000 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? Power of Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fireflyseason2" Message #167100 wrote: > The one thing that DD values above > all else is the power of love and so I assume that will be > involved. Perhaps a hidden yet deep love of Snape for Lily. She > who was his champion and seemed to dislike the same side of > James that Snape despised. She may have been Snape's first and > only and clearly unrequited love. Who knows, it may even bring > us round again to the importance of her eyes. "K": It has been a long time since I've commented on the Snape/Lily unrequited love theory. It's a theory I dislike intensely. IMO it serves no purpose. Please don't take this personally. Your post just gives me the opportunity to express myself. :-) For one, why would it have to clearly be unrequited love? How much more interesting if the great and lovely Lily truly loved Snape instead of James. So much more interesting than the usual geeky, ugly, pitiful, tormented guy hopelessly in love with THE girl. Ah, but I forget, she treated him with kindness, possibly the only one to ever do so. Sorry, that just doesn't impress me at all. It's not "my" kind of love story. So, let's just say Snape did love Lily, either in an unrequited fashion or as a friend. Snape warned Dumbledore of Voldemort's plans to go after the Potters. Would those actions and feelings really cause Dumbledore to have such an unfaltering trust? To allow a former Death Eater to teach at Hogwarts? To be around The Chosen One? It would be so foolish on Dumbledore's part. Love can be a fleeting emotion, especially over time. I just can't for the life of me understand why Snape loving Lily would cause Dumbledore to trust Snape. There surely has to be more. "K" From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 16:12:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:12:22 -0000 Subject: Why Avada kedavra is a bad spell WAS: Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167115 > Alla: > > Oh. Okay. I guess we do disagree about the degrees of badness of > Avada Kedavra then. I guess to me in the Potterverse, and again I can > obviously be wrong, but this is how I read this, the good person > would never use AK, unless maybe in self-defense or under duress and > even then IMO would pay a price for that. So, I get that you are > saying that this is a big deal for you as well, but from what you > described for me it is much worse, it seems (the use of AK). zgirnius: Here's the question. In the Potterverse, would a good person strangle somneone uder those circumstances? Shoot them with a gun? Push them off the tallest tower of a humongous castle? If the answer is yes, this places the focus bang on mechanics. Because if a good person can do any of the above, but not use the AK, it is about magic, not killing. If the answer is no, then we are back to what is in my opinion the proper focus of the discussion of Snape's actions. There and then, could there have been a reason for a good person to act as Snape did? If yes, then his use of the AK may potentially be justified by that same reason. If not, then Snape would have been just as evil, had he chosen any other method for the murder. > Alla: > Now, of course if Snape is DD!M and killed Dumbledore on his orders, > then obviously I am wrong. But the fact that we had not seen any of > the good guys use AK makes me think that among other things. zgirnius: When have we seen a good guy kill by any other means in the Potterverse? I can't recall a single instance. To say a killing by the AK is more abhorrent in the Potterverse based on its never having been used by a good character, it seems to me you would need such an example. Otherwise, we are back to good guys don't kill, period. Moody was involved in a battle which resulted in the death of one Evan Rosier, for the record, this is mentioned in the GoF Pensieve scenes. Doubtless a killing in the line of duty, and defencse of self and others by whoever did the killing, since we know that was the battle that lost a bit of Moody's nose. So I think Rowling is not saying *no* killing is ever allowed. Just that Moody's way, to avoid it when possible, is best. Could Snape avoid it? Again, in my view, that is the question we ought to be discussing, not how he chose to do it. How he chose to do it is about mechanics. Whether he could avoid it is about the good/evil of the action. > Alla: > > Eh? I lost you in this paragraph. You do not think that it is JKR > style to go what way? That AK is horrible or that is not? > > Because it seems to me that AK symbolising intent to kill is very > much in tact with the theme of what magic is symbolising. zgirnius: If you place the AK in a class by itself, as worse than other killing, then the magic becomes the focus, not the killing the magic symbolizes. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 16:16:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:16:57 -0000 Subject: Why Avada kedavra is a bad spell WAS: Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167116 > Magpie: > They are horrible by themselves, but they don't leech power from > actual depression at the same time. Tonks is not dealing with > Dementors in HBP, and yet she loses her powers. Merope lost her will > to live and died without meeting any Dementors. There are certain > qualities that are unique to Dementors--you can't cure depression > with a Patronus, for instance. But I think the Dementors are > creatures created around the idea of depression, which also exists > as itself in the WW. They don't entirely take the place of it. Alla: Exactly. I also believe that AK is the spell created around the idea of the murder, it does not entirely take the place of it. > Magpie: > But what's bad about it, besides that it is the intent to kill? Why > should it split the soul where murdering someone by shooting them > does not? How is it like regular murder and how is it not like it? > And if it is the spell itself that is bad, why would it be okay to > use it in self-defense? Alla: The intent to kill is what IMO makes the spell so bad. Ugh, it all so clear in my head :) I believe that the intent to kill is what powers the magic of the spell. but definitely NOT in the mechanical sense, strictly in the metaphorical one. Just like Love, I believe will transform in the end in some sort of very sizable spell or charm or something to that effect that Harry will use, you know? What would be behind it? The emotion of Love of course, but I believe that Harry will have something very material to use against Voldemort as symbol of that love, not just the emotion itself. Same thing for me with Avada Kedavra. What makes it evil magic so powerful for me is that the intent to kill is behind it, nothing more mechanical than that. And where did I say that shooting someone will not split their soul? I thought I said the opposite. I also was trying to say that JKR in the world of Potterverse if she wants to symbolise intentional murder would use AK sooner than anything else. Does not mean that any other means for murder do not exist there. I also do not think I said that it is okay to use AK in self-defense. Sorry if I did say that. I was saying that IF JKR thought it was Okay to use that spell in self-defense, she would made DD drop some hints in his talk to Harry and she did not. I think that she may go with self-defense killing as excusable( although I doubt she will). > Magpie: > I agree--but isn't the thing that it symbolizes also as bad? Like > with the Dementors, they are bad in themselves, but I think they > draw their power from depression and not vice versa. I don't think > Harry will be performing any AK's, but Snape's use of one seems to > be appropriate in this situation no matter what letters precede his > name. > Alla: Well, yes, thing that symbolises it also as bad. And no, I do not believe that Snape use of AK would be shown as appropriate at all, no matter what letters precede his name. But I can be wrong of course. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Apr 5 16:13:59 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:13:59 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing References: Message-ID: <017a01c7779d$6b2e0f60$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167117 > funkeginger wrote: > > What are you guys saying that Harry is just going to take > Voldemort's powers and not kill him. Then how will the story end? DD > said in the Half Blood Prince that Harry did not have to kill > Voldemort, I know but he also said that if he did not, a lot of chaos > would happen. And anyway even when Voldemort did not have his powers > he was still danger. > > Even if Harry takes his power he still needs to kill him he still > too evil to live . Have you ever heard the expession evil never > sleeps? It means that evil will allow start trouble no mater how weak > it is, you should take that in to Mind when you look at Voldemort > without his power. He will still bring fear and chaos around the > Wizarding world so he needs to die . Yes, I will think that we need to see Voldemort dead. But, I also do not think that we need Harry to do the final offing. I think it's entirely plausable that Harry removes all power from Voldemort, and then because he's in that weakened form, something that would ordinarily not hurt the Dark Lord will end up being fatal. Someone mentioned LV being reduced to an "ugly Muggle". This holds merit- I could see LV, now ugly Muggle, doing something arrogant, like crossing Muggle road, forgetting for a split second that he can't just use his magic to save him, and thus get smashed to death like any other Muggle would had they been hit by that same speeding car. I won't even pretend to know the final set up, but I can see something like this happening, thus redeaming Rowling of the responsibility of making Harry a murderer, and at the same time, killing LV in such a way that it's his own damn fault he's dead. Thus, prophesy is fullfilled, and everyone's happy. (Except that this whole fight will have exacted a terrible cost in the lives that it took fighting it.) Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 17:20:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:20:44 -0000 Subject: Why Avada kedavra is a bad spell WAS: Re: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167118 Alla wrote: > > The intent to kill is what IMO makes the spell so bad. Ugh, it all so > clear in my head :) I believe that the intent to kill is what powers > the magic of the spell. but definitely NOT in the mechanical sense, > strictly in the metaphorical one. >> > Same thing for me with Avada Kedavra. What makes it evil magic so > powerful for me is that the intent to kill is behind it, nothing more > mechanical than that. > > I also do not think I said that it is okay to use AK in self-defense. > Sorry if I did say that. I was saying that IF JKR thought it was Okay > to use that spell in self-defense, she would made DD drop some hints > in his talk to Harry and she did not. > > I think that she may go with self-defense killing as excusable( > although I doubt she will). Carol responds: To some extent, I agree with you. That is, I agree that the reason the AK is Unforgiveable is that it is used for killing and for no other purpose, in contrast to spells such as Impedimenta, which could conceivably be used to knock someone off a cliff and into the jaws of a waiting shark but are not intended for that purpose. (There are, BTW, other illegal spells besides the Unforgiveables, as Hermione hints in HBP, and I think Sectumsempra would be in that category if the MoM knew about it.) But Avada Kedavra is *the* Killing Curse, the only one designed for that purpose, and the Aurors were authorized to use it. (It was no longer "Unforgiveable" in the sense of resulting in a life sentence to Azkaban for the Aurors. It was still illegal for everyone else.) Why, then, wouldn't the real Moody, who "didn't kill unless he had to," not use the AK to do the killing? We know for sure that he killed Evan Rosier. Wilkes, another DE who was part of the "Slytherin Gang," is also dead, and if Mad-Eye didn't kill him, another Auror must have done so. And what other spell would that Auror have used? The AK is quick, efficient, apparently painless, and virtually fool-proof (unless your aim is off, like the Big Blond DE's). Why not use it rather than, say, conjuring a poisonous snake or a pair of hands to strangle the DE or whatever other method you have in mind? And I'm curious. How do you think that Mad-Eye killed Evan Rosier (and possibly Wilkes) if he didn't use an AK? And why would some more complicated, possibly painful spell causing, say, strangulation, be better than an AK if you're fighting a known Death Eater who refuses to come quietly? (Personally, I think Mad-Eye should have just Stupefied him and tied him up using Incarcerus, but maybe Rosier was good at deflecting curses as well as blasting chunks out of noses.) If Mad-Eye really had no choice but to kill him, what better way could he have chosen that the AK he was authorized to use? To me, the situation exactly parallels that of a policeman faced with a dangerous criminal and has no choice but to kill him. And just as the policeman uses the weapon available to him, a gun, Mad-eye would choose the weapon available to him, a Killing Curse (all other curses having failed to subdue him). Harry didn't know the Killing Curse (and probably couldn't have conjured it if he did) in the Shrieking Shack, but he intended to kill Sirius Black (or thought he did). Exactly how was he supposed to do it? Would it have been better to choke him to death with his bare hands, as he tried to do? And Lupin and Black intended to kill Pettigrew. Do you think they had some other spell in mind besides a simple, quick, efficient AK? They would have gone to Azkaban (or back to Azkaban, in Black's case) regardless of the method they used for the murder. And if a murder of that sort, very much premeditated on Black's part, would have split their souls (and I suspect it would have because it was an act of revenge, not self-defense), it would have done so in any case, regardless of the spell they used, just as poisoning Hepzibah Smith to steal the cup and the locket split Voldemort's soul.) I think that this focus on the method Snape used to kill Dumbledore misses the point, which is that he did (apparently) kill him (by the most obvious and practical means available). As a DDM!Snaper, I'm sure it's that action, the killing of his mentor, that's causing him the mental anguish--not the particular spell he used or even the consequences to himself (a possible split soul and definite infamy), which he would suffer regardless of the chosen method. Would it have been better to send Dumbledore over the battlements with, say, an Impedimenta so that he died from the fall rather than from a killing curse? Wouldn't that still be murder? Wouldn't it have been worse still to use Sectumsempra and leave him to die of incurable wounds, lying in his own blood? Or, heaven forfend, to loose Fenrir Greyback on him? Carol, who thinks that an AK is like a Muggle handgun, which is also designed to kill, except that it's more efficient and can't be confiscated (and, for the records, I don't like guns) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Apr 5 17:27:01 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:27:01 -0600 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! References: Message-ID: <01b201c777a7$9f2081e0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167119 > > Alla: > > And that is the **only** time I can remember. To me it speaks volumes > > of how bad AK is in Potterverse. > > Magpie: > Actually, even acknowledging that's true, I don't know if it's > really that bad. I mean, Crucio seems like it should be pretty bad > too, but Harry almost uses it. Granted, I think there is a > difference between what Harry (and imo Draco) are throwing at their > enemies and the true use of Crucio, which is why Harry's doesn't > work. But I don't think AK in itself is necessarily something the > good guys would just never use. To me, this whole argumement of AK is akin to guns and shooting. Bad guys use guns and shoot people purposely to inflict harm, yet the cops carry guns too. The good guys are trained in how to properly shoot, and train to be good at it. Yet their job revolves around having not to use it- to disarm and capture the opponent without a single shot being fired. Yet there are those circumstances where shooting is necessary, and the only real end to the situation. There was a shooter in a large mall here in SLC not that long ago- his intention was just mowing people down in a shower of bullets. The only way this situation was going to end was with the shooter himself dead, and as quickly as possible as to prevent more innocent loss of life. It was an off duty policeman that first attempted to kill the shooter, and because of him, the fire was drawn away from the innocents while more cops were able to help pin the shooter down so that they could do the final death blow to that shooter. That off duty cop was hailed as a hero, but in a lot of people's eyes, so would have a concerned citizen that had a concealed carry permit and a loaded gun who had managed to kill the shooter before the cops got there. This shooter left dead people in parking garage. He wasn't stopped there, and then went into a store, where he killed more people. He wasn't stopped there, and was able to enter the main hallway of the mall where he mowed down many others, including children. That's where, merely by luck and timing of his early Valentine's date with his pregnant wife, this cop was able to run out of the restaurant he had been in to confront the shooter. The rate of people now getting weapons and concealed carry permits has just exploded in our area because of that incident. People WILL protect themselves, and when the situation demands it, others that they see as being innocent. Yes, shooting people is bad, except in dire circumstances...... Yes, killing someone is bad, except in dire circumstances..... and Yes, the AK is unforgivable, except in dire circumstances..... The wizarding world is at war, and so it makes sense that the circumstances will prompt more use of the AK to try to put an end to the useless and senseless killing of innocents. If the good guys don't act quickly, and with definate action, more people will die. It makes sense that, just like the explosion of the number of people that are going for carry permits here, that in the wizarding world, families are taking some extreme steps to do things they would have never done otherwise. While unforgiveable, the common wizard would hope never to ever use it, but I can see them arming themselves, just in case, anyway. After the war is over, and people feel that they are safe, they will put away their weapons and go back to the usual rules of conduct. Shelley From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 20:35:19 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:35:19 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: <01b201c777a7$9f2081e0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167120 > >>Alla: > > And that is the **only** time I can remember. To me it speaks > > volumes of how bad AK is in Potterverse. > >>Magpie: > > Actually, even acknowledging that's true, I don't know if it's > > really that bad. > > > >>Shelley: > To me, this whole argumement of AK is akin to guns and shooting. > Bad guys use guns and shoot people purposely to inflict harm, yet > the cops carry guns too. The good guys are trained in how to > properly shoot, and train to be good at it. Yet their job revolves > around having not to use it- to disarm and capture the opponent > without a single shot being fired. Yet there are those > circumstances where shooting is necessary, and the only real end to > the situation. > > Yes, shooting people is bad, except in dire circumstances...... > Yes, killing someone is bad, except in dire circumstances..... > and Yes, the AK is unforgivable, except in dire circumstances..... > Betsy Hp: And the thing is, dead is dead. Does it really matter, in the end, *how* the death occured? If little psycho Tommy killed his family with an axe instead of an AK would that make his soul a little less black? Or, on the flip side, if brave James managed to bring down Voldemort, would it matter if it was with an AK or by changing Voldemort into a bug and then squishing him? I think this is what Magpie is warning against when she suggests readers shouldn't get too wrapped up in the technical side of magic. At the risk of completely mis-stating Magpie's case , it's not really the actual magical spell that separates the good guys from the bad but the whys and whatfors. Which is *entirely* different from say, Star Wars. In Star Wars, Yoda could move an object around with the force and Vader could move an object around with the force, and despite the fact that both characters are doing what amounted to the same action, Yoda by using the Light Side was on a higher moral plane than Vader using the Dark Side. In Rowling's universe it's all just physics. An AK isn't a tiny bit of evil. It's a spell. No better and no worse than a "reparo". There's no spiritual or moral energy attached to it. Any tainting of the soul comes from *within* the wizard. Which is why a "crucio" won't work unless the wizard *already has* the right mindset. It doesn't *encourage* the mindset (as say the Dark side of the force is supposed to do). It just is. The wizard has to bring the enjoyment of pain to the table; "Crucio" doesn't do it for him. Betsy Hp From JEDmRN at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 20:45:03 2007 From: JEDmRN at gmail.com (jedmrn) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:45:03 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement and Hidden Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167121 My apologies if this topic has already been discussed. Could one of the horcruxes be hidden in the Room of Requirement? We know that the room can only be discovered by someone who is in need. We know that Lord Voldemort wanted to return to Hogwarts to teach Defense against the Dark Arts. Dumbledore knew that his primary reason to return was not to teach but to recruit future Death Eaters. Could other reasons be that he wanted to hide his completed horcruxes and/or find Hogwarts relics (assuming LV already knew about the room)? The book cover for Deathly Hallows (UK Children's Edition) appears to show Harry, Ron, and Hermione being hurled through a circular doorway into a room full of "treasure." Could the Room of Requirement be the room where the "treasure" is contained? After reading (again) Chapter Twenty-Four (Sectumsempra) of the Half- Blood Prince where Harry is attempting to hide the Prince's copy of Advanced Potion Making in the Room of Requirement from Snape, there were key thoughts/words that caught my attention: "I need a place to hide my book." (Harry attempting to open the door) "...objects hidden by generations of Hogwarts inhabitants." "Harry hurried forward into one of the many alleyways between all this treasure." "He opened one of the cupboard's creaking doors. It had already been used as a hiding place." I can't help but to think that in book seven, Harry will need the Prince's copy of Advanced Potion Making and possibly discover hidden clues to another horcrux. Just some thoughts. JEDm From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 22:17:05 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:17:05 -0000 Subject: Snape and his use of "The Dark Lord" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167122 Ok so as I stated before I am reading OoTP over again and I don't know why I didn't notice it before but Snape calls Voldermort The Dark Lord, every time he references him, and gets mad at Harry for using his real name. I just find it odd. I mean, everyone else either calls him "you know who" or by his name (to the dismay of others) It just makes me raise and eyebrow that Snape seems to reference him in this kind of reverence. Tandra From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 22:24:43 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:24:43 -0000 Subject: Snape teaching Harry Occlumency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167123 Ok so as I read book 5 again this strikes me as odd and makes me raise an eyebrow at Snap yet again. Is it a coincidence that Snape was "teaching" him this subject and Harry just seemed to become more receptive to the dreams and visions? IDK how much I trust Snape and which side he is actually one. You want to think he's evil but then that would be like spitting in DDs face. He's a smart wizard why wouldn't he see it you know? But I think in the end he might really be on the good side (as much as I hate to think it, lol) But again I just think it's too much of a coincidence that Snape was teaching him this subject that should of been keeping him away from the dreams and the such but he seemed more open to them to me. Tandra From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 22:34:28 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:34:28 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement and Hidden Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jedmrn" wrote: > > Could one of the horcruxes be hidden in the Room of Requirement? We > know that the room can only be discovered by someone who is in need. > We know that Lord Voldemort wanted to return to Hogwarts to teach > Defense against the Dark Arts. Could other reasons be that he wanted to hide his completed > horcruxes and/or find Hogwarts relics? > > After reading (again) Chapter Twenty-Four (Sectumsempra) of the Half- > Blood Prince where Harry is attempting to hide the Prince's copy of > Advanced Potion Making in the Room of Requirement from Snape, there > were key thoughts/words that caught my attention: > > "I need a place to hide my book." (Harry attempting to open the door) > > "...objects hidden by generations of Hogwarts inhabitants." > > I can't help but to think that in book seven, Harry will need the > Prince's copy of Advanced Potion Making and possibly discover hidden > clues to another horcrux. > > Just some thoughts. Jay Winokur replies: JKR provides lists of oblects as they are observed by the hero as he runs through the aisles of the RoR. I would be surprised if the only purpose for this detail was to supply dramatic weight for this particular scene. Instead, I interpreted that valuable objects, such as horcruxes. have been hidden in plain sight in the RoR. These objects will be identified by Harry or another visitor, perhaps in the course of retrieving the potions book, as described above. If we carefully read this scene we see two objects that are particularly interesting: a tiara and a bloodstained ax. Others have focused on the tiara as a potentially important object. I greatly favor the bloodstained ax. Just as Griffindor carried a jeweled sword, another Founder carried an ax. Taking the leap that the ax and/or tiara are Founders' posessions, we seem to develop a trove of such relics: the cup, the locket, the sword, the ring, Ravenclaw's wand (missing from Ollivander's shop), and the ax and/or tiara. Founders' relics are said to have powers (separate from their function as possible horcruxes - not all of these objects are horcruxes). Which, if any, of these relics will prove important in DH? How will these powerful relics be used? Will bringing them together produce some sort of "critical mass?" Jay Winokur From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 22:59:04 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:59:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and his use of "The Dark Lord" / Snape teaching Harry Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167125 > >>Tandra: > Ok so as I stated before I am reading OoTP over again and I don't know > why I didn't notice it before but Snape calls Voldermort The Dark > Lord, every time he references him, and gets mad at Harry for using > his real name. I just find it odd. I mean, everyone else either calls > him "you know who" or by his name (to the dismay of others) It just > makes me raise and eyebrow that Snape seems to reference him in this > kind of reverence. Betsy Hp: Snape is either a Death Eater or an undercover agent playing the role of Death Eater. Either way, he's going to call Voldemort what a Death Eater would call Voldemort. So it doesn't tell us anything either way (IMO, anyway) about Snape's true loyalties. (Though of course, he's totally DDM all the way. ) > >>Tandra: > Ok so as I read book 5 again this strikes me as odd and makes me raise > an eyebrow at Snap yet again. Is it a coincidence that Snape was > "teaching" him this subject and Harry just seemed to become more > receptive to the dreams and visions? > Betsy Hp: It's not a coincidence, no. Snape is teaching (or trying, anyway ) Harry Occlumency *because* Harry's become more receptive to Voldemort's dreams and visions. The cause and effect is switched by Harry because I think he'd rather think it caused by an outside source than think that he's got a personal link to Voldemort. Snape makes a good scapegoat, as usual. But the visions pre-date the lessons. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 23:00:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:00:45 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167126 > Betsy Hp: > And the thing is, dead is dead. Does it really matter, in the end, > *how* the death occurred? If little psycho Tommy killed his family > with an axe instead of an AK would that make his soul a little less > black Alla: Does it matter? I do not know. I have a feeling that while it may not matter to JKR as different from any other murder, she chose him to kill his family with AK to stress the evilness of that. To use the strongest metaphor IMO. Betsy Hp: > Or, on the flip side, if brave James managed to bring down Voldemort, > would it matter if it was with an AK or by changing Voldemort into a > bug and then squishing him? Alla: Yeah, I think so. I think it will be demonstrated at the end of the books when his brave son will bring Voldemort down with something very different from AK. > Betsy Hp: >> At the risk of completely mis-stating Magpie's case , it's not > really the actual magical spell that separates the good guys from the > bad but the whys and whatfors. Alla: I do not see it with such certainty. I think whys and whatfors are important, but I also think that killing is the action which is pretty bad in itself in Potterverse, whys and whatfors may mitigate it but not cross it out IMO. Betsy Hp: > Which is *entirely* different from say, Star Wars. In Star Wars, > Yoda could move an object around with the force and Vader could move > an object around with the force, and despite the fact that both > characters are doing what amounted to the same action, Yoda by using > the Light Side was on a higher moral plane than Vader using the Dark > Side. Alla: Sure, it is different from Star Wars, JKR grayed it much more IMO. If it was Star Wars, then of course DD assertion that Harry is not tainted by dark magic would have sound quite strange for me. But those curses are called Unforgivable IMO for a reason and despite the fact that Ministry moral authority is often questionable, I believe that JKR put some of her own weight behind it, if that makes sense. Betsy Hp: > In Rowling's universe it's all just physics. An AK isn't a tiny bit > of evil. It's a spell. No better and no worse than a "reparo". > There's no spiritual or moral energy attached to it. Any tainting of > the soul comes from *within* the wizard. Alla: It is a personification of evil intent IMO. That is why IMO it becomes worse than other spells. I agree that there is probably no moral energy attached, but just as metaphor, you know? We keep saying that JKR should define what Dark Magic is in potterverse and often I am all for it. But maybe she did not do that for a reason. Maybe she wanted it to stay that grayish, except those three curses. Maybe they are **that** bad? Maybe any other dark magic can change depends on the intent, but not those three curses? Especially not AK? Just thinking out loud. So, to make a long story short ? I do believe that the theme is that **murder** is bad, not that particular spell called AK is bad just because. I believe it is bad as personification of that theme. It just to me Avada Kedavra is the most obvious metaphor for this, just as Dementors the most obvious metaphors for depression. That does not preclude other type of murders from existing, which let me say it again I do believe **split your soul**, just as people in Potterverse get depressed without ever meeting Dementors. Just as there is a room with that terrible force locked up in Department of Mysteries, which does not preclude the love as emotion between people from existing in Potterverse. Carol: > Harry didn't know the Killing Curse (and probably couldn't have > conjured it if he did) in the Shrieking Shack, but he intended to kill > Sirius Black (or thought he did). Exactly how was he supposed to do > it? Would it have been better to choke him to death with his bare > hands, as he tried to do? And Lupin and Black intended to kill > Pettigrew. Do you think they had some other spell in mind besides a > simple, quick, efficient AK? They would have gone to Azkaban (or back > to Azkaban, in Black's case) regardless of the method they used for > the murder. And if a murder of that sort, very much premeditated on > Black's part, would have split their souls (and I suspect it would > have because it was an act of revenge, not self-defense), it would > have done so in any case, regardless of the spell they used, just as > poisoning Hepzibah Smith to steal the cup and the locket split > Voldemort's soul.) Alla: This paragraph is written as if I wrote anything to the contrary up thread, while I do not think I did. If Sirius and Remus would have killed Peter by **any** means available, AK or not, they would have landed up in Azkaban and their souls would have been split? Um, yes, I am pretty sure that is exactly what would have happened. Would they choose AK? I do not know, but I am thinking that had they killed Peter that is exactly what they would have chosen, although Remus being DADA teacher may have come up with something more creative as well for all I know, but that is really besides the point, IMO. That is precisely why IMO JKR makes sure Harry stops them from doing that. And what is the justification Harry gives? He does not want his dad's friends to become murderers. I think it is very much in line with murder splits the soul and murder is a bad thing theme. Avada Kedavra is just that ? metaphor IMO, but that what makes it so strong in Potterverse. Not the words in itself, but what lies behind those words. JMO. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 23:04:17 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:04:17 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167127 > >>montims: > > In Britain, at least in the 80s - I don't know if this has > > changed recently - students move up each year regardless of the > > results of their tests/exams - nobody redid the same year. > >>Geoff: > In England and Wales, a pupil is never held back in a year except > under exceptional circumstances - for example if the student has > been off school because of illness or an accident. > Betsy Hp: But, in the books don't Harry and Ron express a certain amount of disappointment that either Crabbe and Goyle don't fail out of their classes? Harry might claim ignorance of the system (though if Hogwarts follows typical UK rules, why would Harry be ignorant), but Ron's got his brothers. Surely he'd have a clue as to whether or not it's even possible to fail out of a class? Betsy Hp From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 22:56:33 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:56:33 -0000 Subject: Snape and his use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167128 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok so as I stated before I am reading OoTP over again and I don't know > why I didn't notice it before but Snape calls Voldermort The Dark > Lord, every time he references him, and gets mad at Harry for using > his real name. I just find it odd. I mean, everyone else either calls > him "you know who" or by his name (to the dismay of others) It just > makes me raise and eyebrow that Snape seems to reference him in this > kind of reverence. > > Tandra > Jay Winokur: This is the title by which all Death Eaters refer to LV. Some readers cite this as an indication that Snape still is a DE and is not DDM. I use it as support for my prediction that Snape is not DDM. However, I believe he is a free agent, attempting to supplant LV by playing DDM/OotP against LV/DE. Briefly, if you google/Wickipedia "Severus" you find at least three references to Roman emperors and generals. Some are major historical figures, such as General Julius Severus, who killed over 600,000 people in crushing the Bar Kochba revolt in 2nd century Judea. Others are relatively minor, such as the second Emperor Severus. The figure I find most interesting is the first Emperor Severus. He was one of three powerful Roman generals. He prevailed over the other two, becoming Emperor, by alternately partnering with and then betraying one and then the other. The other two generals were named (iirc) Albion and Niger. The metaphoric similarities to Albus (Albion) and Dark Lord (Niger) resonate with me. To paraphrase Sirius Black's reference of Snape, the world is not separated into good people and Death Eaters. Snape is not a good person; nor is he a loyal DE. Jay Winokur From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 23:10:10 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:10:10 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167129 > Pippin: > If this is a plot-driven story, how come we're arguing about the > nature of Snape instead of, say, how Harry is going to locate and > destroy all those horcruxes? Wondering why Dumbledore trusted > Snape and whether he was right to do so is a character issue, not > a plot question. Neri: It is equally a plot question. It has profound implications for what had happened until now and what's going to happen in the last book. And "plot-driven" does not exclude strong characters that we care a lot about. It just means that the way these characters act is constrained by plot considerations. JKR is good with plot and most especially with delivering Bang, at least as much as (I'd say considerably more than) she's good with character development. > Pippin: > > Would normally like to? in this case? make do? > > What kind of drama is that? > Neri: Er are you saying that the tower scene was *not* dramatic? Maybe our differences regarding the definition of Bang are bigger than I thought. I doubt the tower scene could have been made more dramatic than it is with a lengthy taunt from Snape. More likely it would have made it less dramatic. Yes, Snape's character perhaps had to make do with less in this case, so that we readers could get *more* Bang. > Pippin: > JKR even gave Snape another opportunity, when he had all the > time in the world. > > "KIll me like you killed him, you coward," just begs for the riposte, > "My pleasure!" or "Oh, Potter, if only I could, but you see, the Dark Lord > wants you alive and unspoiled." Instead, we get Snape screaming in > capslock and looking like he's being burned alive. There's a serious > lack of gloat there.:) > Neri: There's plenty of gloat from Snape one page earlier in that same scene. I personally believe Snape's response here is very important for the mystery solving (and it is well explained by LID!Snape) but BANG-wise it doesn't add a lot after the tower scene. The important point is that it doesn't detract from it either. > > Neri: > > And even with a completely innocent Snape, in order to maintain > > dramatic effect Harry should probably realize Snape is innocent in > > less than a two chapters complicated explanation. A pretty effective > > way to achieve this would be if ESE!Lupin or another ESE holding Harry > > at wand point would say: "Snape?? Killing Dumbledore?? It was *I* who > > killed Dumbledore!!!" > > Pippin: > Or Hermione throws herself in front of Snape and says "NO, Harry! Snape > didn't kill Dumbledore. YOU did!!" > > *Then* we get the explanations. > Neri: No, I don't think it this version would be very BANGy. Because we were with Harry (actually inside his head) when he was "killing" Dumbledore, and so we know from first hand that it wasn't really Harry's fault. It wasn't anybody's fault, the way you present it, and that's exactly what would undermine the Bang of the tower scene. The tower scene is BANGy because we see someone whom we thought was a good guy murdering another good guy, so there's plenty of blame and it's obvious with whom it lies. But if no one is really at fault for Dumbledore's death, or rather all of them, Harry and Snape and Dumbledore himself (and also the usual villains in a roundabout way) are each *a little* at fault, then the tower scene is going to lose its dramatic power when you reread it after Book 7. And that's something JKR doesn't do. I can't recall any big Bang in the series that is undermined by subsequent reversals. If you want Snape innocent without undermining the tower scene, then you'd better find a replacement villain to kill Dumbledore, or something equally effective. > Pippin: > Look at PoA. > Wouldn't it have been more bangy if the Potters *had* been betrayed > by their best friend? Instead of insane killer Sirius we got wussy little > Peter, and he never would have had the opportunity if the Potters > and Sirius hadn't planned an elaborate ruse and then botched it. > Neri: Just ask yourself which moment is more BANGy: Fudge and McGognagall telling the story of Betrayer!Black and Hero!Pettigrew in the Leaky Cauldron, or Sirius and Lupin telling the story of Betrayer!Peter and WronglyAccused!Sirius in the Shack. Don't think too much, just say quickly which felt more BANGy when you first read it. You got it: the Shack story was more BANGy. And what's more ? after the reversal the Leaky story haven't lost its original BANGiness, only it's now BANGy for different reasons. In fact, lets look closely at PoA. Sirius starts this book as the villain, murderer and betrayer, just like Snape is right now, and in the end it turns out he was DDM!Sirius after all. So, I think the DDM!Snapers need to look very carefully at PoA and analyze what it took to acquit Sirius. It is likely that at least as much would be required to acquit a DDM!Snape in Book 7. In fact, I'd say it would take *more* to acquit DDM!Snape, because we saw him committing the crime on page in one of the most dramatic moments of the series, while Sirius had committed his supposed crimes off page. Besides, DDM!Sirius was acquitted in the third book, while DDM!Snape needs to be acquitted in the seventh and final book of the series that was planned since the beginning. So, what did it take to acquit DDM!Sirius in PoA? As it turns out, the first thing it took was a replacement villain, the one who really dunnit. I think this was mightily important BANGwise for at least two reasons: first, if someone was guilty of a horrible crime, and now he turns out not to be guilty after all, and there's no one else to take the blame instead, it was really nobody's fault ? you lose Bang. The dramatic power is undermined. The second reason is that it's so much easier to acquit the innocent once the real villain was found. Harry and us didn't need to run the Pensieve recording of the killing of the twelve muggles in the street to convince ourselves it was Peter who killed them. Once the real story was out it was clear that Sirius didn't have any motive to kill those muggles and Peter did. Just imagine JKR trying instead to convince us that no one was to blame, and these twelve muggles were really killed in an accidental gas explosion. It would have come out highly suspicious as well as a Dud. Moreover, note that it wasn't just any villain out there that JKR had drafted to take the blame. No, no, it had to be the one who was the tragic hero in the previous version. Moreover, it had to be someone who was believed dead for twelve years. Moreover, he had to be an animagus, and pretending for three books to be Ron's pet and sleeping with him in the same bed! Why did we need all that, you ask? Because it's BANGy, that's why. You want to acquit DDM!Snape? You need to resurrect a 12 years dead animagus from Ron's bed, or find something else that would be *at least* as BANGy. And I don't even discuss all those beautiful, carefully planted clues: Sirius repeating "he's at Hogwarts " in his sleep, asking Fudge for his newspaper, Scabbers' photo in the newspaper, his missing toe, the sneakoscope's warning, Crookshanks response, the mysterious black dog, the Firebolt from no one you need such clues not only for the mystery plot, but also to generate Bang when everything is revealed. And then these clues must fit *precisely*, or no Bang. And if there's need to fill in the backstory, you'd better find a beloved character like Lupin to tell it. Delivering Bang ain't easy at all, but this is what makes the Harry Potter series so great. I don't see JKR compromising on this in her final book of the series merely to make Snape look better. JKR killed Sirius for Bang, and she killed Dumbledore for Bang. You think she'll be more generous to Snape? > Pippin: > Therefore I see no problem > with sacrificing the drama of Traitor!Snape and Betrayed!Dumbledore > for the pathos of DDM!Snape and Toocleverbyhalf!DD. > Neri: DDM!Snape is nice Bang if you can get it, although IMO not quite enough for the price you offer. TooCleverByHalf!DD is a horrible, horrible Dud. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 23:14:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:14:44 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement and Hidden Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167130 Jay Winokur wrote: > > JKR provides lists of oblects as they are observed by the hero as he runs through the aisles of the RoR. I would be surprised if the only purpose for this detail was to supply dramatic weight for this particular scene. Instead, I interpreted that valuable objects, such as horcruxes. have been hidden in plain sight in the RoR. These objects will be identified by Harry or another visitor, perhaps in the course of retrieving the potions book, as described above. > > If we carefully read this scene we see two objects that are particularly interesting: a tiara and a bloodstained ax. > Which, if any, of these relics will prove important in DH? Carol responds: While I do think it's possible that the RoR holds a Horcrux or two, I wonder whether Harry could just walk by the room and silently repeat three times: "I need help finding the Horcruxes." Would the RoR provide him that help, or would it refuse to open for him as it did when he was trying to find out what Draco Malfoy was up to? That aside, the scene you're describing is very important to the plot of HBP itself. Ironically, Harry is standing in the very room, or very version of the room, that Draco Malfoy has been using, the one Harry has been trying to get into but couldn't find the right words for. One of those unobtrusive little details, seemingly just part of the description like the five-legged skeleton and (IMO, the bloody ax) is the Vanishing Cabinet that Draco is trying to repair. Harry walks right by it with no idea that it's the broken object that Draco has been working on all year. So near and yet so far! Just one of many clues hidden in plain sight (another is the little girl who drops the scales) that Harry sees yet doesn't see. Carol, for whom the bloody ax suggested Macnair, the would-be executioner in PoA who turns out (no surprise) to be a DE From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 00:12:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:12:11 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167131 Carol earlier: > > > Harry didn't know the Killing Curse (and probably couldn't have conjured it if he did) in the Shrieking Shack, but he intended to kill Sirius Black (or thought he did). Exactly how was he supposed to do it? Would it have been better to choke him to death with his bare hands, as he tried to do? And Lupin and Black intended to kill Pettigrew. Do you think they had some other spell in mind besides a simple, quick, efficient AK? They would have gone to Azkaban (or back to Azkaban, in Black's case) regardless of the method they used for the murder. And if a murder of that sort, very much premeditated on Black's part, would have split their souls (and I suspect it would have because it was an act of revenge, not self-defense), it would have done so in any case, regardless of the spell they used, just as poisoning Hepzibah Smith to steal the cup and the locket split > > Voldemort's soul.) > > > Alla: > > This paragraph is written as if I wrote anything to the contrary up thread, while I do not think I did. If Sirius and Remus would have killed Peter by **any** means available, AK or not, they would have landed up in Azkaban and their souls would have been split? Um, yes, I am pretty sure that is exactly what would have happened. Would they choose AK? I do not know, but I am thinking that had they killed Peter that is exactly what they would have chosen, although Remus being DADA teacher may have come up with something more creative as well for all I know, but that is really besides the point, IMO. > > That is precisely why IMO JKR makes sure Harry stops them from doing > that. And what is the justification Harry gives? He does not want his > dad's friends to become murderers. I think it is very much in line > with murder splits the soul and murder is a bad thing theme. Avada > Kedavra is just that ? metaphor IMO, but that what makes it so strong > in Potterverse. Not the words in itself, but what lies behind those > words. Carol responds: Sorry to be unclear. I wasn't suggesting that you had made any such point; I was bringing up a new example of my own. (The Moody question was addressed to you, though. I'm still curious as to how you think he might have or should have killed Rosier without resorting to AK.) My point in providing this example was, first, that any other method of murder (e.g., strangulation) would have been just as bad and much less efficient than the spell designed for that purpose, which Harry didn't know but Black and Lupin probably would have used (I'm glad we agree on that point), and, second, that their souls would have been split because of that murder because it was killing for revenge rather than for some justifiable reason (e.g., self-defense), not because of the spell they used. Harry, of course, didn't know about Unforgiveable Curses or about soul-splitting at that time. He just wanted to prevent his father's friends from committing murder. At least we agree that they would have ended up in Azkaban and with split souls no matter how they chose to kill Pettigrew. But my point is that Pettigrew's death, as Black himself acknowledges, would have been murder, not justifiable homicide, no matter what the curse or weapon or method used, whereas Dumbledore's death, *if* it turns out to be justifiable homicide rather than murder, will be justifiable regardless of the curse used to kill him. If it turns out to be murder, the same logic applies, as it does with Black and Lupin's thwarted but intended murder. Again, I think it's the killing itself and the motives of the killer that matter, not the means or method (except that some methods are crueller than others). Much as I hated having Cedric murdered before Harry's eyes, terrible as that scene is, I think the murders committed by Fenrir Greyback are far more abhorrent (and I'm very glad they're offpage). And if Dumbledore had died in the cave from the poison or the Inferi or a combination of the two, that would have been far worse than dying from an AK because he would have suffered horribly, and it would have been murder, with Voldemort (not Harry, who was only following orders) as the murderer. It's better (IMO) to be decapitated by a guillotine, clean and quick, than to be hanged. It's better to be hanged, horrible as a death by strangulation would be, than to be drawn and quartered. Better to die from an AK than from a slow poison eating at your insides or an untransformed werewolf tearing at your throat or lying in a pool or your own blood from Sectumsempra. I think that Snape chose the best and most humane means available to him, and I think, based on his closed eyes and composed features (he looks as if he's asleep) that Dumbledore knew that and forgave him. Carol, wondering what better way DDM!Snape could have chosen if he did, indeed, have to kill Dumbledore to save the boys (and whatever else DD wanted him to accomplish) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 00:45:30 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:45:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and his use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167132 > Jay Winokur: > > This is the title by which all Death Eaters refer to LV. Some readers cite this as an indication that Snape still is a DE and is not DDM. Goddlefrood: Karkaroff had clearly turned againsy LV, but he still called LV Dark Lord. Not sufficient proof, however I do agree that the duplicitous one is not Dumbledore's man. Your free agent thought is along similar lines to my little theory in that I suspect that once we find out who Severus loved we will also find out more about his motives for duplicity. IOW trace his number two and more will be known about number one. FWIW I also favour a link between the duplicitous one's first name and Septimus Severus, or somesuch ;) The Death Eaters in general are under close scrutiny by this poster currently, with one in particular of interest, or perhaps three ;) A peaceful and blessed Easter, pasok or any other festival you are celebrating to you all. Goddlefrood From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Thu Apr 5 23:10:37 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape and his use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <525171.25911.qm@web35005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167133 Tandra wrote: Ok so as I stated before I am reading OoTP over again and I don't know why I didn't notice it before but Snape calls Voldermort The Dark Lord every time he references him, and gets mad at Harry for using his real name. I just find it odd. I mean, everyone else either calls him "you know who" or by his name (to the dismay of others) It just makes me raise and eyebrow that Snape seems to reference him in this kind of reverence. Tandra Deborah writes: After Goblet of Fire, Dumbledore realizes that Harry has a link to Voldemort. Because of this it is necessary for Snape to always be a "Death Eater" in Harry's presence to protect his cover in case Voldemort is watching Snape through Harry. Snape may well say Voldemort outside of Harry's presence, or he may always say the Dark Lord, so as not to become confused and slip. I also wonder if when someone says Voldemort in the presence of a Death Eater, or if a Death Eater were to say Voldemort of his own volition, if Voldemort himself doesn't somehow hear it or know it through the Dark Mark. During the occlumency lessons, it seems Snape is teaching Harry, and Harry has learned the skill even if he has not mastered it. Harry is able to both block Snape and enter Snape's mind himself. Perhaps all Harry needs is practice and confidence, but Snape did teach him the skill. This one-on-one tutoring seemed a risky business, which could endanger Snape if Harry were to actually treat Snape as a respected teacher or Order member, but could at the same time show Voldemort, if he happened to be looking, just how loyal Snape was to him. As for "Snape's Worst Memory," I am of the opinion it was Snape's intent that Harry view it, just as Harry had peeked uninvited at a memory in Dumbledore's office before. Harry needed to see Snape in a sympathetic light - this was not a memory that was bad for Snape, rather it showed James, Sirius, and Lupin as bullying gits. It also showed James, who was a chaser, not a seeker, playing with a nicked Snitch, which has ties to Godric's Hollow. This we learned was a habit of James, to play with that Snitch, just as it was to mess with his hair. It is on my list of objects we will see in DH, which could well be important (I'm guessing it's a Horcrux, which I know is a long-shot.) Deborah, who thinks it's especially important to remember that we see Snape through Harry's eyes, and that Voldemort may be seeing the same Snape Harry sees From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 01:53:58 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:53:58 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167134 > >>Betsy Hp: > > ...it's not really the actual magical spell that separates > > the good guys from the bad but the whys and whatfors. > >>Alla: > I do not see it with such certainty. I think whys and whatfors are > important, but I also think that killing is the action which is > pretty bad in itself in Potterverse, whys and whatfors may mitigate > it but not cross it out IMO. Betsy Hp: I actually agree that JKR has made sure that killing is a huge deal. And I think an AK shares that weight. But I think it's more that an AK kills than that an AK has been labeled "unforgivable" that gives it that weight. An AK certainly demonstrates an *intent* to kill. But it doesn't *make* someone a killer. IOWs, you have to mean it before it does anything. The AK doesn't transfer its meaning or intent on to you. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Which is *entirely* different from say, Star Wars. In Star Wars, > > Yoda could move an object around with the force and Vader could > > move an object around with the force, and despite the fact that > > both characters are doing what amounted to the same action, Yoda > > by using the Light Side was on a higher moral plane than Vader > > using the Dark Side. > >>Alla: > Sure, it is different from Star Wars, JKR grayed it much more IMO. > If it was Star Wars, then of course DD assertion that Harry is not > tainted by dark magic would have sound quite strange for me. > But those curses are called Unforgivable IMO for a reason and > despite the fact that Ministry moral authority is often > questionable, I believe that JKR put some of her own weight behind > it, if that makes sense. Betsy Hp: I think I understand what you're saying, and until HBP, I'd have agreed with you. Only JKR *doesn't* show Harry as being affected by the Crucio he threw. Harry doesn't have a strange desire to cause others pain since using "dark magic". In fact, he's more calm and in control relative to his behavior *before* he used Crucio. So I think JKR actually takes her weight *away* from the idea that there's something addictively dark in the three Unforgivables. So yes, we're left with the fact that the label "Unforgivable" was assigned by the MoM. And the closest thing we've got to a Yoda-type character doesn't seem to think Harry's been "tainted". Which leads me to conclude that "dark magic" is a political label, rather than a moral one. (There could be a scientific reason too, but I'm not sure we have enough information to make that sort of call.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > In Rowling's universe it's all just physics. An AK isn't a tiny > > bit of evil. It's a spell. No better and no worse than > > a "reparo". There's no spiritual or moral energy attached to it. > > Any tainting of the soul comes from *within* the wizard. > > > >>Alla: > It is a personification of evil intent IMO. That is why IMO it > becomes worse than other spells. I agree that there is probably no > moral energy attached, but just as metaphor, you know? > Betsy Hp: Okay, I sort of agree with this. (Though of course I must quickly point out that killing isn't always done with evil intent.) But I do think the three spells are about basically bad things: compulsion, pain, death. But the choice to use those spells and the will to make them effective comes from the wizard. The wizard shapes and harnesses the spells; the spells do not shape or harness the wizard. Betsy Hp From icedragn at hotmail.com Fri Apr 6 01:41:04 2007 From: icedragn at hotmail.com (Jacqueline) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:41:04 -0000 Subject: Harry Not Sitting His Tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167135 Tandra: > Ok so I get why he didn't sit the exam 1st year. He was in the > hopsital wing. I guess the same goes for his second year. But did the > school champions get a pass on their exams? Is that why he didn't > have to take it in his 4th year? > > And if he is skipping all these tests, how is he being passed onto the > next grade? Just something I noticed. icedragon: The contestants of the TriWizard Cup were exempt from writing exams. He did spend most of the exam times in the hospital wing as I recall, lol. I remember one of the professors saying that, I think Dumbledore said it when he was explaining how the tournament works on the first day of the classes in GoF. From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Apr 6 02:37:17 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:37:17 -0400 Subject: Dropouts, was Re: Harry Not Sitting His Tests Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167136 The Twins did not so much drop out as not go on. An OWL certificate is a distinct credential. They are more like someone who after HS decided not to go to college, or after college decided not to go to graduate school, than like high school dropouts. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Apr 6 03:11:06 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:11:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and his use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167137 Tandra: > Ok so as I stated before I am reading OoTP over again > and I don't know why I didn't notice it before but Snape > calls Voldermort The Dark Lord, every time he references > him, and gets mad at Harry for using his real name. I > just find it odd. I mean, everyone else either calls him > "you know who" or by his name (to the dismay of others) > It just mmakes me raise and eyebrow that Snape seems to > reference him in this kind of reverence. houyhnhnm: In the passage you refer to, Harry is trying to justify the fact that he is nurturing his dreams about the DoM. *** "But why does Professor Dumbledore want to stop it?" he asked abruptly. "I don't like it much, but it's been useful hasn't it? I mean . . . I saw that snake attack Mr. Weasley, and if I hadn't, Professor Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to save him, would he? Sir?" *** Snape is more controlled in his response to Harry than we have seen him anywhere else in the book and, it seems to me, he is anxious, even nervous, about the topic. *** When he spoke again, it was slowly and deliberately as if he weighed every word. *** But Harry wants to talk about the dream. ***" The one with the snake and Mr. Weasley . . ." "Do not interrupt me, Potter," "I saw inside the snake's head, not his . . ." "I thought I just told you not to interrupt me, Potter?" *** But Harry did not care if Snape was angry. "How come I saw through the snake's eyes if it's Voldemort's thoughts I'm sharing?" *** "/Do/ /not/ /say/ /the/ /Dark/ /Lord's/ /name!/", spat Snape. On the surface this scene is about the power dynamic between Harry and Snape, and, yes, Snape does rub his arm, and he probably *is* made uncomfortable hearing Voldemort's name, and he *doesn't* know if LV is listening in. But. On my most recent read of this passage, what chiefly struck me is that Snape doesn't want to have this conversation with Harry. He's playing "uproar" in order to end the discussion, and Harry's saying the Dark Lord's name merely provides a convenient offense to jump on. Why is Snape so uncomfortable discussing Harry's connection with Voldemort? Why does he want to keep Harry from talking about his dreams of the DoM? From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Apr 6 03:41:10 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:41:10 -0000 Subject: Snape teaching Harry Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167138 Tandra: > Ok so as I read book 5 again this strikes me as odd and > makes me raise an eyebrow at Snap yet again. Is it a > coincidence that Snape was "teaching" him this subject > and Harry just seemed to become more receptive to the > dreams and visions? houyhnhnm: Back in his office after the MoM battle, Dumbledore says to Harry: *** "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--" [emphasis added] *** Clearly Dumbledore expected Harry to become more receptive to Voldemort while he was learning Occlumency, even if he had taught Harry himself. It sounds to me that anyone learning Occlumency would experience the side effect of becoming temporarily more vulnerable to Legilimancy as they were learning to resist it. From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Fri Apr 6 03:51:59 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:51:59 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement and Hidden Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167139 Carol: > Carol, for whom the bloody ax suggested Macnair Kvapost: Axe, eh? The word "ironclad" comes to mind, as in "DD's ironclad reason to trust SS". What if Snape delivered one of the horcrux objects to DD as a sign of loyalty and it was *literally* iron clad. Kvapost From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 05:10:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:10:37 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167140 Sidenote: This is a delayed (and amended) post that accidentally got sent to the person addressed rather than to the list. One paragraph of it will sound familiar and has already been responded to. The rest will be new. Sorry to confuse everyone, including myself! Carol earlier: > I don't entirely agree. I don't think that Snape intended to kill Dumbledore (much less wanted to do so, though I know that's not what you're implying). I think he had no choice, or rather, had only Hobson's choice (he had to kill DD himself because not to do so would have even more devastating consequences), and he chose the only spell that would serve that terrible necessity without additional pain and degradation for Dumbledore. > Magpie responded: > So what is the difference you're seeing, exactly? Because I do agree with your description of what's terrible for Snape, and that (imo) he didn't want to kill Dumbledore at all. I think he had the intention in the most basic sense because he had to do it--much as Harry didn't want to feed Dumbledore the Potion, but did it on purpose. Carol again: I'm a bit confused myself, actually. But my objection to the word "intent" (or "intend") is that (to me) it implies premeditated murder. It suggests that Snape wanted to kill DD and that he was planning to do it. IOW, "intend," to me, suggests an attitude toward a future action. Draco *intended* to kill Dumbledore (until he was confronted with the prospect of actually doing it) just as I *intend* to do my income tax. (Not a good example, but I don't have any bad intentions at the moment to use for comparison, ;-) ) Snape, AFAIK, had no intention of killing DD. He and DD together seem to have been trying to prevent a confrontation between Draco and DD from occurring (and triggering the vow). There's no evidence of premeditation that I can see. It looks to me as if both he and DD are doing everything possible to avoid triggering the vow. If you're using "intent" in the sense of "meaning to do something" as in "an intentional action," not an accident, then I agree with you (though I still don't like the word "intent" here because of the suggestion of premeditation). Obviously, Snape meant the words he was speaking, despite not wanting to say them, or DD wouldn't have died. He was doing what he had to do (like a soldier pulling a trigger and killing an enemy when he'd rather be anywhere else). But that's not what *I* mean when I say that I intend to do something. I mean that I'm planning to do it and have every intention of doing it, but I can't do it right now. In case anyone thinks I'm just mixing up "intent" and "intention," here's the Merriam-Webster online definition of "intent": Main Entry: 1in?tent Pronunciation: in-'tent Function: noun Etymology: Middle English entente, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin intentus, from Latin, act of stretching out, from intendere 1 a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act b : the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION 2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention So I guess I'm using definition 1a or 2a and the rest of you are using 1b. At least this should make clear why the use of the word "intent" bothers me; it's too ambiguous. 1b is too easily read as 1a. I don't think that Snape had any criminal intent or even a "clearly formulated or planned intention." It's even a stretch, IMO, to say that he had the "volition" since I think he was acting against his own will. As for what's required to actually someone kill with an AK, besides a wand, the incantation, and the power or ability, I suppose that you have to summon the will to do it (whatever Snape means by "nerve"), the "volition," which I suppose is what the rest of you mean by "intention," But to *wish* Dumbledore dead? ("But it's dramatic because what AK is is just the wish for someone else to be dead spoken aloud.") I don't agree with that at all. DDM!Snape doesn't wish DD to be dead. He would much rather, I think, have died himself, but his wishes have no effect on the spell. (Note to Magpie: I know that you've already responded to this part, but I still don't agree. So-called "magical thinking," for example, the wish that someone was dead, actually requires a desire for the person to die. A voodoo doll is a good example. *There's* Dark magic for you.) Magpie: > So what is different in his using the AK here in your view? Are you saying that it's different because of the positive aspects of it, like that in that situation the way Snape chose to kill Dumbledore was the best way because it was quick and got him away from Fenrir etc.? Carol: Yes. I'm certain that no one except Snape would have performed the AK in just that way, sending DD over the wall. That action almost certainly saved DD's body from being desecrated by Fenrir and allowed Snape to get Draco and the DEs off the tower before Harry could rush out after them. (Snape would have seen the second broom and deduced that Harry was there in his Invisibility Cloak.) But also, surely it's better for DD to die from an AK (quick, painless, etc.) than from that horrible potion (and DD might prefer to die from Snape's hand rather than Harry's, though I don't think that was in his thoughts at all--only what would happen if Snape didn't go through with "the deed" himself--consequences too terrible to contemplate, IMO). So, yes. Given the limited and terrible choices available to Snape, an AK that somehow sent DD over the battlements was the best that I can see. And if it split his soul, if it counts as "the supreme act of evil" (and I'm not sure that it does), it would have done so if he had chosen some other means of killing DD, just as poisoning Hepzibah Smith worked just as well as an AK to split Voldemort's. (Harry's soul, of course, would not be split if DD had died from the potion because he wasn't *trying* to kill him, wasn't "intending" it in your sense of the word. But I still don't like "intend" because of the implication of premeditation and criminal intent. Carol, apologizing for missending the post and hoping that it threads correctly From lydiafrench at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 05:16:10 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (Lydia French) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:16:10 -0000 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? Power of Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167141 > "K" wrote: > So, let's just say Snape did love Lily, either in an unrequited > fashion or as a friend. Snape warned Dumbledore of Voldemort's > plans to go after the Potters. Would those actions and feelings > really cause Dumbledore to have such an unfaltering trust? To allow > a former Death Eater to teach at Hogwarts? To be around The Chosen > One? It would be so foolish on Dumbledore's part. Love can be a > fleeting emotion, especially over time. I just can't for the life of > me understand why Snape loving Lily would cause Dumbledore to trust > Snape. There surely has to be more. firefly replies: Snape didn't come to Dumbledore until after the attack! You see? Snape, then a DE, told his Dark Lord about the part of the prophecy that he heard, believing that voldy would go after a stranger whom Snape neither knew nor cared about. However, unbeknownst to Snape, Voldy ended up killing James, who's death Snape wouldn't have cared about except perchance in respect to the life debt he felt he owed him, we are unsure about that. But Voldy also killed Lilly, whom IMO, Snape most definately did not want to be responsible for having helped kill. In utter remorse he THEN goes to DD who hears and understands that the power of Lily's love had redeemed Snapes lost and angry soul. I agree, K you are correct, Lily may well have allowed Snape to feel for the only time in his lonely life the love of a true friend. I say unrequited more in deference to what I have to assume was the pure love of Harry's parents for each other. I can't believe James was her 2nd choice and Snape was the one that got away. That would belittle Lilly's love for james or make her out to be too shallow to follow her true feelings for Snape for whatever reasons. firefly From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 05:36:53 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:36:53 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement and Hidden Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kvapost" wrote: > > Carol: > > > Carol, for whom the bloody ax suggested Macnair > > Kvapost: > > Axe, eh? The word "ironclad" comes to mind, as in "DD's ironclad > reason to trust SS". What if Snape delivered one of the horcrux > objects to DD as a sign of loyalty and it was *literally* iron clad. > > Kvapost > JW: That would certainly generate high levels of trust by DD in Snape. But when would this have been accomplished, given the time frame in which the existence of horcruxes was determined? After all, Snape has been trusted by DD since roughly the time of HP's birth, but the existence of horcruxes was determined when HP was 16. Further, why would DD/Snape purposefully hide a horcrux in the RoR? Wouldn't they have tried to de-horcrux the ax, if they knew it was a horcrux? Finally, why would DD keep the existence of a known horcrux (or former horcrux) a secret? Isn't this information that HP desparately needs? I might buy your hypothesis, but it needs to be fleshed out and made consistent with known facts before it becomes a theory. JW From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 06:13:15 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:13:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape: ESE or DDM? In-Reply-To: References: <25555866.1175708310904.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2795713f0704052313g6d041c52k780699669e6fee2f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167143 Firefly PS.Either way, Snape is DDM and he DID NOT kill DD. DD would never have asked him too, for that would have been murder and split his soul. Lynda: I think its going a bit far to say that murder splits the sould in every instance. If that were true Lord Thingy would not have had to go to Slughorn for information on horcruxes when he was a student at Hogwarts. That it does terrible damage to the soul in every instance I will buy. That's truth. The next question then is, if someone asks another person to kill them under certain circumstances, is that a murder? Or is that simply carrying out a request that was asked to be performed under certain circumstances? And, yes, I also fall into the Harry killing Voldy does not equate murder camp. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Fri Apr 6 06:55:15 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:55:15 -0000 Subject: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV Was:Snape and use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167144 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: Small snip: Snape calls Voldermort The Dark Lord, every time he references him, and gets mad at Harry for using his real name. I just find it odd. I mean, everyone else either calls him "you know who" or by his name (to the dismay of others) It just makes me raise and eyebrow that Snape seems to reference him in this kind of reverence. > Tandra > Anne Squires responds: FWIW, Dobby also refers to LV as "the Dark Lord". IIRC, the first time anyone in the series uses the term, "Dark Lord," it is Dobby in CoS: "Dobby heard tell," he said hoarsely, "that Harry Potter met the Dark Lord for a second time, just weeks ago.... that Harry Potter escaped I don't know about the rest of y'all; but, I always thought that Dobby's supposed clue about who was behind all the trouble in CoS was, well, very lame. That is, until I read HBP. Remember at the beginning of CoS, Dobby specifically tells Harry that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not behind all the "terrible things." "What terrible things?" said Harry. "Who's plotting them?" Dobby made a funny choking noise and then banged his head frantically against the wall. "All right!" cried Harry, grabbing the elf's arm to stop him. "You can't tell me. I understand. But why are you warning me? A sudden, unpleasant thought struck him. "Hang on-----this hasn't got anything to do with Vol --- sorry ---- with You-Know-Who, has it? You could just shake or nod," he added hastily as Dobby's head tilted worryingly close to the wall again. Slowly, Dobby shook his head. "Not --- not He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, sir ----" But Dobby's eyes were wide and he seemed to be giving Harry a hint. Harry, however, was completely lost. "He hasn't got a brother, has he?" (CoS p.20) Then at the end of the novel Harry tries to get some clarification about this hint from Dobby. "I've got just one question, Dobby," said Harry as Dobby pulled on Harry's sock with shaking hands. "You told me all this had nothing to do with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, remember? Well ---" "It was a clue, sir," said Dobby, his eyes widening, as though this was obvious. "Was giving you a clue. The Dark Lord, before he changed his name, could be freely named, you see?" "Right," Said Harry weakly. (CoS P.429) Like I said earlier, when I first read this I thought it was a cheap shot on the part of the author. I was very disappointed at the time because I greatly admired JKR's style. But, I kept thinking this particular "clue" part of the book was just plain stupid. At the time I was thinking that Harry had guessed correctly and Dobby knew it all along. Why play this stupid game with both Harry and the reader? To me it felt like a poorly devised red herring. CoS, imo, has several clever red herrings. So, I kept asking myself, why has the author included this misleading, correctly guessed at, yet denied clue? I felt that Harry and the reader had been deliberately lied to. I even wondered why this whole exchange hadn't been edited out. It truly seemed that weak to me. A very cheap shot by an otherwise very clever author. Later, of course, I realized that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named really and truly had nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of CoS. We have been told that Lucius Malfoy was behind the whole thing. That LV's anger, upon hearing about this blotched plot, was great to behold. One of his Horcruxes had been sacrificed for nothing. After reading HBP I completely changed my opinion about this hint/clue---whatever that JKR is/was trying to give us via Dobby. This is the genius of JKR. She is giving an incredibly clever clue about LV's essence. That he is, in fact, divided, split. There are different parts to Voldemort, that these different parts come from different time periods and even have different names. She has encapsulated this clue with words like "hint" and "clue." It's like she's saying look here for a clue everyone. Dobby tells Harry, and us, that here is a clue. He says it not once, but twice. He widens his eyes when the clue is introduced and when it is "explained." Don't know why I didn't pick up on this before. Well, on second thought, I guess I do. I was too busy feeling used and superior about what I thought was a stupid "clue" to see that much, much more was going on. Like foreshadowing for something extremely important. (GAH! Slaps forehead) After rereading parts of CoS with HBP in mind I have started to think that maybe not only Lucius was to blame for CoS. I think the part of LV's soul that inhabited the diary was also part of the plot. That particular aspect/soul of LV was certainly a willing participant in the whole plot. In fact, w/o his cooperation there would not have been a plot. I propose that LM and Diary!Tom were co-conspirators. Furthermore, I have begun to wonder if the various Horcruxes have their own separate identities apart from LV. What I am attempting to say (and I am trying to be clear, but it is difficult) is that the Horcruxes together make up a whole being; but these bits of soul have been apart from their "owner" for a very long time. I wonder if they have developed---- or maybe retained---- distinct personalities with distinct agendas. I think the fact that the Horcruxes exist means that LV has a sort of MPD. I read Sybil by Flora Rheta Schreiber many years ago. It is based on the true story of a young woman who had MPD (multiple personality disorder). Some of her personalities didn't know what others were doing. Some of them worked against each other. Some wanted to kill Sybil and others wanted Sybil to live. They had different ages, names, personalities, and goals. LV is angry at Lucius for CoS. I wonder if he shouldn't also be angry at that part of himself (or what used to be a part of himself) that took part in the whole plot to open the Chamber and go after Harry. This leads me to my next observation. The different Horcruxes with their own different agendas can and have worked in opposition to each other. (LV does not appreciate what Diary!Tom got up to.) I realize I am making a huge leap here, but here goes---- I also think that there is a Horcrux in Harry which has helped Harry oppose LV. This explains why Harry's instincts seem to always kick in just in time to save him the times he has confronted LV (or in the case of CoS--- one of LV's Horcruxes). SS: "...Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face---" CoS: "Then without thinking, without considering, as though he had been meant to do it all along, Harry seized the basilisk fang on the floor next to him and plunged it straight into the heart of the book." GoF: "Harry didn't understand why he was doing it, didn't know what it might achieve...but he now concentrated as he had never done in his life on forcing that bead of light right back into Voldemort's wand..." The Horcrux in Harry knows just what to do to save himself from, well, himself. Have you ever played chess with yourself. You know just what to do and when to do it to protect yourself from yourself. Horcrux!Harry also explains why the Dementors are especially drawn to Harry. He's got his soul plus a bit extra. Horcrux!Harry explains why Harry's wand, the brother of LV's, chose Harry. Horcrux!Harry explains why Harry can withstand the Imperius Curse. With an extra bit of soul, Harry has the extra resolve to overcome the curse. Above all else, for me, the only thing that explains this bit from CoS is Horcrux!Harry: "Harry couldn't explain, even to himself, why he didn't just throw Riddle's diary away. The fact was that even though he knew the diary was blank, he kept absentmindedly picking it up and turning the pages, as though it were a story he wanted to finish. And while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T. M. Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten. But this was absurd. He'd never had friends before Hogwarts, Dudley had made sure of that." (CoS US paperback p.297) What other explanation could there be for the above paragraph than Horcrux!Harry? Please, this is not a rhetorical question. What do you all think of Harry believing he used to be "friends" with T. M. Riddle? Why would he think that? Why does the name mean something to him? Anne T. Squires (Who really wants to know what others think of my MPD!LV theory) From lydiafrench at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 05:51:45 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (Lydia French) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:51:45 -0000 Subject: What event are you most looking forward to in DH? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167145 Shall we exclude the Show Down and finding out if Snape is DDM or ESE? Those two go without saying. I am actually really interested in exploring #12 Grimmauld Place. I think Harry will stumble upon Slytherins locket there. However, I am concerned, now that all the Blacks are dead, whether Creature will have taken it to give to the Dark Lord or at least tell him about it's location. And will the house itself be unsafe and in full view now that DD, the secret keeper is dead? (firefly bites her fingernails nervously...) From lydiafrench at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 06:08:55 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (Lydia French) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:08:55 -0000 Subject: Lord V: A Fate worse than death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167146 > Goddlefrood wrote: > If however what you mean is would LV be able to repel said > Dementor before it ate what was left of his soul then I would > have to remind you that the duplicitous one is aware of other > methods of repelling Dementors. These other methods, of which > we so far have little information would, IMO, be known to LV. Firefly grudgingly replies: I suppose so... > Goddlefrood: > Harry is not terribly likely to save LV from the brink of death. > That is my reading of how a life debt could be incurred. If > Harry does indeed get an opportunity to kill LV then is it > likely that he would call it of, just so he could put LV in his > debt? Firefly disagrees: Actually, I think that scenario may be a real possibility except not with the motivation that you state. I can see Harry getting the chance to kill Voldemort and finding that he can not bring himself to commit murder. Firefly had written: How can Love be used as a weapon to cause a fate worse than death? Goddlefrood shared: > There are ways, often used in my own hosehold :) Firefly responds both laughing at and shedding a little tear for Goddlefrood: Ouch! From lydiafrench at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 07:05:49 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (Lydia French) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:05:49 -0000 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0704052313g6d041c52k780699669e6fee2f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167147 > Lynda: > > I think its going a bit far to say that murder splits the sould in every > instance. If that were true Lord Thingy would not have had to go to Slughorn > for information on horcruxes when he was a student at Hogwarts. That it does > terrible damage to the soul in every instance I will buy. That's truth. The > next question then is, if someone asks another person to kill them under > certain circumstances, is that a murder? Or is that simply carrying out a > request that was asked to be performed under certain circumstances? > > And, yes, I also fall into the Harry killing Voldy does not equate murder > camp. firefly responds: Lord V needed Slughorn specifically to learn the way to store the shattered piece of his soul outside of his body for safe keeping, ie: the Horcrux Spell. I don't understand what you mean when you say "he would not have had to go to Slughorn for information on horcruxes". The horcrux spell itself doesn't split the soul, IMO, committing the murder does that. The horcrux spell moves the piece from your body to another item. It's a very complicated and rarely known spell that Tom most definately needed help learning. And in JKR's world, I don't believe that, other than in defense of your own life or the life of another, there are ever situations when a person can willingly and knowingly take the life of another and it not be murder. That is exactly what we are being asked to believe that Snape did and that is why I don't believe that DD would ever ask that of a friend. firefly From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Apr 6 09:53:25 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:53:25 -0000 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? Power of Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167148 firefly: > Snape didn't come to Dumbledore until after the attack! Ceridwen: Snape went to Dumbledore before the attack. He was a spy (GoF). If he had turned after Voldemort vaporized, then there would have been no one or nothing to spy on. He began teaching at Hogwarts two months before the attack (OotP) which means he had been in contact with Dumbledore before then. I doubt if Dumbledore would have given a teaching post to a then-unrepentant Death Eater. Ceridwen. From jnoyl at aim.com Fri Apr 6 06:05:57 2007 From: jnoyl at aim.com (JLyon) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:05:57 -0700 Subject: Snape teaching Harry Occlumency Message-ID: <81B3A03A-F225-482F-AAD7-25B596CC3FE2@aim.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167149 > Tandra: > But again I just think it's too much of a coincidence that Snape was teaching him this subject that should of been keeping him away from the dreams and the such but he seemed more open to them to me. J Lyon Responds: My take is that Snape is a cruel, twisted man who has almost no ability to forgive any slight and always blames others for his actions. He yells at others for not controlling their emotions, and then when his emotions come out they are always mean, and cruel, and rather insane (spitting on the Quidditch Pitch after Harry caught the Snitch quickly and foaming at the mouth when Sirius escaped). He may be on the light side (since he didn't try to kill Harry in book 6 and kept shouting out "Dueling for Dummies" hints), but he is not light. He enjoyed mind raping and opening up Harry for visions. He had the son of the man he hated in his hands, with the Headmaster's senile and stupid permission, and he was going to PROVE that Harry was no good and a rotten student. Of course, he also always made sure that there were a couple of juicy "James was such a dick" memories left out in the pensieve. After all, the arrogant brat would think nothing of trying to see HIS worst memories, so he made sure that they were Snape's worst memories of Harry's sainted dad. The man has no redeeming bones in his body. He may fight against Moldie, but only on his terms for his reasons and not because it is the right thing to do. J Lyon From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Apr 6 10:18:25 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:18:25 -0000 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? Power of Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167150 > firefly replies: > Snape didn't come to Dumbledore until after the attack! You see? Snape, > then a DE, told his Dark Lord about the part of the prophecy that he > heard, believing that voldy would go after a stranger whom Snape > neither knew nor cared about. However, unbeknownst to Snape, Voldy > ended up killing James, who's death Snape wouldn't have cared about > except perchance in respect to the life debt he felt he owed him, we > are unsure about that. But Voldy also killed Lilly, whom IMO, Snape > most definately did not want to be responsible for having helped kill. > In utter remorse he THEN goes to DD who hears and understands that the > power of Lily's love had redeemed Snapes lost and angry soul. Hickengruendler: But this can't be. It's Harry's interpretation of Dumbledore's words, but it is wrong. We know from GoF, chapter 30, and from HBP, chapter 2, that Snape started his work as a spy (no matter on which side), before Voldemort's downfall, therefore also before the attacks on the Potter. What Dumbledore really said, was that Snape showed regret, after he realized how Voldemort *interpreted* the prophecy. This could have been (and given the information from GoF probably was) months before the attack on Godric's Hollow. This, IMO, is a clear hint by JKR, that we are meant to question Harry's interpretation of the events in HBP (of course I'm not neutral in this sense, since I'm sure Snape is loyal to Dumbledore), since we definitely know one of his interpretations is wrong and will likely be corrected in Deathly Hallows. It is a comparatively minor one, of course, and does not prove anything about Snape's loyalties at all. But since I see no reason for JKR to have Harry be mistaken here, if we are only meant to learn, that Snape fooled Dumbledore a few months earlier than Harry thought, I expect this to be part of a bigger revelation. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Apr 6 12:42:08 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:42:08 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167151 Betsy hp: > I think this is what Magpie is warning against when she suggests > readers shouldn't get too wrapped up in the technical side of magic. > At the risk of completely mis-stating Magpie's case , it's not > really the actual magical spell that separates the good guys from the > bad but the whys and whatfors. > In Rowling's universe it's all just physics. An AK isn't a tiny bit >of evil. It's a spell. No better and no worse than a "reparo". > There's no spiritual or moral energy attached to it. Any tainting of > the soul comes from *within* the wizard. Jen: JKR *hasn't* explained her theories on dark magic in a comprehensive way like Star Wars does. And yet there are sign-posts in the books like Dumbledore telling Harry 'you have never been seduced by the Dark Arts,' implying there is an effect on the person who uses the Dark Arts. I don't see this as a magical seduction so much as a moral one: the less restraint a person governs himself with re: magic the more likely he is to be seduced into using magic to get what he wants without regard for the well-being of others or their free-will. That's the symbolism of the Unforgiveables in my opinion, they are meant to represent the most extreme form of one person taking away the free-will of another and therefore run counter to JKR's theme of choice. Usually I agree that her mechanics don't mean as much as the outcomes and emotions attached, but I've read the Unforgiveables as having a meaning beyond simple mechanics. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167118 Carol: > But Avada Kedavra is *the* Killing Curse, the only one designed for > that purpose, and the Aurors were authorized to use it. (It was no > longer "Unforgiveable" in the sense of resulting in a life sentence to > Azkaban for the Aurors. It was still illegal for everyone else.) Why, > then, wouldn't the real Moody, who "didn't kill unless he had to," not > use the AK to do the killing? We know for sure that he killed Evan > Rosier. Wilkes, another DE who was part of the "Slytherin Gang," is > also dead, and if Mad-Eye didn't kill him, another Auror must have > done so. And what other spell would that Auror have used? The AK is > quick, efficient, apparently painless, and virtually fool-proof > (unless your aim is off, like the Big Blond DE's). Why not use it > rather than, say, conjuring a poisonous snake or a pair of hands to > strangle the DE or whatever other method you have in mind? Jen: Crouch Sr. authorizing the use of Unforgiveables made them legal but it didn't make their use right. He convinced others the end was worth the means and started fighting 'violence with violence', taking away free-will of suspects to achieve his end. It's pretty clear the man lost his moral compass along the way when he started using the Imperius to control his own son. Moody may not have 'killed unless he had to' because he thought it was wrong to do so. And there's a definite pattern of JKR stopping her good charcters from using AK's or having inconclusive evidence they did so off-page while at the same time keeping the connection between the Unforgiveables and Voldemort & DE's front and center, showing them not only using the curses but being the only ones to explain their use. (I'm not ruling out misdirection with Snape here, that she needed to associate him with the weapons of Voldemort to make his betrayl appear absolute and final.) Jen From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 6 14:08:54 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:08:54 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape: ESE or DDM? Power of Love Message-ID: <23879360.1175868534800.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167152 From: Lydia French >Snape didn't come to Dumbledore until after the attack! You see? Snape, >then a DE, told his Dark Lord about the part of the prophecy that he >heard, believing that voldy would go after a stranger whom Snape >neither knew nor cared about. Bart: First of all, it has been made pretty clear in the canon (including Dumbledore's testimony in the Pensieve flashback) that Snape joined Dumbledore while Voldemort was still at the height of his power; about a year before the attack on the Potters, possibly before Harry was born, although probably not long after (Harry's birth marking him as the target). Although canon is not explicit here, it was almost certainly Snape's info that caused the Potters to go into hiding. However, while the canon implies strongly that Voldy's interpretation of the prophecy was the trigger that brought Snape to the other side, there HAS to be something more that caused Dumbledore to trust Snape. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 6 14:27:49 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:27:49 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape: ESE or DDM? Message-ID: <9486950.1175869669997.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167153 From: Lydia French >And in JKR's world, I don't believe that, other than in defense of >your own life or the life of another, there are ever situations when >a person can willingly and knowingly take the life of another and it >not be murder. That is exactly what we are being asked to believe >that Snape did and that is why I don't believe that DD would ever ask >that of a friend. There also seems to be a problem, albeit less so, with extending one's life beyond its natural limits. Bart From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Apr 6 15:21:19 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:21:19 -0400 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? Message-ID: <2F44015F-4496-4E02-AEC0-8F5970D5D45A@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167154 > firefly responds: > ...The horcrux spell moves the piece from your body to > another item. It's a very complicated and rarely known spell that Tom > most definately needed help learning. Doug: The spell does not have to be complicated. Rare, obscure, yes, but not necessarily complicated. ___ __ From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Apr 6 15:28:07 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:28:07 -0400 Subject: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV Was:Snape and use of "The Dar Message-ID: <48AD359F-BC11-4834-AB52-B746AD50750A@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167155 > Anne T. Squires (Who really wants to know what others think of my > MPD!LV theory) i think that souls locked in inanimate objects lack some essential things sufficient to cause personality or a sense of self. The diary had memory. Otherwise they would need some sensory input. ___ __ From va32h at comcast.net Fri Apr 6 15:32:33 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:32:33 -0000 Subject: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV Was:Snape and use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "anne_t_squires" wrote: I've got just one question, Dobby," said Harry as Dobby pulled on Harry's sock with shaking hands. "You told me all this had nothing to do with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, remember? Well ---" "It was a clue, sir," said Dobby, his eyes widening, as though this was obvious. "Was giving you a clue. The Dark Lord, before he changed his name, could be freely named, you see?" "Right," Said Harry weakly. (CoS P.429) va32h here: You know, what suddenly occurred to me as I read your post - how does Dobby know that Voldemort was Tom Riddle? You'd think Lucius must know, because Voldemort gave the diary to him. But if Voldemort's past life as Tom Riddle is so obvious, why does Dumbledore tell us that "few knew" about it. And why is Bellatrix still horrified when Harry calls out Voldemort as a half-blood in the ministry? I realize that the current Death Eater movement is not at all about blood purity - but the first one was supposed to be. I'm just very confused about the status of who knew what about Tom Riddle and when. va32h From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 6 15:45:00 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:45:00 -0000 Subject: Snape teaching Harry Occlumency/AK and Guns In-Reply-To: <81B3A03A-F225-482F-AAD7-25B596CC3FE2@aim.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167157 > J Lyon Responds: > He may be on the light side (since he didn't try to kill Harry > in book 6 and kept shouting out "Dueling for Dummies" hints), but > he is not light. He enjoyed mind raping and opening up Harry > for visions. > > He had the son of the man he hated in his hands, with the > Headmaster's senile and stupid permission, and he was going to > PROVE that Harry was no good and a rotten student. Of course, > he also always made sure that there were a couple of juicy > "James was such a dick" memories left out in the pensieve. > After all, the arrogant brat would think nothing of trying to > see HIS worst memories, so he made sure that they were Snape's > worst memories of Harry's sainted dad. Magpie: I don't think this fits with the canon we have. First, Snape doesn't show much pleasure either way at "mind-raping" Harry--and when he's enjoying making Harry squirm he usually shows it. He's surprisingly restrained at seeing Harry stuck up a tree, for instance. Perhaps Snape found it just as uncomfortable watching Harry harassed unfairly as Harry found watching him harassed unfairly. Which brings me to Snape's memory. James might look like a dick in the scene, but Snape looks like a powerless loser, which is far worse, imo, from Snape's pov. And why would those memories being in the Pensieve indicate Snape's put them there for Harry? If he left them in his head he could have made sure Harry saw them when they were practicing. By taking them out of his head he makes sure Harry won't see them. The only reason he does, weeks into the lessons, is because Snape is called away for something he couldn't have foreseen would happen. We don't know what the other memories in the dish were, and can't assume they were all James being a jerk. The Snape I know from canon would never ever want Harry to see him with his underwear showing, period. Plus, if he likes this so much, why stop the lessons after Harry sees that memory? His emotions about it seem genuine to me. J Lyon: > The man has no redeeming bones in his body. He may fight against > Moldie, but only on his terms for his reasons and not because it > is the right thing to do. Magpie: I think he fights against Voldemort on the terms he has to and because it is the right thing to do even by his own personal code. I don't think he has any other reason to fight him the way he is. Jen: JKR *hasn't* explained her theories on dark magic in a comprehensive way like Star Wars does. And yet there are sign-posts in the books like Dumbledore telling Harry 'you have never been seduced by the Dark Arts,' implying there is an effect on the person who uses the Dark Arts. I don't see this as a magical seduction so much as a moral one: the less restraint a person governs himself with re: magic the more likely he is to be seduced into using magic to get what he wants without regard for the well-being of others or their free-will. Magpie: I agree-and it applies to Muggles as well as Wizards, imo, so isn't about the spell itself. Once you've done a horrible thing, another is easier. Harry has tried Dark Arts. He's cast Sectumsempra, he's tried to cast Crucio. But I don't think he's been affected automatically by them, because it's not all or nothing, exactly. Harry's tempted, but also pulls himself back, sometimes after he's crossed a line. The use of any kinds of magic, I would guess, has an affect on a person just because anything you do has an effect on you- -your choices are always going to mold who you are. "Seduced by the Dark Arts" can simply mean you come to want to use them and prefer to use them and use them easily. It's giving in to a certain kind of impulse, I think. Both James and Harry are said to hate Snape and Malfoy specifically because they like the Dark Arts, and this is kind of taken as a given without us seeing either of them specifically doing a lot of Dark Arts stuff. They've both been shown doing some, yes, but they don't seem defined by being controlled by Dark Curses etc. so much as dark impulses. (Malfoy, in particular, doesn't seems to put some effort into mastering his own fear of them.) Yet you can also see James falling a little into the Barty Crouch trap where the fact that he's against somebody using the Dark Arts makes him give himself free rein to his own bad impulses. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 16:01:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:01:45 -0000 Subject: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV Was:Snape and use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167158 Anne Squires responds: > > FWIW, Dobby also refers to LV as "the Dark Lord". Carol responds: Very good point! Either we have ESE!Dobby, which seems extremely unlikely, or the use of "the Dark Lord" is not, in itself, definitive evidence of a person's loyalties. (Personally, I think that Dobby used it because that's the way he was used to hearing Voldemort referred to and DDM!Snape habitually used it to avoid giving away his true loyalty around the Death Eaters and their children. He had to *appear* to be one of them and to share their loyalties. Nor would the usually dignified Snape say something as silly as "You Know Who" regardless of his loyalties. He might on occasion say "He Who Must Not Be Named," but the term is cumbersome. "The Dark Lord," which also appears not only in both Prophecies but on the label on the Prophecy globe in the DoM. I hardly think that the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy is himself a Dark Wizard. On a side note, I think that the name "Voldemort" causes Snape's Dark Mark to burn, as if it senses where his loyalties truly lie. The DEs glower and hiss at Harry in the MoM when he uses the name, but they don't grab their arms as Snape does. I think he has good reason for not wanting Harry to use the name (but I agree with whoever said that he's directing Harry away from the dream about the snake in case Voldemort is listening in--and that, too, would be a reason to order Harry not to say the name). Anne Squires wrote: > Like I said earlier, when I first read this I thought it was a cheap shot on the part of the author. At the time I was thinking that Harry had guessed correctly and Dobby knew it all along. Why play this stupid game with both Harry and the reader? > > Later, of course, I realized that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named really and truly had nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of CoS. We have been told that Lucius Malfoy was behind the whole thing. That LV's anger, upon hearing about this blotched plot, was great to behold. One of his Horcruxes had been sacrificed for nothing. Carol responds: I had a similar reaction, though not so violent. :-) It took me awhile to realize that Ginny's encounter with Diary!Tom would not in itself convince Percy that Voldemort was back, that Diary!Tom was a kind of manifestation of Voldemort, complete with his personality at an early age, but was not Voldemort himself. (I still wonder what would happen if Vapormort had met this younger version of himself. Would they have been allies or rivals or would they have merged into a single entity that looked like sixtee-year-old Tom Riddle?) I do, however, think that the canonical information you've summarized above should be accepted as accurate (Snape has to be the source of DD's information on the anger) and not a set-up for something else or misdirection. Anne Squires: > After reading HBP I completely changed my opinion about this hint/clue---whatever that JKR is/was trying to give us via Dobby. This is the genius of JKR. She is giving an incredibly clever clue about LV's essence. That he is, in fact, divided, split. There are different parts to Voldemort, that these different parts come from different time periods and even have different names. > What I am attempting to say is that the Horcruxes together make up a whole being; but these bits of soul have been apart from their "owner" for a very long time. I wonder if they have developed-- or maybe retained--distinct personalities with distinct agendas. I think the fact that the Horcruxes exist means that LV has a sort of MPD. Carol: I see what you're saying, although, of course, there are only two different names, and the Tom Riddle in the diary was originally a *memory.* I don't think that the other soul bits would have personalities or bodies. You can put a memory in a diary to be "read" by other people (the diary had to be interactive or it could not have been used to open the Chamber of Secrets), but how can a memory be concealed in a cup or ring, which would not be read or written in? I think that the other Horcruxes serve a different purpose. They are precious magical objects with a history that makes them more valuable still to Voldemort, and they are mostly made of gold (ring, cup, locket) which will last untarnished for a very long time. Unlike the ring, which was intended one day to be used--and perhaps sacrificed, according to DD--once Voldemort had all his Horcruxes and was in power, the other Horcruxes are hidden, with curses and other powerful protections to prevent them from being destroyed. Their sole purpose is to encase a soul bit and "anchor" the main soul to the earth. I doubt that they have any personality, and the only agenda in creating a Horcrux is Voldemort's own--immortality. The diary was also proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin, but that proof required a reader. Any knowledgeable person looking at the Slytherin locket, the Hufflepuff cup, or even the Peverell ring inherited by the Gaunts would know what they were (in terms of their history, not the fact that they're Horcruxes) with no interaction, no encounter with embedded memories. They did not need to be "read" to be recognized as valuable heirlooms. Anne Squires: > I also think that there is a Horcrux in Harry which has helped Harry oppose LV. This explains why Harry's instincts seem to always kick in just in time to save him the times he has confronted LV (or in the case of CoS--- one of LV's Horcruxes). Carol responds: First, from what we've read, a Horcrux has to be deliberately created. LV may have intended to use the soul bit resulting from Harry's murder to make his sixth Horcrux as DD speculated, but he performed no such spell on Harry himself. He was trying to kill him. So even if there's a soul bit in Harry (and all we know is that he has some of LV's powers--we don't know that they result from a soul bit), he is not a true Horcrux. That aside, I don't think that soul bits have independent volition, except in the case of the diary, in which the soul bit was combined with a memory of young Tom, which could interact with a reader. And I doubt that any bit of Voldie's soul would enable Harry to act against the main soul it was broken off from, especially if your hypothesis that the soul bits develop independently is correct--this one would have broken off just as Voldie killed Lily, who was trying to prevent him from killing the Prophecy Boy. I can see such a soul bit (if it exists, which I don't believe) strengthening the link between Harry and Voldie, stirring up hatred in Harry when he saw Dumbledore, striving to get him to use Dark Curses, or whatever, but not helping him to act against Voldemort. I think that the instinct you cite is either inborn or a result of his mother's accidental Love magic or the result of the curse that backfired, creating the very enemy that Voldemort was trying to destroy. But I don't think it comes from a seventh of Voldemort's soul. Voldie isn't going to work against himself. Anne Squires: > Horcrux!Harry explains why Harry's wand, the brother of LV's, chose Harry. Carol: I think that the first wand, Tom's (yew wood and Phoenix feather), sensed great power and a thirst for immortality. I think that the second wand (holly wood and Phoenix feather) sensed that Harry was the Chosen One, the one with the power to defeat its brother. Or it sensed powers similar to Tom Riddle's that Harry acquired at GH. No soul bit is required for it to sense these things. Anne Squires: > "Harry couldn't explain, even to himself, why he didn't just throw Riddle's diary away. The fact was that even though he knew the diary was blank, he kept absentmindedly picking it up and turning the pages, as though it were a story he wanted to finish. And while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T. M. Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten. " (CoS US paperback p.297) > > What other explanation could there be for the above paragraph than Horcrux!Harry? Please, this is not a rhetorical question. What do you all think of Harry believing he used to be "friends" with T. M. Riddle? Why would he think that? Why does the name mean something to > him? Carol responds: I think it's part of the spell on the diary, which, as I've said, was intended from the beginning (before it was a Horcrux, IMO) to be interactive. Tom was using his charm to entice the reader to open it, to write in it, to confide in him. Little Ginny, who also thought "Dear Tom" was a friend, fell under the same spell. Carol, who thinks that the diary is the only interactive Horcrux and that it's a mistake to view the other Horcruxes as having similar properties From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 16:01:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:01:58 -0000 Subject: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV Was:Snape and use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167159 > va32h here: > > You know, what suddenly occurred to me as I read your post - how does > Dobby know that Voldemort was Tom Riddle? You'd think Lucius must know, > because Voldemort gave the diary to him. But if Voldemort's past life > as Tom Riddle is so obvious, why does Dumbledore tell us that "few > knew" about it. And why is Bellatrix still horrified when Harry calls > out Voldemort as a half-blood in the ministry? zgirnius: An interesting question, and one I had not considered before. A possible solution is that Dobby is no spring chicken. Malfoy in OotP is 41, but Dobby could be a lot older. His former master/mistress could have had ties to Voldemort dating back to his days as Tom Riddle. Or, Dobby could have learned things from his predecessor in the role of Malfoy family elf (based on what we see in 12 GP, likely his father or mother). From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Apr 6 17:03:20 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:03:20 -0000 Subject: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV Was:Snape and use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167160 Carol: > I see what you're saying, although, of course, there are only two different names, and the Tom Riddle in the diary was originally a *memory.* I don't think that the other soul bits would have personalities or bodies. You can put a memory in a diary to be "read" by other people (the diary had to be interactive or it could not have been used to open the Chamber of Secrets)... *(snip)* That aside, I don't think that soul bits have independent volition, except in the case of the diary, in which the soul bit was combined with a memory of young Tom, which could interact with a reader. Ceridwen: Now you've got me thinking. The memory of Tom Riddle meant to regenerate itself by sapping Ginny's life. What if the memory wasn't directing this, but the soul-bit through the memory? The soul-bit's reason for existing outside of LV is to ensure LV's continued existence. It is more intimately a part of LV than the memory is, though not by much. It has been informed, through the agency of the interactive memory, falsely as we now know, that LV is no longer extant. Could the combination of a sentient memory and a soul-bit have combined to create the urge to replicate LV all over again? *(snip, and putting out of order)* Carol: > First, from what we've read, a Horcrux has to be deliberately created. LV may have intended to use the soul bit resulting from Harry's murder to make his sixth Horcrux as DD speculated, but he performed no such spell on Harry himself. He was trying to kill him. So even if there's a soul bit in Harry (and all we know is that he has some of LV's powers--we don't know that they result from a soul bit), he is not a true Horcrux. Ceridwen: So if there is an accidental soul bit inside Harry, would this mean that the soul bit won't be difficult to remove? It isn't guarded by any sort of spell: not a spell to deliberately create a Horcrux, and not a spell to protect the Horcrux. IF such a soul-bit exists in Harry, it had no direction to be there and no instruction to stay there. Putting the two together, then, I wonder if a soul-bit automatically seeks out a living human host when it is, um, between situations. The soul-bit in the diary wanted to live in a real body, in fact, seemed to draw strength from taking the life-force of someone else, it if was not just the memory managing the thing. And if it is possible that a piece of torn soul, wrenched from LV's body as he vaporized, ended up in Harry, then this might not be too wrong of an idea. If we put this together with the canon fact that LV can possess others, to their detriment, then maybe what happened to DD's arm was that the released soul-bit from the ring entered his hand when he disarmed it (no pun intended), possessed the hand, and, unable to possess anything larger so the host could support it longer due to Snape's intervention, killed the hand. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 6 17:07:46 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:07:46 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167161 > > > Pippin: > > > > Would normally like to? in this case? make do? > > > > What kind of drama is that? > > > > Neri: > Er are you saying that the tower scene was *not* dramatic? Maybe our > differences regarding the definition of Bang are bigger than I thought. > > I doubt the tower scene could have been made more dramatic than it is > with a lengthy taunt from Snape. More likely it would have made it > less dramatic. Yes, Snape's character perhaps had to make do with less > in this case, so that we readers could get *more* Bang. > Pippin: The tower is plenty dramatic as it is. But if JKR is true to form, it should become even *more* bangy when we know what really happened, However, if the situation resolves as you predict, then the impact of the scene will be less on re-reading. We'll know that this was Snape's big moment of triumph over Dumbledore, and we'll feel cheated that he didn't get a chance to sneer. When he does sneer later on, it's over Harry, not DD. But if the situation resolves as I predict, it will be *more* bangy. There will be lots of lines that take on a different context, and whose emotional impact will be deepened. That won't need to be explained any more than we need it explained to us that when Sirius said, "He's at Hogwarts!" he meant Peter not Harry. Here are some examples, starting in the cave, of lines that will change if we re-read knowing that the poison will kill Dumbledore and that Snape's AK is fake. --- "Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing" [As has been noted, this echoes Snape's expression on the Tower] --- Dumbledore drank, and no sooner had he finished than he yelled, "KILL ME!" "This--this one will!" gasped Harry. "Just drink this...It'll all be over...all over!" ---- "you said it wasn't poison" [poison: a substance that causes injury, illness or death. In fact Dumbledore said the opposite, that it would incapacitate him in some way and that he was only ruling out that it would kill him immediately] ---- "That potion...was no health drink...." . The American Heritage Dictionary notes that "poison potion" is a doublet, two words that go back ultimately to the same source in another language. The source of both is the Latin potio, which means "the act of drinking, a drink."] ---- "Old age, in short...One day, perhaps, it will happen to you...if you are lucky...." ---- "I don't even know why the Dark Lord's bothering to kill yer!" ---- *it had not happened...It could not have happened*... ---- He had to get to Dumbledore and he had to catch Snape...Somehow the two things were linked....He could reverse what had happened if he had them both together....Dumbledore could not have died. ---- Snape closed in and looked down on him where he lay, wandless and defenseless as Dumbledore had been. Snape's pale face, illuminated by the flaming cabin, was suffused with hatred, just as it had been before he had cursed Dumbledore. [ JKR cheats the description of Snape's hatred both here and on the tower, and does not show us, for example, curled lip, glittering eyes or bared teeth. That's weak writing if Snape's hatred is genuine, but clever misdirection if it isn't. ] --- "He's dead. Snape killed him...." "Don' say that" said Hagrid roughly. "Snape kill Dumbledore -- don' be stupid, Harry. Wha's made ye say tha'?" "I saw it happen" "Yeh couldn't have." "I saw it, Hagrid." "What must happened was, Dumbledore musta told Snape ter go with them Death Eaters,"Hagrid said confidently. "I suppose he's gotta keep his cover." ----- He had known that there was no hope from the moment that the full Body-Bind Curse Dumbledore had placed on him lifted, known that it could have happened only because the caster was dead [Of course Harry knows nothing of the sort. Neville is not still under the full Body-Bind Curse, for example, yet Hermione is very much alive.] -- C'mere, Harry..." "No." "Yeh can' stay here, Harry...Come on, now..." [...] Hagrid's hand on his shoulder was trembling. [This scene grows stronger if it turns out that JKR is not cheating us of seeing Hagrid's realization to Snape's betrayal ] -- "Harry, what happened? According to Hagrid you were with Professor Dumbledore when he--when it happened. He says Professor Snape was involved in some--" ["way" would be the obvious missing word. It seems from this and McGonagall's tremendous shock that Hagrid was unwilling to repeat Harry's accusation. Yet if he actually thought Snape had murdered Dumbledore, he should be on fire with outrage, unable to contain his anger against Snape. Remember "Never insult Albus Dumbledore in front of me!" and how he was ready to strangle Karkaroff for merely spitting at DD's feet? Now Dumbledore's been murdered and Hagrid hasn't got a word to say against his killer? Not likely!] "I know," said Harry, and they all turned to look at him. "Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn't realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead." [...] All of them seemed to be lost in horrified shock, trying to digest the monstrous truth of what had happened. [monstrous: shockingly hideous or frightful, but also :deviating greatly from the norm in appearance or structure, abnormal. As Dumbledore is indeed dead but we know part of Harry's explanation must be untrue, both meanings apply. A 'monstrous truth' indeed] --- I'm sure there's more, but you get the idea. The death of Dumbledore is not going to lose its Bang. If you admit ESE!Lupin, it won't lose its good guy turned bad-ness either. Lupin doesn't have to have killed Dumbledore with his own hands to be responsible, anymore than Peter had to personally kill the Potters. We get Lupin's reaction when he realizes ... "No!" Lupin looked wildly from Ginny to Harry, as though hoping the latter might contradict her, but when Harry did not, Lupin collapsed into a chair beside Bill's bed, his hands over his face. Harry had never seen Lupin lose control before; he felt as though he was intruding upon something private, indecent. > Neri: > DDM!Snape is nice Bang if you can get it, although IMO not quite > enough for the price you offer. TooCleverByHalf!DD is a horrible, > horrible Dud. > Pippin: Too bad, because he's canon. Dumbledore trusted recklessly, according to JKR. One thing he has trusted recklessly time and again is his own cleverness. He didn't think DE's could get into the castle, he thought his precautions would keep his werewolf student safe from harm to himself and others, he thought he could keep Harry out of the TWT, etc, etc and so forth. His mistakes, as he says, are correspondingly huger, and he can be as woefully wrong as that fellow with the cheese cauldron. The other thing he has trusted recklessly is Lupin's sense of honor. He supposed Lupin would respect the agreements that permitted him to attend Hogwarts. Dumbledore didn't think anyone in the castle would help Sirius, and if Lupin didn't actively help Sirius enter he certainly didn't do all in his power to keep him out. And if that was because Sirius was his friend, then Lupin is a liar "I haven't been Sirius's friend, but I am now." Dumbledore knew that Lupin was weak. By Dumbledore's own standards it was reckless to bring him into the Order, trusting him for a third time. And this is all confirmed canon, without any ESE speculations at all. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 17:21:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:21:49 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167162 Carol earlier: > > But Avada Kedavra is *the* Killing Curse, the only one designed for that purpose, and the Aurors were authorized to use it. (It was no longer "Unforgiveable" in the sense of resulting in a life sentence to Azkaban for the Aurors. It was still illegal for everyone else.) Why, then, wouldn't the real Moody, who "didn't kill unless he had to," use the AK to do the killing? We know for sure that he killed Evan Rosier. Wilkes, another DE who was part of the "Slytherin Gang," is also dead, and if Mad-Eye didn't kill him, another Auror must have done so. And what other spell would that Auror have used? The AK is quick, efficient, apparently painless, and virtually fool-proof (unless your aim is off, like the Big Blond DE's). Why not use it rather than, say, conjuring a poisonous snake or a pair of hands to strangle the DE or whatever other method you have in mind? Jen responded: > Crouch Sr. authorizing the use of Unforgiveables made them legal but it didn't make their use right. He convinced others the end was worth the means and started fighting 'violence with violence', taking away free-will of suspects to achieve his end. It's pretty clear the man lost his moral compass along the way when he started using the Imperius to control his own son. Carol responds: I agree that Crouch Sr. "lost his moral compass" in authorizing the use of Dark curses on Dark wizards and that his own prolonged use of an Unforgiveable Curse on his son (himself seduced into Darkness by LV or Bellatrix and willing to use all three Unforgiveables at every opportunity) came back not only to haunt but to destroy him. I am by no means excusing Barty Sr., much less his despicable son (though I see their alienation from one another and their respective fates as a tragic consequence of Voldemort's ability to cause discord and stir up hatred within families and among friends). To reiterate my position on the Crouches, I said in message 167077: "I agree regarding Moody, but the case with Mr. Crouch may be different. He's the one who authorized the Aurors to use the weapons of the Death Eaters against them and who kept his own son under the Imperius Curse for years after helping him escape from Azkaban. And that same son had used the Cruciatus Curse to help torture the Longbottoms into insanity and later had no compunction at all about demonstrating all three Unforgiveables to his students (torturing the spider in front of Neville is an act of supreme cruelty, IMO), Imperioing his own students, Imperioing Krum to make him Crucio Cedric, and AKing his own father. The Crouches *seem* to illustrate Alla's perspective that the Unforgiveables are altogether evil and corrupt the soul. Certainly, Barty Jr. was irredeemably evil and his father, though he repented, did so too late and paid the price." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167077 I agree completely that Mr. Crouch made a terrible mistake. (He seems to me like a tragic hero in miniature, a man with good intentions whose fatal flaw or error brings about his own downfall.) IMO, in his own mind, Crouch Sr. was not so much authorizing an Unforgiveable Curse as authorizing his Aurors to kill if necessary--fighting violence with violence, as you say, but to him it was probably like giving a policeman a gun rather than a nightstick to defend himself against a criminal who has every intention of killing him. But Mr. Crouch went too far. He should never have released his son from Azkaban and held him under the Imperius Curse for all those years, nor should he have authorized his Aurors to torture or Imperio the Death Eaters if indeed he did so. Two wrongs do not make a right, and neither the Aurors nor Mr. Crouch should be using the Cruciatus or Imperius Curses under any circumstances, IMO. But killing a DE who can't be brought in any other way, assuming that's the case--assuming that Moody really could not subdue Rosier (or Wilkes) in any other way and was himself in danger of being killed--is different from torturing him or invading his mind to control him. It is killing in self-defense (as a Muggle policeman would under similar circumstances). Should Moody have set Rosier's head on fire with an Incendio to avoid using the Killing Curse? Wouldn't that have been far more cruel and evil than resorting to a quick, efficient AK if, indeed, he had no choice but to kill him? All I am asking here is *what better spell Mad-Eye Moody could have used if he had no choice but to kill Evan Rosier,* given Crouch's authorization of the AK for Aurors and assuming that killing in self-defense is not murder. We don't see Moody suffering any consequences worse than scarring, a lost eye, a lost leg, and paranoia--unless you consider imprisonment in his own trunk for nine months a kind of comeuppance for having killed a Death Eater or two, or used an AK to do it. Which I suppose means that Bellatrix, et al. will have to go to Azkaban rather than being killed because killing is always evil, or they'll have to be killed using some other spell than the AK because the AK is evil in itself. It would be nice, and I'm not being at all sarcastic, if the DEs could just kill each other off, but I don't think that's going to happen. Nor do I think that Scrimgeour, for example, would be deterred from killing a DE if he encountered one who wouldn't submit to arrested. And, assuming that the authorization is still in effect (he's the Minister of Magic, after all) I think he would use an AK to do it. I absolutely do not want Harry or any of the other kids to have to kill anyone by any means. I hope that Harry can destroy Voldemort by, say, forcing him to pass through the Veil. And if he kills Snape, I'll lose my faith in JKR completely. But if a bad guy must be killed by a good character, how is killing them in some other way, such as Sectumsempra or blowing off the bad guy's head, better than using an AK? Maybe Harry should just buy a Muggle pistol to avoid using an Unforgiveable? Jen: > (I'm not ruling out misdirection with Snape here, that she needed to associate him with the weapons of Voldemort to make his betrayl appear absolute and final.) Carol: I agree that having Snape cast an AK is part of JKR's attempt to make him look as evil as possible to Harry and to many readers (before the big reversal in DH :-) ), but that's not what I'm trying to get at now. We can ask the same question regarding Snape as I'm asking with regard to Moody--if, indeed, he had no choice but to kill DD (or killing DD was the lesser of two evils, a choice but a terrible choice that causes him mental anguish) what other spell ought he to have used? And I ask again how Voldemort's poisoning of Hepzibah Smith was in any way better or less evil than his use of AK to kill his other victims (Myrtle excluded). Unless the poison killed instantly, she probably suffered more than Cedric or Frank Bryce or any other AK victim. Carol, who still thinks it's the killing that matters, not the specific use of Avada Kedavra (which does, however, symbolize killing) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 17:40:44 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:40:44 -0000 Subject: What event are you most looking forward to in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167163 --- "Lydia French" wrote: > > Shall we exclude the Show Down and finding out if > Snape is DDM or ESE? Those two go without saying. > I am actually really interested in exploring #12 > Grimmauld Place. I think Harry will stumble upon > Slytherins locket there. However, I am concerned, now > that all the Blacks are dead, whether Creature will > have taken it to give to the Dark Lord or at least > tell him about it's location. And will the house > itself be unsafe and in full view now that DD, the > secret keeper is dead? > > firefly - bites her fingernails nervously... > bboyminn: I agree that the DDM/ESE issue with Snape is unresolvable in discussion. For myself, I have already determined that he is DDM. Thinking so, the part of the next book that I am most curious about still relates to Snape. I am convinced, as I said, that Snape is Dumbledore's Man, but that means that somehow Snape will have to help Harry in his greater task. But HOW? The gap between them seems far too wide to bridge, yet I feel it must be bridged. Somehow Snape will have to convincingly reach out to Harry, a near impossible task, since there is no way under present circumstances that Harry will reach out to Snape. So, the point I'm most curious about is how they will bridge the gap between them which I feel absolutely must be done. As long as you mentioned Kreacher (not Creature, though I always pronounce it 'Kretcher') and the Black House, there seem to be some unresolved issues with Kreacher. Will Kreacher find out details of events, such as the killing of Regulus, that will turn him in Harry's favor? Will Kreacher so hate Harry that he will some how seriously betray him? The whole Kreacher issue seems unresolved at this point. Personally, I've been hoping Kreacher would be dead at the beginning of the book so we don't have to deal with him at all. With mild curiosity, I find myself wondering if Grawp will just be the minor annoyance that he seems, or if he will somehow play an important part in the last book? As to the final showdown, I'm with others in not wanting Harry to flat out AK Voldemort. It would certainly be justified, but still it seems cold. I would like Harry to somehow Vanquish Voldemort by some other more indirect means. My preferred method is for Harry to somehow drag Voldemort behind the Veil. I have long elaborate theories on that, but no need to get into them now. Or perhaps, Harry, Ron, and Hermione all throwing the AK Curse at the same time. That would divide the guilt among them. Just a few thoughts for now. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 6 17:52:17 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:52:17 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167164 - > Carol responds: > > It's better (IMO) to be decapitated by a guillotine, clean and quick, > than to be hanged. It's better to be hanged, horrible as a death by > strangulation would be, than to be drawn and quartered. Better to die > from an AK than from a slow poison eating at your insides or an > untransformed werewolf tearing at your throat or lying in a pool or > your own blood from Sectumsempra. > > I think that Snape chose the best and most humane means available to > him, and I think, based on his closed eyes and composed features (he > looks as if he's asleep) that Dumbledore knew that and forgave him. Pippin: AK may be painless and quick but I doubt that it's peaceful. Frank Bryce did not know he was about to die, he was screaming so loudly (at the sight of Voldemort's fetal form) that he never heard the words that killed him, and yet his shade is not at rest. "Killed me, that one did....You fight him, boy....." I think the AK is powered by more than the intent to kill. I think it is powered by hate, and even Moody's spider could feel it. "almost as though it knew what was coming, the third spider scuttled frantically around the bottom of the jar, trying to evade Moody's fingers, but he trapped it and placed it on the desk top." Dumbledore might have been reconciled to die, but I don't think he would be reconciled to hatred. If he had died seeing genuine hatred in Snape's eyes would he have died in peace? Pippin thinking it's important to recognize that whether DDM!Snape actually killed Dumbledore in order to fool the DE's or only pretended to do it, it was still a ruse. From christopherauk at yahoo.co.uk Fri Apr 6 17:47:02 2007 From: christopherauk at yahoo.co.uk (Christopher) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:47:02 -0000 Subject: Could Kreacher be a spy? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167165 Could Kreacher be a spy and only pretending that Harry is his master? Admittedly my evidence for this is very limited, but why didn't Kreacher have to punish himself when he insulted Harry? Dobby did when he worked for the Malfoys. christopherauk From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 18:54:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:54:52 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167166 > Pippin: > I think the AK is powered by more than the intent to kill. I think it > is powered by hate, and even Moody's spider could feel it. "almost > as though it knew what was coming, the third spider scuttled > frantically around the bottom of the jar, trying to evade Moody's > fingers, but he trapped it and placed it on the desk top." > > Dumbledore might have been reconciled to die, but I don't think > he would be reconciled to hatred. If he had died seeing genuine hatred in > Snape's eyes would he have died in peace? Alla: I do find it funny that we agree that there is something really bad in AK itself, but do spread in such different directions from that realisation. Let me ask you a question. Strictly hypothetical by the way. I think I know the answer from you arguing a ruse, fake AK for the most part in the past, but want to be sure. Just imagine that tomorrow on her website JKR will say ( answers the question or just knocks down the false AK) in essense that Snape killed Dumbledore with real AK. She will not answer whether Snape killed Dumbledore on his orders or not, but will confirm with absolute certainty that AK was real. Yes, I know the possibiluity that she will answer that is non-existant, but imagine that she did. If you would know for sure that it was a real AK ( please pretend as I said), would it mean for you that Snape cannot be fully DD!M? Many thanks :) Alla From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 18:58:37 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Could Kreacher be a spy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <618837.14278.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167167 christopherauk: > Could Kreacher be a spy and only pretending that Harry is his master? Petra: This occurred to me when I first read HBP too - after all, there would be advantages to Kreacher and those he remains loyal to. However, we saw no advantages to the dark side to come from Kreacher pretending that Harry is his master. Did we? One possible advantage to such a pretense would be that Bella would have furtive access to Number 12 since she would be the true owner. Are there evidence to that? If Bella is able to penetrate the Order's headquarters, I cannot imagine she wouldn't have done so. christopherauk: > Admittedly my evidence for this is very limited, but why didn't Kreacher > have to punish himself when he insulted Harry? Dobby did when he worked > for the Malfoys. Petra: Probably because the Malfoys would be the kind of elf owners who would insist on that sort of punishment. A punishment that may very well be permissible within elf enslavement but perhaps not integral part of it. Petra a n :) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From dossett at lds.net Fri Apr 6 19:04:46 2007 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:04:46 -0000 Subject: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV Was:Snape and use of "The Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Anne Squires wrote: > > Like I said earlier, when I first read this I thought it was a cheap > shot on the part of the author. At the time I was thinking that > Harry had guessed correctly and Dobby knew it all along. Why play > this stupid game with both Harry and the reader? > > > > Later, of course, I realized that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named really > and truly had nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of CoS. We have > been told that Lucius Malfoy was behind the whole thing. That LV's > anger, upon hearing about this blotched plot, was great to behold. > One of his Horcruxes had been sacrificed for nothing. > > Carol responds: > I had a similar reaction, though not so violent. :-) It took me awhile > to realize that Ginny's encounter with Diary!Tom would not in itself > convince Percy that Voldemort was back, that Diary!Tom was a kind of > manifestation of Voldemort, complete with his personality at an early > age, but was not Voldemort himself. (I still wonder what would happen > if Vapormort had met this younger version of himself. Would they have > been allies or rivals or would they have merged into a single entity > that looked like sixtee-year-old Tom Riddle?) Now Pat: I have always wondered about this, too, and this quote came to mind: ******** http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=17 question: In 'Chamber of Secrets,' what would have happened if Ginny had died and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary? answer: I can't answer that fully *until all seven books are finished,* (emphasis mine) but it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably. ******** So it appears that there might be more on this in DH. If LV had been restored to his body at that time, would there be two LVs today? If TR had escaped the diary, it seems obvious that they would not have worked from separate viewpoints or essences or whatever: they would have worked together, or he would not have been stronger today. Just what might have happened - any ideas? Thanks, Pat ~Pat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 19:11:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:11:09 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167169 Carol earlier: > > > It's better (IMO) to be decapitated by a guillotine, clean and quick, than to be hanged. It's better to be hanged, horrible as a death by strangulation would be, than to be drawn and quartered. Better to die from an AK than from a slow poison eating at your insides or an untransformed werewolf tearing at your throat or lying in a pool or your own blood from Sectumsempra. > > > > I think that Snape chose the best and most humane means available to him, and I think, based on his closed eyes and composed features (he looks as if he's asleep) that Dumbledore knew that and forgave him. > Pippin responded: > AK may be painless and quick but I doubt that it's peaceful. I think the AK is powered by more than the intent to kill. I think it is powered by hate, and even Moody's spider could feel it. "almost as though it knew what was coming, the third spider scuttled frantically around the bottom of the jar, trying to evade Moody's fingers, but he trapped it and placed it on the desk top." > > Dumbledore might have been reconciled to die, but I don't think he would be reconciled to hatred. If he had died seeing genuine hatred in Snape's eyes would he have died in peace? Carol responds: First, I haven't ruled out the possibility that DD died from the poison or that Snape "unstoppered" his death or whatever. I'm only saying that *if* Snape is DDM (and I believe he is) and *if* killing Dumbledore (as opposed to appearing to kill him) was the better of two terrible options, then the AK was the most efficient, logical, and painless way to kill him. (Do you see? I'm not saying that he did kill him. I'm leaving the way open for your argument.) I did not use the word "peaceful." I said that Dumbledore's eyes are closed and he looks like he's asleep (canon, right?), which implies that he was reconciled to his fate. There's no indication that he feels that Snape has betrayed him--no surprise, as we see on Cedric's face, no horror, as we see on the Riddles'. So *if* Snape killed him, he accepts that necessity and bears him no grudge. I think he forgives him his trespass because the alternative would have involved Harry's death and no hope at all for the WW. (There is, of course, the possibility that Snape didn't kill him at all, which would also explain his composure.) I agree that Dumbledore would not be reconciled to hatred, and I agree that Snape didn't hate him. Again, as I've said repeatedly, I think Snape's look of "hatred and revulsion" is actually self-hatred and revulsion at the deed he has to do--harder to explain if he's only faking the killing, I think. And, as many other posters also have said, the look parallels Harry's feelings of self-hatred and repulsion at forcing DD to drink the horrible green potion. But I don't agree that an AK requires hatred to cast. What cause did Fake!Moody have to hate the spider or Bellatrix to hate the fox or Wormtail to hate Cedric or LV to hate Frank Bryce or Bertha Jorkins? I don't think he even *hated* Lily Potter. She was just in his way. So *if* an AK does not require hatred to cast, only the intent to kill (as opposed to premeditated criminal intent, which is why I still don't like using the word "intent" here--maybe "volition" is better, and yet DDM!Snape is acting against his own will), then Dumbledore would not have seen hatred of himself in Snape's mind. I think, given the exchange of glances, each understood the other's thoughts and feelings, as well as the consequences if Snape broke the vow, and Dumbledore won, just as he won the argument in the forest. Speaking of which, I can't find the full passage quoted on the list despite all the references to it, so here it is again--what we have of it, at secondhand from Hagrid: "'Well--I jus' heard Snape sayin' Dumbledore took too much fer granted an maybe he--Snape--didn' wan' ter do it anymore--' "'Do what?' "'I dunno, Harry, it seems Snape was feelin' a bit overworked, tha's all--Dumbledore told him flat out that he'd agreed ter do it an' that was all there was to it. Pretty firm with him. An' then he said summat abou' Snape makin' investigations in his house, in Slytherin. Well, there's nothin' strange abou' that!' Hagrid added hastily, as Harry and Hermione exchanged looks full of meaning. 'All the heads o' house were asked ter look inter that necklace business--' (HBP Am. ed. 405-06). I think we can safely reject Hagrid's interpretation that Snape was feeling overworked, and whatever he promised to do and wants out of is not the investigations into his House, which is a separate reference and which Snape apparently continues to do or he wouldn't have been following Draco around when Harry cast Sectumsempra. So we're back to what Snape promised to do and now wants out of and what DD takes for granted (that Draco can't get DEs into Hogwarts? that keeping Draco and DD apart is sufficient?) I *don't* think that what Snape promised to do is to fake DD's death. I think he must have promised him that, if worse came to worst, he would actually kill him. And now that he sees Draco still determinedly doing whatever he's doing in the RoR and unwilling to listen to his former mentor, Snape, Snape is starting to get worried and wants to pull out, but DD won't let him. He promised, and that's that. Anyway, I'm still saying that an AK does not require hatred to cast and that, *if* Snape had to kill DD once the vow was triggered because that's what DD thought best, because not to do so would be far worse than doing so, then an AK was the best and most efficient way of killing him. I don't think DD's expression proves that Snape didn't cast an AK. It only shows that he was satisfied with the outcome, that he did not feel that Snape had betrayed him. I think he knew full well that Snape did what he had to do, very much against his own will. Carol, who again is not rejecting the hypothesis that the AK was fake, only this particular argument against it From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 6 21:54:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:54:01 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167170 > Alla: > > I do find it funny that we agree that there is something really bad > in AK itself, but do spread in such different directions from that > realisation. > > Let me ask you a question. Strictly hypothetical by the way. I think > I know the answer from you arguing a ruse, fake AK for the most part > in the past, but want to be sure. > . > > If you would know for sure that it was a real AK ( please pretend as > I said), would it mean for you that Snape cannot be fully DD!M? > Pippin: I can't be sure. Maybe Carol is right and AK is morally neutral and a humane way of ending lives. But if it is not, if the target cannot help but sense the hatred of the caster, then no, I don't think Snape can have been DDM and used the spell. Carol: But I don't agree that an AK requires hatred to cast. Pippin: If AK were the most humane way of killing, then I would expect Hagrid to have wanted that for Buckbeak, and for the unicorn, had it been needful "ter put it out of its misery." But Macnair's axe is evidently standard, and Hagrid goes hunting armed with a crossbow, not a wand. Carol: What cause did Fake!Moody have to hate the spider or Bellatrix to hate the fox or Wormtail to hate Cedric or LV to hate Frank Bryce or Bertha Jorkins? I don't think he even *hated* Lily Potter. She was just in his way. Pippin: "Always the innocent are the first victims" The victims of hatred are seldom the ones who were its instigators. That is what Dumbledore was trying to explain, IMO, when he said that Sirius didn't hate Kreacher. Sure, Sirius hated. He felt angry and powerless, and took it out on the Elf. But the Elf wasn't behind those feelings. If Kreacher hadn't been there, Sirius would have found another target. In fact he did -- with Kreacher behaving more dociley in the wake of his clandestine alliance with the Malfoys, Sirius picked a fight with Snape. Moreover, if hate grows out of anger and powerlessness, then to kill for hatred's sake is a kind of madness. Surely killing is the supreme power and no one who has it should feel the powerlessness of hate. Harry finds his desire to kill Sirius strangely gone once he stands over him. Even Draco cannot feel hate once he has power. But there are those, like Voldemort, whose feelings of powerlessness are so engrained that they can never feel they have enough. Bella does not have to hate the fox, particularly, though she thinks it might be an auror and I'm sure she hates them. But she hates everything, always, all the time, because in her world love has no reality and without it there is no safety or protection for the weak. I think the fox felt it when that intensity of hatred was turned towards it. "The harsh cry startled the fox, now crouching almost flat in the undergrowth. It leapt from its hiding place and up the bank. There was a flash of green light, a yelp, and the fox fell back to the ground, dead." Avada may be painless and humane, but if so, what made the fox yelp? Not startlement -- it was already running away. Pippin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 22:08:07 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:08:07 -0000 Subject: The Riddle of He Who Must Not Be Named In-Reply-To: <22544707.1175629879227.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Even Muggleborns seem to have the prejudice against saying "Voldemort". Yet, Dumbledore, Lupin, and Sirius seem to have no problem saying it. I suspect that, if Dumbledore had not specifically told him to use the name, Harry would have developed the same prejudice. Yet, the reason behind this has never been revealed in the canon, as far as I know (it might have been revealed in interviews). Mike: Yes, Bart, it was in an interview. The Leaky/Mugglenet interview immediately after the release of HBP. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 2.htm ES: What prompted people to start referring to Voldemort as You-Know- Who and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? JKR: On a more prosaic note, in the 1950s in London there were a pair of gangsters called the Kray Twins. The story goes that people didn't speak the name Kray. You just didn't mention it. You didn't talk about them, because retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can inspire. It's not something to be admired. Mike: As to why Sirius and Lupin (and probably James and Lily) had no problem using the name, I agree with Quick_Silver. A little bit of arrogance added to a degree of intractability with a dash of recklessness, all folded on top of a foundation of independence makes them immortal in the teenage sense of looking at things. I see both James and Sirius insisting on using the name "Voldemort" and after a fashion, Lupin, who couldn't remain friends with them without suffering immense ridicule or adopting their convention. I doubt that Peter was ever strong enough to use the name. He was probably ridiculed for it, but they wouldn't have ridden him as hard because they had an open disregard for his abilities and fortitude. Mike From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 20:55:22 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:55:22 -0000 Subject: What event are you most looking forward to in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167172 firefly: > > I am actually really interested in exploring #12 > > Grimmauld Place. I think Harry will stumble upon > > Slytherins locket there. However, I am concerned, now > > that all the Blacks are dead, whether Creature will > > have taken it to give to the Dark Lord or at least > > tell him about it's location. And will the house > > itself be unsafe and in full view now that DD, the > > secret keeper is dead? JW: I agree that that 12 GP is the most likely site for the locket. Alternatively, Mundungus could have sold it to Aberforth, who may not understand its significance. Kreacher now belongs to HP (the owner of 12 GP), must obey Harry, and can not explicitly betray him (unless he can find a way to weasel around HP's instructions, as Kreacher did with Sirius). The house is Unplottable, and has other defenses applied by Sirius' father. There is no logical reason for this to change as a result of DD's death. Therefore, the house is NOT in plain view. Further, I believe that JKR has stated in interviews that the status of the Fidelius Charm does not change upon the Secret Keeper's death. It would thus appear that NOBODY - not even Kreacher or HP - can divulge the secret. Those who already know of the house's existence can access it, but NOT tell others about it. To take that thought another step, please recall that DD DID divulge the identity of 12 GP to the Dursleys at the beginning of HBP. This may be important to save their miserable, stupid, hypocritical, bigoted, rigid lives should the DE come to Privet Drive on HP's 17th birthday. As you specifically asked NOT to consider the final showdown, I will NOT discuss my view of how it ends. I will NOT mention that having a Dementor suck out the remaining 1/7th of LV's soul BEFORE all horcruxes are located and destroyed would leave him immortal, but impotent, souless, in a zombielike state. I will NOT observe how this would certainly be one type of a "fate worse than death," to paraphrase DD. I will NOT even comment on how this would save the WW without making HP into a murderer. I will CERTAINLY NOT describe possible sets of circumstances that would allow this to occur. I would NEVER impose my thoughts and ideas on someone who is not interested! And, unlike Hagrid, I know how to keep a secret! JW From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 6 23:19:16 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:19:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! References: Message-ID: <008a01c778a1$ff7da2c0$3780400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167173 > Carol: > But I don't agree that an AK requires hatred to cast. > > Pippin: > If AK were the most humane way of killing, then I would expect > Hagrid to have wanted that for Buckbeak, and for the unicorn, had > it been needful "ter put it out of its misery." But Macnair's axe is > evidently standard, and Hagrid goes hunting armed with a crossbow, > not a wand. Magpie: My thoughts here might not be helpful at all, but when I read it I chalk it up to JKR having them use the thing that feels best for the scene. Hagrid hunts with a crossbow because when she thinks of hunting, that's what she thinks of, just as execution is done with an axe. It's not about being humane, it's about what you think of when you think of hunting or execution (if it were the most humane, it would undercut the drama). And then, of course, when Hagrid goes into the FF first year, and when Buckbeak is being executed, there is no AK that we know of yet, because it's only introduced in GoF, so they kind of can't use it. Finally, I'd say Hagrid isn't technically supposed to be doing magic at all and possibly couldn't perform an advanced spell like that so would be far more comfortable with a crossbow, and MacNair, being a sadist, would get much more satisfaction out of chopping off the head of an offender. > Carol: > What cause did Fake!Moody have to hate the spider or Bellatrix to hate > the fox or Wormtail to hate Cedric or LV to hate Frank Bryce or Bertha > Jorkins? I don't think he even *hated* Lily Potter. She was just in his > way. > > Pippin: > "Always the innocent are the first victims" The victims of hatred > are seldom the ones who were its instigators. > > That is what Dumbledore was trying to explain, IMO, when he said > that Sirius didn't hate Kreacher. Magpie: But doesn't this sort of water down the idea of "hatred" until it's almost meaningless, or just say only some people can do it? (Or is that the point?) It seems like it's important that LV didn't hate Lily or even care whether he killed her or not, and that Bellatrix didn't hate the fox and Barty didn't hate the spider. They might be generally hateful, but not at the victim, so if Snape were DDM could he be using his hatred of Voldemort? Would DD be able to tell the hatred wasn't really for him? I tend to think in general magic sometimes works by showing emotions of the caster, but sometimes it's just a case of accomplished Wizards being able to do what they need to do. So Snape's not being cheerful doesn't mean, imo, that he can't perform a Patronus. I suspect both he and Dumbledore could perform AK if they had to, and Dumbledore in particular doesn't hate. Pippin: > I think the fox felt it when that intensity of hatred was turned > towards it. "The harsh cry startled the fox, now crouching almost > flat in the undergrowth. It leapt from its hiding place and up > the bank. There was a flash of green light, a yelp, and the fox > fell back to the ground, dead." Avada may be painless and humane, > but if so, what made the fox yelp? Not startlement -- it was > already running away. Magpie: I'm going to again go with JKR always writing killing the way it fits the scene best. Startlement would work for me. -m From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 7 03:14:39 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (Ryan Ace) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 20:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070407031439.55944.qmail@web37915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167174 > Carol wrote: > But I don't agree that an AK requires hatred to cast. What cause did Fake!Moody have to hate the spider or Bellatrix to hate the fox or Wormtail to hate Cedric or LV to hate Frank Bryce or Bertha Jorkins? I don't think he even *hated* Lily Potter. She was just in his way. Ryan: If an AK does require hatred to cast, it doesn't mean that the hatred needs to be for the target of the spell. It could just require hate as fuel, in the same way that the Patronus charm requires a happy memory to generate power. --------------------------------- Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sat Apr 7 03:38:29 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:38:29 -0000 Subject: Whither soul pieces? (was Re: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, and MPD!LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167175 > Now Pat: > > I have always wondered about this, too, and this quote came to mind: > > ******** > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=17 > > question: > In 'Chamber of Secrets,' what would have happened if Ginny had died > and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary? > > answer: > I can't answer that fully *until all seven books are finished,* > (emphasis mine) but it would have strengthened the present-day > Voldemort considerably. > > ******** > > So it appears that there might be more on this in DH. If LV had been > restored to his body at that time, would there be two LVs today? If > TR had escaped the diary, it seems obvious that they would not have > worked from separate viewpoints or essences or whatever: they would > have worked together, or he would not have been stronger today. Just > what might have happened - any ideas? > > Thanks, > Pat Julie: We know now that the diary WAS a Horcrux containing a piece of Voldemort's soul. It was the first one, and perhaps not so well-protected as later ones, but it was still a Horcrux. So if Ginny died and "Tom Riddle" escaped, this essentially means that the soul piece would have been released from the Diary Horcrux. And since JKR says this event would have strengthened the present day Voldemort, it seems logical that the soul piece would have rejoined the main soul piece. (Whether in the form of Tom Riddle or the later GOF body may be immaterial, the point being the released soul piece would have sought out any other "free" soul piece--in this case that which was Vapor!Mort at the time.) If the soul pieces in the Horcruxes will automatically act to rejoin the other pieces if released, rather than simply "float" off individually somewhere, then this makes things a bit different than we've been assuming, and certainly has implications for DH. It may mean in HBP that Dumbledore *did* have a piece of Voldemort's soul in him, perhaps encased in his dead hand (as someone else hypothesized). And perhaps whatever spell Snape performed on Dumbledore to keep him alive (or to keep him from being completely possessed by the released soul piece from the Ring Horcrux) was also intended to trap that soul piece within the "dead" part of Dumbledore-- i.e. his hand. Or maybe "killing" Dumbledore's hand was necessary in the aftermath to contain the soul piece. (In either case the soul piece died with Dumbledore's hand.) This would mean that the soul pieces can be destroyed, and it does seem from canon that one of Voldemort's soul pieces--the one in the Diary--was destroyed in COS. At least there was no indication anything escaped the destruction of the Diary. And it would mean there are other ways to destroy soul pieces (besides having them sucked by Dementors). It may also mean the soul pieces in the remaining Horcruxes MUST also be destroyed or they will simply find their way back to Voldemort and his "main" soul piece, and make him stronger. This could also be the reason Voldemort has never seemed aware that a Horcrux was destroyed--because he expects his released soul piece to "return" to him. Since it didn't, he's none the wiser. (He found out about the Diary after the fact, but there's no indication he feels any immediate sense of loss when a soul piece, or its Horcrux, is being destroyed.) If there is a soul piece inside Harry, unintentionally deposited during the chaotic events at Godric's Hollow (or drawn to the nearest living body), then it won't be enough to simply "release" the soul piece intact, as it will simply gravitate to Voldemort if he is still alive, and make him stronger. And if Voldemort is dead in body, would that mean his "main" soul piece would gravitate to the soul piece in Harry, causing unimaginable havoc? Does this again indicate that Harry must "die" with Voldemort so both final pieces will be released in tandem and will cleave together and move on to the beyond? (I still hold great hope this can happen behind the veil and Harry can return alive once Voldemort has lost his soul and died for good.) Or...could Harry maintain control to take both soul pieces within himself behind the veil to their final destination? Okay, my head is spinning! Really there are too many possibilities to ponder all. But I do think what happens to the soul pieces after the Horcrux is destroyed will have a big impact on how events play out in DH. And so far I don't recall any canon stating or even implying whether the soul pieces "float away" or attempt to rejoin each other. But I'm starting now to believe the latter. Julie, musing by free association, and hoping it makes some sense. From lydiafrench at gmail.com Sat Apr 7 06:54:25 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (Lydia French) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:54:25 -0000 Subject: Snape: ESE or DDM? In-Reply-To: <9486950.1175869669997.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167176 firefly wrote: > >And in JKR's world, I don't believe that there are ever situations when a person can willingly and knowingly take the life of another and it not be murder. Bart states: There also seems to be a problem, albeit less so, with extending one's life beyond its natural limits. firefly asks: Would you clarify? In what way do you mean "problem"? Do you mean that JKR has implied that doing so is "wrong", morally? Or simply that it never seems to work out well for the people who try it, as if the laws of nature,in the WW, seem to actively work against it? If I remember correctly, which so far I haven't, in Book 1, Nick Flamel seemed to pull it off quite nicely and with little or no ill effect to his concience or reputation. He gave it up easily when asked, I believe. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 7 09:37:22 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:37:22 -0000 Subject: The Avada Kedrava's Possible Origins and Intent to Kill In-Reply-To: <20070407031439.55944.qmail@web37915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167177 > Ryan: > If an AK does require hatred to cast, it doesn't mean that the > hatred needs to be for the target of the spell. It could just > require hate as fuel, in the same way that the Patronus charm > requires a happy memory to generate power. Goddlefrood: As is somewhat apt at this time of year, the first shall be last and the last first. (a) Intent to kill, mens rea in the law, literally the guilty mind. To establish whether a homicide is unlawful the intent of the killer has to be determined. The difficult part of this is that there is guilty intent in an attempt also, as well as in secondary offenders, but I'll keep it as simple as possible. There are also a number of defences, not just self defence, that, although they contain the guilty intent element, can still lead to a conclusion that the person accused of killing is not guilty of murder, but of the lesser crime of manslaughter. One example would be diminished responsibility, another severe momentary provocation. Oh, and of course, acts of war are not considered homicide, unless you are on the losing side, in which case the victors consider them such ;). Refer to the Geneva Conventions if you must :) These three latter may be relevant to the point under consideration, that being in part Severus Snape's intent atop the Tower (it was certainly not self defence as Dumbledore posed no immediate threat to Severus that I could perceive). The term used would be fratricide if Snape is accepted as DDM, which, btw, I have difficulty accepting, however that issue is another post altogether ;). Otherwise it would be murder, as it is in my interpretation, but possibly with extenuating circumstances (again for another time and place). Fratricide is defined as killing of a brother or in a military context killing of a friend. The WW is, I remind you, at war, albeit on a relatively small scale so far. This is likely to change in DH as far as I'm concerned. Legal systems throughout the world differ, but perhaps the simplest to understand for all is the English & Welsh system, specifically in relation to offences of homicide (meaning those where one person kills another). There is murder - this is where intent and act are clear, or clear enough. Then there is manslaughter - this is where either the guilty act or the guilty mind is missing from the elements of the offence or where some other mitigating factor is present. The elements are (in simplified form, no summing ups here ;)): (i) There is someone dead (ii) Someone else did the act that led to the death or omitted to do something that led to the death. (iii) The mental element of the offence. Look for these in Severus Snape's case and you should be able to determine which offence he is guilty of or otherwise. It is unnecessary to consider what state Dumbledore himself was in at the point where Severus did whatever he did. The condition of the victim and the possible proximity to death from another cause is never *usually* considered. For those interested in such things this is called "the egg shell skull principle". Personally it appears that the most likely verdict at this stage would be one of not proven, as in the Scottish legal system. Not all the facts are in to be able to determine with certainty what went on. Speculations can be made, but certainty is unavailable. This will, naturally, change once DH is released shortly :). It is though malum in se, that is wrong in itself, and not because it is against the law necessarily, to kill another. (i) and (ii) are pretty much satisfied in Severus's case, despite arguments going on otherwise. I say this because of the possible omission to do something as well as the AK as cast, whatever mechanism was used to cast it. Snape's intent, IOW part (iii) of the above elements, is far from clear, I think we can agree on that. One reason he is a gift to analysts and theorists :). Also as suggested by Ryan, there must be something behind it, rather more than just righteous anger, witness Barty Jnr.'s class on the Unforgiveable curses in GoF and not improbable extrapolations from what Bella said in the DoM. That it may have developed from a more benign use is a possibility that should not be excluded, and this would apply equally to the other Unforgiveables, at least the ones the MoM knows about ;). Follow the above guidelines and each situation where someone has died in the books should be a little clearer, at least I hope so :) (b) Turning then to the origins of the AK, I present a little explanation that may or may not be the reason for the words Avada Kedavra being used as the words for what has become to be known as the killing curse. My starting point was this extract from J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival, Sunday, 15 August, 2004: "JKR: Does anyone know where avada kedavra came from? It is an ancient spell in Aramaic, and it is the original of abracadabra, which means "let the thing be destroyed". Originally, it was used to cure illness and the "thing" was the illness, but I decided to make it the "thing" as in the person standing in front of me. I take a lot of liberties with things like that. I twist them round and make them mine." Found at: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 Abracadabra has certain other synonyms that include hocus- pocus, open sesame, presto and voil?, at least one of which has been used in canon, but not relative to the killing curse. I took a look through some available resources to see what I could find to expand a little on this quote from JKR. The first point of contact was the Wikipedia etymology of abracadabra. That can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra#Etymology A snippet, relative to Aramaic says 'A possible source is Aramaic: ???? ????? avra kedabra which means "I will create as I speak," which is thought to be in reference to God creating the universe' There's some other interesting stuff in this article at Wiki, including a reference to an Alexander Severus and an amulet, as well as to Abraxas. Links to these are contained within the article referred and these links within the link may also interest some :). If inclined the coins of Alexander Severus are available for purchase, as the ultimate Snape lover's gift at (exclude me from such gifts ;)): http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=578 One of the links from allexperts (that follow) may ultimately lead you, as it led me, to this: http://www.roman-emperors.org/sevjulia.htm#Note_jd This gives a good breakdown of the Severan dynasty, to which Alexander Severus belonged, as did his relative Septimus Severus. This also has a nice little map of the Roman Empire, which is an interest I have. Alexander's wife was known as Augusta, but this is probably only a coincidence, I could not imagine Augusta Longbottom being the person Severus had loved :) The source I often use (allexperts) has this to say on Alexander Severus (for those interested in such things): http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/al/alexander_severus.htm My next point of note came from: http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abracadabra.htm Where a small extract that interested me says "In ancient times, however, it was taken much more seriously as an incantation to be used as a cure against fevers and inflammations. The first known mention was in the 2nd century A.D.". This may also suggest that the Avada Kedavra as it exists in the WW now was not originally designed as a killing curse, but has been adapted over the centuries into something other than what it was initially devised to do. I will say no more on this point, as I do not wish to speculate too much in this post. The link to allexperts is in essence very similar to what can be found at Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abracadabra There is also a little exposition on the word abracadabra at: http://home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/crc55.htm Which I also found interesting and hope others do too :). Possibly just some food for thought, or also possibly of some significance to the story yet to unfold. I like trying to work out twisted thinking as I often think in such a manner myself :) One last thing to leave you with, this time from Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part One," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005: "MA: So no one - Voldemort or anyone using Avada Kedavra - ever gave someone a choice and then they took that option [to die] - JKR: They may have been given a choice, but not in that particular way." Extract from: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm This may add a little to the consideration of what went on atop the Tower, it may equally refer to another situation altogether (Lily perhaps?). My little interpolation is now over, but others should feel free to expand, if they wish. Currently trying to unravel some other little mystery, and a real life murder case :) Goddlefrood, with the date for this post being 1289, a year in which an International Warlock Convention was held (refer Professor Binns's lesson in CoS chapter 9). It was also the year of the completion of the Tower of Kamianiec in Belarus, which you may see when following the link that will follow, looks somewhat like it would find a place at Hogwarts :). That link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Kamianiec From hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Apr 7 11:24:54 2007 From: hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk (Hans Rieuwers) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:24:54 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "yutu75es" wrote: "No one seems to have noticed the strange design on the spine of the British cover, over the title. It seems like an arrow, a circle and a triangle. Any theories about what it might be/mean/represent??" Carol "justcarol67" responded: "I'm betting that it's an alchemical symbol, possibly related to the union of the houses if air, water, earth, and fire can all be symbolized by triangles. A circle, I believe, represents wholeness or unity--hardly unimportant if one of the themes of DH is unity not only within Hogwarts but within the WW as a whole. [...] In any case, the image almost certainly does relate to the themes and content of DH and possibly to the Sorting Hat's and Dumbledore's speeches regarding unity. [...] I refer anyone who's interested to the post upthread about triangles as alchemical symbols. I did a search for a symbol resembling the one on the book spine and found lots of triangles within circles, but not the reverse. Even the Muggle Granger (John, that is) was no help." Hans now: It is indeed an Alchemical Symbol! As you know, I have told this group on many occasions that the deepest foundation of "Harry Potter" is a radiant spiritual message about liberation from evil, suffering and death, summed up in the word: "Alchemy". I have especially emphasised, and I do so again today, that there is an extremely large number of similarities between "Harry Potter", and "The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosycross" published in German in 1616. For those who have not read my earlier posts, see my article "Harry Potter: The road map to liberating alchemy" here: http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/articles/liberatingalchemy.php. This symbol on the spine of the Bloomsbury edition is straight out of "The Chymical Wedding"! Not only that, but what the symbol describes is the very heart of "Harry Potter"! You may remember from my posts that the Room of Love has its equivalent in "The Chymical Wedding", where it is referred to as "the sepulchre of Venus". The connection is obvious, as Venus was the Roman goddess of love. The symbol in question describes a sepulchre that is situated above the bedroom of Venus. I will quote here a short extract from "The Hermetick Romance or the Chymical Wedding", in the 1690 translation by E. Foxcroft: "And this (as I was informed) was the King's Treasury. But the most glorious and principal thing, that I here saw, was a Sepulcher (which stood in the middle) so rich that I wondered that it was no better guarded: [...] This Sepulcher was triangular and had in the middle of it a Kettle of polished Copper, the rest was of pure Gold and pretious Stones; In the Kettle stood an Angel, who held in his Arms an unknown Tree, from which it continually dropped Fruit into the Kettle; and as oft as the Fruit fell into the Kettle, it turned into Water too, and ran out from thence into three small Golden Kettles standing by. The little Altar was supported by these three Animals, an Eagle, an Ox and a Lyon, which stood on an exceedingly costly Base. I asked my Page what this might signifie; Here, said he, lies Buried Lady Venus, that Beauty which hath undone many a great Man, both in Fourtune, Honour, Blessing and Prosperity. After which he shewed me a Copper Door on the Pavement." Christian Rosycross and his page go down into this trapdoor and below the sepulchre they see a bed with naked Venus lying asleep. She is to wake up when the abovementioned tree has melted away completely. So here we can clearly see the three symbols: the triangular sepulchre, the circular copper kettle, and the vertical line symbolising the tree. Now I want to give you an extract from Jan van Rijckenborgh's "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross", which is an explanation of the original Chymical Wedding of 1616. I'm quoting from the beginning of Chapter 15 of Volume 2: "We have been speaking about the royal treasure that lies buried in the heart sanctuary of every human being - the divine spark, the rose, [or the Lily - Hans] Venus, universal love. A radiation emanates from this nuclear principle of the true man, but the nature- born human being is incapable of reacting fully to it. That is why he is, as it were, driven hither and thither by this principle, seeking it in ignorance, constantly yearning for it, forever heeding its call without ever finding it completely, until like C.R.C., he is able to unlock the secret of the heart through the fundamental transmutation of the various aspects of the nature-born self. [...] We said that a radiation emanates from the divine spark, from Venus which still lies as if dead. The story tells of an altar combined with a sepulchral monument, as signature of the living dead. This altar is triangular; it is composed of copper, gold and precious stones; it is supported by an eagle, an ox and a lion; and on it, in the centre, stands an angel in a polished copper basin. In its arms the angel holds an unknown tree which is gradually melting away. Drops continually fall from the tree into the basin, and every time a fruit falls into the basin it, too, turns into water which flows into the three adjoining golden basins. With these words, The Alchemical wedding conveys something about the sunken divine spark. In fact, it tells you everything you need to know. You only need to understand the language of the symbols in order to comprehend with perfect clarity what is being said. [...] What central law governs the entire All? It is the power of universal love, the divine principle that lies sunken in every creature. And as we said before, a radiation emanates from this divine principle of love, affecting the entire being. This radiation is twofold. It has positive and negative aspects which in combination are creative and birth-giving and thus lead to a result, to self- realisation. That is why the entire altar with the attributes placed upon it is encased with copper and gold. Copper is the symbol of the negative, receiving principle, while gold symbolises the positive, radiating principle. The altar is triangular and adorned with precious stones, while above it several carbuncles are shining. The equilateral triangle has always been the symbol of divine wisdom, which imparts itself to and becomes concrete in the mind which has become ennobled to it, and thus also leads to a result. Here, too, we see the two aspects: the creative and the birth-giving. And the precious stones tell us of the radiance and the crown of victory. Thus a mighty radiation rises up from the divine spark and from the altar of the heart, like a tree spreading its branches in all directions. It is the radiation of the universal, divine love, which is omnipresent, and lies sunken in all of us. This love-power has, as we said, two poles, one creative and one birth-giving. It is the meeting with God in man. Both the creative and birth giving powers in turn possess two aspects. That is why C.R.C. sees the eagle, the ox, the lion and the angel, the classical symbols of the four elements: air, earth, fire and water, of which the nature-born personality is composed." The DH symbol is the sepulchre of Venus, i.e. the Room of Love. It's interesting too, that this is described as the King's treasury, when the cover of DH shows the trio entering a treasury. And so, in conclusion, what does the DH symbol mean? What is it telling us? It's telling us that Part 7 is about Divine Love, which inherently contains wisdom (the triangle), and brings the Path to attain everlasting Life. This is just one more confirmation of my assertion that Harry Potter is the most sublime and holy work of symbolism written in modern times. It is about the force that connects God and Man: Love! Warm regards to all, Hans PS For those living in the UK, I'll be presenting a workshop and lecture on the alchemical/spiritual message in "Harry Potter", in London on June 3rd. There will be a workshop in the afternoon and a lecture in the evening, in the Theosophical Society, 50 Gloucester Place. http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk Quote of the day: "I've never wanted to be a witch, but an alchemist, now that's a different matter. To invent this wizard world, I've learned a ridiculous amount about alchemy. Perhaps much of it I'll never use in the books, but I have to know in detail what magic can and cannot do in order to set the parameters and establish the stories' internal logic." JK Rowling From sugandha_jasmine at yahoo.com Sat Apr 7 09:52:49 2007 From: sugandha_jasmine at yahoo.com (sugandha_jasmine) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:52:49 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167179 First of all, it looks all weird to me that Voldemart and Harry might be related. But then it makes perfect sense: you need to be a part of them to know them, right? Voldemart is a Dark Lord, but in my thoughts I look at him as a guy who was very lonely from the start and took a bad turn. I think he is very much more unfortunate than Harry because even his mom and dad are dead. Harry at least has the Durselys, even if they hate him. Voldemart has no one, not even a godfather. And being the Heir of Slytherin, he is bound to be very aggressive, which I thought, in a point, Harry is too. I bet that if Harry is destined to kill Voldemart, he has to be more like him, but be a lot different at the same time. sugandha_jasmine From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 7 13:48:20 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:48:20 -0000 Subject: Could Kreacher be a spy? In-Reply-To: <618837.14278.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167180 Petra: > One possible advantage to such a pretense would be that Bella > would have furtive access to Number 12 since she would be the > true owner. Are there evidence to that? If Bella is able to penetrate > the Order's headquarters, I cannot imagine she wouldn't have done so. Ryan: Do we have any evidence that Bella is the "true owner" of Number 12 Grimmauld Place? Sure, she's part of the Black clan, but that doesn't mean her particular part of the Black family has any claim to the house. Number 12 belonged to Sirius' immediate family and upon his death, Harry inherited the house and its elf. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 7 14:54:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:54:09 -0000 Subject: Two LVs? was Re: Musings on Dobby,Horcruxes, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167181 Pat: > So it appears that there might be more on this in DH. If LV had been > restored to his body at that time, would there be two LVs today? If > TR had escaped the diary, it seems obvious that they would not have > worked from separate viewpoints or essences or whatever: they would > have worked together, or he would not have been stronger today. Just > what might have happened - any ideas? > Pippin: I don't know if it's possible, but if Vapormort had possessed the Riddle body, he might have combined the vigor and charm of his youthful self with the knowledge and cunning of age -- and he would have gained re-embodiment without whatever it was about using Harry's blood that inspired the Gleam. Voldemort might also have considered his new re-combined soul a separate entity from the old one, enabling him to create more horcruxes and still keep within the magic boundary of seven. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 7 17:06:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:06:29 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: <008a01c778a1$ff7da2c0$3780400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167182 > Magpie: > My thoughts here might not be helpful at all, but when I read it I chalk it > up to JKR having them use the thing that feels best for the scene. Hagrid > hunts with a crossbow because when she thinks of hunting, that's what she > thinks of, just as execution is done with an axe. It's not about being > humane, it's about what you think of when you think of hunting or execution > (if it were the most humane, it would undercut the drama). > > And then, of course, when Hagrid goes into the FF first year, and when > Buckbeak is being executed, there is no AK that we know of yet, because it's > only introduced in GoF, so they kind of can't use it. Pippin: JKR is supposed to have spent ten years working out the story. Now some people would have felt that they had to use that time on the math and logistics of world-building, but JKR's emphasis has always been on that character who strolled into her head one day on the train, and didn't know who or what he was. One of the things that Harry doesn't know about himself is whether he's a killer. By default he's not, but he hasn't yet *chosen* . I think the rights and wrongs of killing are central to the story, and it's not a thing JKR will treat as casually as she's treated the number of students at Hogwarts or the Black family tree (which is a fabrication anyway.) Even though we don't know about the killing curse in Book One, it's tied back to it when we discover how James and Lily died, and realize how Quirrell must have meant to kill Harry in the Mirror room. If JKR was planning to show that the curse could be benign, then it would be odd for her to introduce situations where a benign killing is anticipated and not explain why it isn't being used. She wouldn't have to be explicit any more than she's explicit about the 'deadly curse' that Quirrell was about to use. I don't think Macnair got to choose the method he would use to kill Buckbeak. I think the point is that in the minds of the WW an axe is *less* sadistic than a killing curse. Buckbeak didn't seem to know that he was in danger, (which undermines the idea that he sensed Harry was in trouble in HBP) but animals threatened by the killing curse do. I agree that Hagrid would be more comfortable with a cross bow. But if he knew there was a more humane way of killing available, I'd think he'd have left the job to someone else so it could be used. > > Pippin: > > "Always the innocent are the first victims" The victims of hatred > > are seldom the ones who were its instigators. > > > > That is what Dumbledore was trying to explain, IMO, when he said > > that Sirius didn't hate Kreacher. > > Magpie: > But doesn't this sort of water down the idea of "hatred" until it's almost > meaningless, or just say only some people can do it? (Or is that the point?) Pippin: I don't think JKR is trying to water down the idea of hatred as much as to say we could make better headway against it if we feared it less and understood it more. What we demonize, we cease to understand. Ron dreads garden spiders almost as much as acromantulas. Harry's hatred and fear of Snape is now as great as his hate and fear of Voldemort. But a garden spider is not even potentially an acromantula, and it may be that not everyone who hates is a potential murderer. I think it takes hate, and something more than hate, a kind of unreason, to use the AK. Dumbledore says that Voldemort has powers he will never have. It's not only that he's too noble to use them, IMO, it's that he's too noble to nurture the capacity to use them. Pippin thinking this is a bit rambly, and hoping it makes sense From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Apr 7 17:13:18 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:13:18 -0000 Subject: Avada Kadavra and the circle in the triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167183 Talisman: > Among the *heretical,* aka unorthodox, Xian sects > I have considered, Gnosticism--which argues an inner > divinity--is high on my list of possibilities. > (This would be what is called *Optimistic* Gnosticism, > not all that demi-urge stuff.) [. . .] > The symbol itself is explored in more depth at this site: http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/Naked_Archeologist-15-228-0-0/ > The only other discussion I've found, so far, relates > to magic, see the illustration and explanation at: http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Goetia Goddlefrood: > My starting point was this extract from J K Rowling at > the Edinburgh Book Festival, Sunday, 15 August, 2004: > "JKR: Does anyone know where avada kedavra came from? It > is an ancient spell in Aramaic, and it is the original > of abracadabra, which means "let the thing be destroyed". > Originally, it was used to cure illness and the "thing" > was the illness, but I decided to make it the "thing" as > in the person standing in front of me. I take a lot of > liberties with things like that. I twist them round and > make them mine." Hans: > This is just one more confirmation of my assertion that > Harry Potter is the most sublime and holy work of > symbolism written in modern times. It is about the > force that connects God and Man: Love! houyhnhnm: The only sites I came across that had a symbol anywhere close to the one on the spine of Bloomsbury DH were the Goetia type sites. http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/ bldefstriangleart.htm http://www.hermetic.com/osiris/triangleofart.htm This particular triangle in a circle appears to be associated with Aleister Crowley, "The Wickedest Man In the World," and I was startled to find that "abrahadabra" is also associated with Crowley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahadabra No offense to anyone on the list, but I find all of this hermetic stuff incomprehensible (All I can think of are the Diabolicals in _Foucault's Pendulum_) and Crowley is particularly creepy and repulsive. I am wondering now, if after ten years of defending the Harry Potter books against the attacks of fundamentalists by claiming that the magic in HP is only silly "Bewitched" type stuff like turning teacups into gerbils, Rowling is going to introduce "real" magic (both Light and Dark) into the last book, that is, magic as it is believed in by people in the real world who believe in magic (I don't). My Bad Self thinks that would be kind of funny. It would certainly be more palatable to me than a Calvinist ending. From mros at xs4all.nl Sat Apr 7 17:51:01 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:51:01 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Avada Kadavra and the circle in the triangle References: Message-ID: <000701c7793d$4e22add0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 167184 houyhnhnm: >>>The only sites I came across that had a symbol anywhere close to the one on the spine of Bloomsbury DH were the Goetia type sites. http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/ bldefstriangleart.htm http://www.hermetic.com/osiris/triangleofart.htm This particular triangle in a circle appears to be associated with Aleister Crowley, "The Wickedest Man In the World," and I was startled to find that "abrahadabra" is also associated with Crowley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahadabra<<< Marion: Ah, but the magic word 'abracadabra' has been with us since ancient times (Crowley would have *wished* he could claim it as his own invention ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra Interestingly enough, it was a *healing* magic word, first written down by Serenus Sammonicus, physiscian to the Roman emperor Caracalla (whose grandson Alexander Severus was also a follower of Sammonicus' medical teachings) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 7 19:40:34 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:40:34 -0000 Subject: The Avada Kedrava's Possible Origins and Intent to Kill In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167185 > >>Goddlefrood: > > Legal systems throughout the world differ, but perhaps the > simplest to understand for all is the English & Welsh system, > specifically in relation to offences of homicide (meaning > those where one person kills another). There is murder - this > is where intent and act are clear, or clear enough. Then there > is manslaughter - this is where either the guilty act or the > guilty mind is missing from the elements of the offence or > where some other mitigating factor is present. The elements > are (in simplified form, no summing ups here ;)): > > (i) There is someone dead > > (ii) Someone else did the act that led to the death or > omitted to do something that led to the death. > > (iii) The mental element of the offence. > > Look for these in Severus Snape's case and you should be able > to determine which offence he is guilty of or otherwise. It > is unnecessary to consider what state Dumbledore himself was > in at the point where Severus did whatever he did. The > condition of the victim and the possible proximity to death > from another cause is never *usually* considered. For those > interested in such things this is called "the egg shell skull > principle". > Betsy Hp: I agree that (i) Dumbledore is dead. JKR has been very clear about that. And it certainly *appears* that Snape either took an action or failed to take an action that led to Dumbledore's death (ii). But what if the action was to remove a spell that had been holding off a deadly curse (the destruction of the ring horcrux)? Or, what if the action was to remove the dying Dumbledore (dying from the poison he drank earlier that night) from the scene? I suppose that goes a bit towards point (iii), Snape's state of mind. But really, don't we need to establish first that Dumbledore was murdered? If a physician removes life support at the request of the patient, is that murder? Honestly, at this point I think it's too early in the game to go to trial. We need to hear back from the coroner first. > >>Goddlefrood: > Snape's intent, IOW part (iii) of the above elements, is far from > clear, I think we can agree on that. One reason he is a gift to > analysts and theorists :). Also as suggested by Ryan, there > must be something behind it, rather more than just righteous > anger, witness Barty Jnr.'s class on the Unforgiveable curses > in GoF and not improbable extrapolations from what Bella > said in the DoM. That it may have developed from a more > benign use is a possibility that should not be excluded, > and this would apply equally to the other Unforgiveables, > at least the ones the MoM knows about ;). > Betsy Hp: But one of the questions still unanswered is whether it was an actual AK Snape threw. So examining Snape's intent is made even more difficult. Understanding an AK doesn't necessarily lead to understanding Snape's state of mind. I'd also add that Dumbledore's intent, the meaning behind his cryptic request of Snape, needs to be understood before we have a hope of fully understand what exactly happened on the Tower that night. Betsy Hp From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Apr 7 19:46:52 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:52 -0000 Subject: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167186 Carol: > But killing a DE who can't be brought in any other way, assuming > that's the case--assuming that Moody really could not subdue Rosier > (or Wilkes) in any other way and was himself in danger of being > killed--is different from torturing him or invading his mind to > control him. It is killing in self-defense (as a Muggle policeman > would under similar circumstances). Should Moody have set Rosier's > head on fire with an Incendio to avoid using the Killing Curse? > Wouldn't that have been far more cruel and evil than resorting to a > quick, efficient AK if, indeed, he had no choice but to kill him? Jen: JKR is saying that the use of the AK is on par with torturing with the Crucio or controlling someone via the Imperius because she binds all three together as the Unforgiveables. And not only that, Crouch Jr. refers to the AK as the *worst* of the three because it can't be blocked. Arguing that torture is worse or that the AK is a more humane way to kill is not part of canon as presented so far. There is no 'killing is okay in self-defense' ruling in the WW from what I remember. No mercy killings, no 'killing in a time of war is okay', nothing regarding all these Muggle concepts. Apparently Aurors are trained very well in counter- measures to the point that resorting to killing isn't one of their options or they wouldn't have operated under the rule of 'capture only' until Crouch Sr. came along. Carol: > But if a bad guy must be killed by a good character, how is killing > them in some other way, such as Sectumsempra or blowing off the bad > guy's head, better than using an AK? Maybe Harry should just buy a > Muggle pistol to avoid using an Unforgiveable? Jen: This presumes it's okay to kill sometimes. I honestly don't see JKR approving of killing *yet*, although I'm open to her moving in that direction in DH re: Snape. Despite Dumbledore's words to Harry about killing Voldemort, he did not train Harry to use an AK. Those two elements of the story give me pause when it comes to Snape on the tower: is JKR saying there are times killing is acceptable for a greater good, or is she saying there's never a time? I go back and forth on this idea. (And I question even knowing the entire scenario on the tower backwards and forwards and agreeing that Snape should not have tried to fight the DE's but rather get them out of Hogwarts.) > Carol: > I agree that having Snape cast an AK is part of JKR's attempt to make > him look as evil as possible to Harry and to many readers (before the > big reversal in DH :-) ), but that's not what I'm trying to get at > now. We can ask the same question regarding Snape as I'm asking with > regard to Moody--if, indeed, he had no choice but to kill DD (or > killing DD was the lesser of two evils, a choice but a terrible choice > that causes him mental anguish) what other spell ought he to have used? Jen: I guess I'm questioning the 'lesser of two evils'? Is killing someone the lesser of two evils in JKR's world even if it's for the greater good? She seemed to be answering 'no' to that question in GOF, that the greater good was not worth the means of authorizing the Unforgiveables or allowing Aurors to kill rather than capture only. Believe me Carol, I understand all your arguments about the tower scene as a Muggle. I'm just not clear what JKR is saying up to this point about killing-- specifically the use of the AK--in a WW where people have different powers and standards. My understanding is the three Unforgiveables are wrong at any time no matter what the situation, no matter if the greater good is served, no matter who is doing the casting and so on. We have yet to see a good character definitively use an AK on-page unless Snape is the first. That's the bottom line for me, I don't understand if Rowling is saying Snape was right to kill Dumbledore with an AK by WW standards even if I believe his action was justified by Muggle standards. Magpie: > Harry has tried Dark Arts. He's cast Sectumsempra, he's > tried to cast Crucio. But I don't think he's been affected > automatically by them, because it's not all or nothing, exactly. > Harry's tempted, but also pulls himself back, sometimes after he's > crossed a line. The use of any kinds of magic, I would guess, has an > affect on a person just because anything you do has an effect on you- > -your choices are always going to mold who you are. "Seduced by the > Dark Arts" can simply mean you come to want to use them and prefer > to use them and use them easily. It's giving in to a certain kind of > impulse, I think. Jen: There's also the piece with Harry that he's never been seduced because of his ability to love, the likely reason Dumbledore isn't worried about Harry's use of Crucio or Sectumsempra since DD believes Harry has a protection others, like Draco, do not. Harry may try to cast the Crucios but he won't succeed, or rather Dumbledore has complete faith Harry will grow to understand the power he holds and why dark curses won't lead him down the road to defeating Voldemort. As with everyone, Dumbledore seems intent on Harry learning this lesson himself with the help of the people around him most likely. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't believe Draco would have help in recognizing he's not a killer or a torturer, thus the moment on the tower. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 7 19:59:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:59:16 -0000 Subject: Another round of predictions game - inspired by Betsy Hp :) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167187 One last chance before last book? :) Yeah, Okay I will start with the ones I always do - Voldie will loose, Harry will live. Now Dear Snape, what to say, what to say. Today I am in the mood to be sort of generous to him ( NO, not as generous as members of fully DD!M Snape camp), but I will go with my favorite Greyish Snape by Severely Siguine http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135892. In short, I will say that Snape killed Dumbledore without any requests from DD not on the Tower, not before, but Snape killed Dumbledore because he truly felt trapped on the Tower and has intentions to help Light side in book 7. I am of course holding off for more sinister Snape, but this one does seem plausible enough for me to play with. Okay, frankly I could care less which objects are horcruxes, so whatever. I have faith in JKR ability to write cool horcrux hunt, but that is about it. Except of course whether Harry is a horcrux. Okay, he either is ( or something on him - his scar,etc) or at some point he will believe that he is and will be fully prepared to sacrifice himself and that will not be needed eventually. People dying? Hagrid I would say, Hagrid from older generation. I **hope** of course Snape dies as well, but have no clue. That I am thinking would be it from the adults ( at least from main characters). If Remus would not have given Tonks, I would counted him as a goner as well, but now I will think his survival chances are a bit higher. Oh, Voldie of course but not by conventional method. Kids? I will be as bold that to say that Trio will not bite it. ( Hopeless optimist me) I think Luna will go. Maybe Neville (sob), but hopefully not. Mmmmmm, I think some sort of timetravel will indeed happen, GH seems likely. Yes, Snape/Lily ( YUCK) seems a given to me in one variation or another :) House elves rights will be dealt with in some shape or another. That is it for now. Alla From kaleeyj at gmail.com Sat Apr 7 20:46:45 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:46:45 -0000 Subject: What event are you most looking forward to in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmwcfo" wrote: > > firefly: > > > > I am actually really interested in exploring #12 > > > Grimmauld Place. I think Harry will stumble upon > > > Slytherins locket there. Me: Not so much, here. I think the locket is squirreled away in the house somewhere courtesy of Kreacher, but I'm less intereste in that residence. There's another one I want to see. I can't wait for 3 things. 1. Harry reading the letter DD left on the doorstep, and the connection with Petunia that will accompany this moment. I think that that brief moment in OotP when Harry "realized she [Petunia] was his mother's sister..." will have its other shoe drop in DH - Harry will finally have a family member - an actual family member. 2. Godric's Hollow. Harry is going to go back there and I know there will be some little fragment of something that will make me start bawling - it will be a very emotional section in the story. 3. More about the Werewolf Prank - We haven't heard all of this story, and I want to hear the rest of it. I think (like lots of others) that this was when DD recruited Snape as a double agent, and I want to know more. > > JW: > As you specifically asked NOT to consider the final showdown, I will > NOT discuss my view of how it ends. I will NOT mention that having a > Dementor suck out the remaining 1/7th of LV's soul BEFORE all > horcruxes are located and destroyed would leave him immortal, but > impotent, souless, in a zombielike state. I will NOT observe how > this would certainly be one type of a "fate worse than death," to > paraphrase DD. I will NOT even comment on how this would save the > WW without making HP into a murderer. I will CERTAINLY NOT describe > possible sets of circumstances that would allow this to occur. I > would NEVER impose my thoughts and ideas on someone who is not > interested! And, unlike Hagrid, I know how to keep a secret! > Me: Nice way of not talking about the final denouement, JW! I use the same method of not saying things: "I'm not going to say what I think, because I think you're a stinkhead, but I'm not going to say anything!" ~yb From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 7 21:02:59 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:02:59 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167190 Betsy Hp: When DH finally comes out, this is the post that will either give me reason to gloat or force me to eat some crow. A breakdown of what I'm sure will happen, what I think will happen, and what I hope will happen. Things of Which I'm Smugly Sure: (Yeah, this is what'll come back to bite me if I'm wrong ) -- Voldemort will be defeated. (What? I'm going out on a limb here! You got to give me an easy one.) -- Harry will defeat Voldemort. He may have a bit of help, but in the end, I'm sure it'll all come down to Harry. -- Harry will live. Happily ever after, however Harry (or JKR) defines it, with magical abilities intact and all of his surviving friends. (Yes, OBHWF for all. :/ ) -- Draco Malfoy will play an important role in helping the good guys beat Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Oh, and he'll survive. -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly and unwaveringly DDM. Oh, I'm sure there were moments of "You want to who? With the what?!?" But that just goes with the territory of working with Dumbledore. Snape never considered leaving the old guy. Trends I Suspect Will Play Out: (This is more my sense of how the story beats will play out, so it's all a bit vague. This stuff will more nibble than anything. ) -- I suspect the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort will be quite private and solitary: think diary!Tom vs. Harry in CoS. -- I suspect Harry is a Horcrux, or at least, I think his scar might be. -- I still think someone we think is good will turn out to be working for Voldemort. No real solid clue on who though. -- Somehow the four houses of Hogwarts working together will be a key to defeating Voldemort (finding the horcruxes maybe?). -- I'm pretty sure both Hermione and Ron will survive the end of the series. -- If a contemporary of Harry dies, my money is on either Neville or Luna. (I lean more towards Neville.) -- If Snape actually killed Dumbledore, he'll for sure die. If not, he might, *might* live. -- There's a link of some sort between Snape and Lily (fingers crossed it's friendship and not romance). I suspect Aunt Petunia will give Harry a clue on that. Stuff I'd Love To See (but I'm not holding my breath): (This is just my wishes and dreams: no real bites, but no real gloating either.) -- Percy was a spy for Dumbledore all along. -- One of the twins has gone bad through greed or something like that. -- Hermione is knocked down a peg or two, and conversely Ron gets a bit more self-confident. -- For some odd reason, I'd kind of like the Malfoys to come out alright. Maybe because Draco worked so hard for their safety in HBP. -- I'd love for Snape to get a happily ever after. So there it is. Only a few months to find out just how crazy I am. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Apr 7 22:04:48 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:04:48 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167191 In order of confidence: 1. Voldemort will be defeated, but he will not be AKed by Harry. 2. Harry will survive. 3. Snape will be revealed as DDM. 4. Harry will lose his scar when Voldemort is defeated. 5. Snape's exoneration will be revealed in a surprising twist that no one has anticipated. 6. Two or more characters in HBP were not who they appeared to be (at least part of the time). I don't mean Crabbe and Goyle 7. Dumbledore may be dead, but he did not die on the tower. 8. Madam Pince is Snape's mother. 9. Snape is not the Half Blood Prince. (he he) houyhnhnm From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Apr 7 23:21:59 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:21:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! References: Message-ID: <00db01c7796b$8c8cae80$6e80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167192 ----- Original Message ----- From: "pippin_999" To: Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:07 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary! >> Magpie: >> My thoughts here might not be helpful at all, but when I read it I chalk >> it >> up to JKR having them use the thing that feels best for the scene. Hagrid >> hunts with a crossbow because when she thinks of hunting, that's what she >> thinks of, just as execution is done with an axe. It's not about being >> humane, it's about what you think of when you think of hunting or >> execution >> (if it were the most humane, it would undercut the drama). > >> >> And then, of course, when Hagrid goes into the FF first year, and when >> Buckbeak is being executed, there is no AK that we know of yet, because >> it's >> only introduced in GoF, so they kind of can't use it. > > Pippin: > JKR is supposed to have spent ten years working out the story. Now some > people would have felt that they had to use that time on the math and > logistics of world-building, but JKR's emphasis has always been on > that character who strolled into her head one day on the train, and > didn't know who or what he was. > > One of the things that Harry doesn't know about himself is whether he's > a killer. By default he's not, but he hasn't yet *chosen* . I think the > rights and wrongs of killing are central to the story, and it's not a > thing > JKR will treat as casually as she's treated the number of students > at Hogwarts or the Black family tree (which is a fabrication anyway.) Magpie: Oh, I agree. I didn't mean to suggest JKR was sloppy about her portrayal of killing at all. It's just that when I read it, I don't feel quite the same distinction between the AK and other ways of killing. I do sense *a* distinction, definitely. I'm just not sure if it's one that says that AK can't ever be used by a good guy. I guess for me it seems like maybe what distinguishes it is that it's symbolic of maybe a more intelligent form of murder against another human. I know Moody uses it against a spider, but it seems like the "murder" curse to me. I know many would have a problem with that word because of Moody's spider and especially if they believe in DDM!Snape. And maybe it's the wrong word because I'm a DDM!Snaper myself who does think he used an AK. But for me even with Snape, what's awesome (as in causing awe, not as in good) about what Snape does is that even if Dumbledore is the last person he wants to kill, even if he'd rather have committed any act other than that one, he's a human intelligently choosing to take the life of another person. I'm not sure if that distinction really fit with the earlier books. I mean, of course we could understand it in terms of Voldemort's curse on Harry and his parents. It doesn't seem right at all to have Hagrid firing it off at animals in the forest. I'm just not sure that the distinction is that the AK is more humane, because I don't really see how it isn't. What's scary about it is how quickly and cleanly it works. Draco seems to have suffered more pain for a longer time from Sectumsempra without even dying. So to me it's not that level of pain it inflicts that makes it Unforgivable, but the finality and power. That's where I think it's different than executing an animal or hunting. I actually wonder how they would execute a person. Would they use the AK? With a firing squad maybe? Or do they get their souls sucked? I guess I'm kind of agreeing with you that the AK isn't necessarily humane--I think it can be humane, or at least more humane than another way of killing. But I suspect it's important that for the person doing it it's not softening it up. If Draco had used an AK on Dumbledore, it wouldn't, even from his pov imo, be better than Sectumsempra just because it was less messy and quicker. Jen: There is no 'killing is okay in self-defense' ruling in the WW from what I remember. No mercy killings, no 'killing in a time of war is okay', nothing regarding all these Muggle concepts. Apparently Aurors are trained very well in counter-measures to the point that resorting to killing isn't one of their options or they wouldn't have operated under the rule of 'capture only' until Crouch Sr. came along. Magpie: I have to say that while I agree that humane killing and mercy killing hasn't been introduced, I have a hard time believing that the WW doesn't fully support killing in a time of war or in self-defense. I believe it was Elkins who did a post asking "Where are the bleeding hearts?" It's more the humane stuff I think it more foreign to them. It's just too hard for me to wrap my mind around a Wizard suddenly being more pacifist than a Muggle! That said, there's still the idea that Unforgivables are generally supposed to be what bad guys do, so presumably Aurors don't generally throw them at people. I just don't think anybody thought it was shocking to let them use them--and I'd assume they were always allowed to use at least AK in self-defense if absolutely necessary, just as underaged Wizards are understood to be able to use magic in an emergency. Dumbledore pretty much does seem to talk about Harry having to kill Voldemort as an acceptable thing, even if he's not training him to use the AK, even while Dumbledore clearly believes that killing is serious at all times and to be avoided whenever possible. I do think Voldemort will end up dead without Harry using an AK, and that this will be the thing that softens it for Harry. Jen: There's also the piece with Harry that he's never been seduced because of his ability to love, the likely reason Dumbledore isn't worried about Harry's use of Crucio or Sectumsempra since DD believes Harry has a protection others, like Draco, do not. Magpie I know Dumbledore's tried to lay this out that somehow it's amazing that Harry can love despite being treated badly, but Dumbledore doesn't seem to be saying that Harry is immune to the Dark Arts in ways other people are not. It seems that he's more saying it's just great that he hasn't been seduced by them. Maybe it just gets weird for me trying to think of Harry as the only person who has the ability to love when so many other characters clearly also have that power. (Not to mention as Slughorn says, love can be a dangerous thing in itself.) Jen: Harry may try to cast the Crucios but he won't succeed, or rather Dumbledore has complete faith Harry will grow to understand the power he holds and why dark curses won't lead him down the road to defeating Voldemort. Magpie: I can see the second part more than the first. Harry was pretty good on his first attempt at Crucio, although he couldn't sustain it. I can't imagine Neville, for instance, would master it quicker than Harry would. DD's got good reason to think Harry will grow out of trying to throw Crucios, but I think if he kept trying he'd succeed and it would be bad for him. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Apr 8 04:47:19 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 04:47:19 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167193 > Betsy Hp: > When DH finally comes out, this is the post that will either give me > reason to gloat or force me to eat some crow. A breakdown of what > I'm sure will happen, what I think will happen, and what I hope will > happen. Jen pulls a pen out from behind her ear and jots down, 'Betsy, #167190, eating crow...check.' Betsy snickers to herself, certain Jen's and Alla's grayish sort of Snape will be firmly put to rest after DH. 'And not a moment too soon,' she mutters under her breath. Betsy: > -- Voldemort will be defeated. (What? I'm going out on a limb here! > You got to give me an easy one.) Alla http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167187 >Yeah, Okay I will start with the ones I always do - Voldie will > loose, Harry will live. Jen: YES, you guys are so good at this. I'm with you on Voldemort finally dying and Harry living. Checkmarks down Betsy's list of Harry living happily ever after, everyone marrying a Weasley (thank goodness there are enough to go around) and Draco helping with something crucial. Was it Betsy or Magpie who had the idea of Draco being the only one who can open and/or destroy the locket? Mark me down for that one. Also, Zacharias will help with the cup and Luna with the Ravenclaw object (a wand). (Darn it, why can't the sword be the fourth one? I'd really like to have the symmetry there with the four suits, the four hallows in Grail legends, the four tarot symbols, etc. I guess it will have to be the four houses uniting as Betsy mentioned.) BetsyHp: > -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly and > unwaveringly DDM. Oh, I'm sure there were moments of "You want to > who? With the what?!?" But that just goes with the territory of > working with Dumbledore. Snape never considered leaving the old guy. Alla: > In short, I will say that Snape killed Dumbledore without any > requests from DD not on the Tower, not before, but Snape killed > Dumbledore because he truly felt trapped on the Tower and has > intentions to help Light side in book 7. Jen: Hmm, nearing the last chance to pin down the elusive one. 1) Dumbledore trusted Snape would never return to Voldemort and he will be proven right. 2) Snape won't be the first DE to get out of the terminal contract with Voldemort. LV intends to use Snape in some way to get to Harry, and Snape will help Harry in his undercover role until LV realizes he's been had and kills Snape himself. (But not before tempting Harry to act on his hatred and kill Snape--is that too Star Wars??) 3) Snape joined Voldemort because of a combination of the Prank, lost faith in DD, anger/hatred from a hard life & fascination with the dark arts. Hey, he's supposed to be complex. ;-) His return and remorse were a mix of the life-debt and Lily. BetsyHp: > -- I suspect Harry is a Horcrux, or at least, I think his scar might > be. Alla: > Except of course whether Harry is a horcrux. Okay, he either is ( or > something on him - his scar,etc) or at some point he will believe > that he is and will be fully prepared to sacrifice himself and that > will not be needed eventually. Jen: Harry has a soul piece. JKR won't treat him as an accidental Horcrux though so Nagini will still be the fourth one. Dumbledore's emotional mistake was overlooking this possibility. Betsy: > -- If a contemporary of Harry dies, my money is on either Neville or > Luna. (I lean more towards Neville.) Alla: > I think Luna will go. Maybe Neville (sob), but hopefully not. Jen: Wah, my two favorite kids. Luna will help Harry make it through the Veil to see his loved ones. When they are ready to return, Harry will realize only one of them can go back and discover Luna knew all along she would be the one to stay behind. My own predictions: *Lily will play a major role in DH. The grand finale will take place in the locked room with Harry finally able to open the door once he is able to get past his hatred, identify with Lily and understand why he is uniquely qualified to defeat Voldemort. Harry having Lily's eyes will play a symbolic role. *Deathly Hallows refers to both All Hallows Eve at GH and the Horcrux quest. *Petunia will finally crack and tell Harry everything she knows about Lily. She will let him read the letters from DD (kept under the creaky stair). There will be an attack on Privet Drive and the Dursleys will flee to live at Grimmauld Place. *Hagrid will die for some reason connected to saving an animal or Grawp. *Lupin will be the last surviving Marauder when Peter dies after unintentionally killing Fenrir with his silver hand (life debt). Lupin will help Harry throughout DH with the Horcruxes and also tell him more about Lily. *Dumbledore is Heir of Gryffindor and Godric's Hollow was his ancestral home. *Grindelwald had a Horcrux and there's some connection between he and Riddle. Dumbledore defeated him in some way besides killing him-- maybe the gong spell from the MOM? *There's a reason Trelawney wasn't present from the time we see her in HBP after the tale of the eavesdropper. I won't say she was kidnapped. *hem, hem*. *Dobby's socks or portrait of Harry will come back to help and he will be shocked Harry didn't realize they were magical. Dobby will help with the Horcrux hunt (heh, got that from the cover). *Ron's and Dumbledore's watches will prove to be time-turners and play a role. * There will be a big feast in the Great Hall at the end of the story and everyone will be there to rejoice in the defeat of Voldemort and to honor the dead. Jen, who appears to take her predictive power waaaay too seriously but is really going with the idea that the more she throws out the better chance a few will stick. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Apr 8 06:00:33 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:00:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions for the End In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0704072300y7ec164c8vb10f9a34d5977bcb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167194 In no particular order: 1. Voldemort will be defeated by Harry. 2. Harry will survive. 3. The trio will finish their seventh year at Hogwarts. 4.The second trio (Luna, Neville and Ginny) will be key to helping Harry throughout the book 5. Harry will have to rescue the Dursleys from some type of magical predicament. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Apr 8 07:08:44 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:08:44 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167195 > > Betsy: > > -- Voldemort will be defeated. (What? I'm going out on a limb here! > > You got to give me an easy one.) > > Alla http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167187 > >Yeah, Okay I will start with the ones I always do - Voldie will > > loose, Harry will live. > > Jen: YES, you guys are so good at this. I'm with you on > Voldemort finally dying and Harry living. Julie: I think Voldemort being defeated is the most certain bet of all. I can't imagine 7 books ending with Voldemort Victorious. (Though that could be a title chapter in DH--just not the last one!) I also can't see how JKR could kill off Harry after everything she's put him through. Yeah, he's a fictional character, but she's cried writing other character's deaths, let alone Harry's. So she'll have to let him live ;-) > > BetsyHp: > > -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly and > > unwaveringly DDM. Oh, I'm sure there were moments of "You want to > > who? With the what?!?" But that just goes with the territory of > > working with Dumbledore. Snape never considered leaving the old guy. > > Alla: > > In short, I will say that Snape killed Dumbledore without any > > requests from DD not on the Tower, not before, but Snape killed > > Dumbledore because he truly felt trapped on the Tower and has > > intentions to help Light side in book 7. > > Jen: Hmm, nearing the last chance to pin down the elusive one. > > 1) Dumbledore trusted Snape would never return to Voldemort > and he will be proven right. > > 2) Snape won't be the first DE to get out of the terminal contract > with Voldemort. LV intends to use Snape in some way to get to > Harry, and Snape will help Harry in his undercover role until LV > realizes he's been had and kills Snape himself. (But not before > tempting Harry to act on his hatred and kill Snape--is that too > Star Wars??) > > 3) Snape joined Voldemort because of a combination of the Prank, > lost faith in DD, anger/hatred from a hard life & fascination with > the dark arts. Hey, he's supposed to be complex. ;-) His return > and remorse were a mix of the life-debt and Lily. Julie: I agree with Betsy that Snape is and has been DDM ever since he turned "back" to the Good side. He's never wavered on that score, IMO, even when he was disagreeing with DD's methods. As for why Snape returned, I believe DD's reason for trusting Snape completely is something we still haven't figured out. I.e. it will be a surprise! There has to be a few of them in DH, and I think this will be one. Once it's revealed we may be able to look back and see the clues, and we may recall someone did get "close" to the mark (like with Voldemort splitting his soul), but it will still be a revelation. And it will feed into why he returned (and maybe why he went to Voldemort initially). > BetsyHp: > > -- I suspect Harry is a Horcrux, or at least, I think his scar might > > be. > > Alla: > > Except of course whether Harry is a horcrux. Okay, he either is ( or > > something on him - his scar,etc) or at some point he will believe > > that he is and will be fully prepared to sacrifice himself and that > > will not be needed eventually. > > Jen: Harry has a soul piece. JKR won't treat him as an > accidental Horcrux though so Nagini will still be the fourth > one. Dumbledore's emotional mistake was overlooking this > possibility. Julie: I think Harry has a soul piece in him too. Which doesn't make him a Horcrux, since that piece ending up in Harry wasn't an intentional act. But Harry will still have to remove it, some way, some how, to separate himself from Voldemort and be able to defeat him. > Betsy: > > -- If a contemporary of Harry dies, my money is on either Neville or > > Luna. (I lean more towards Neville.) > > Alla: > > I think Luna will go. Maybe Neville (sob), but hopefully not. > > Jen: Wah, my two favorite kids. Luna will help Harry make it through > the Veil to see his loved ones. When they are ready to return, Harry > will realize only one of them can go back and discover Luna knew all > along she would be the one to stay behind. Julie: I'm hoping they both make it, though I like the idea of Luna helping Harry get through the veil. If schoolmates die, it may be the "lesser" characters, like Seamus, or Dean, or Cho. Or one of the Weasleys, besides Ron. > > (Jen's) predictions: > > *Lily will play a major role in DH. The grand finale will take place > in the locked room with Harry finally able to open the door once > he is able to get past his hatred, identify with Lily and understand > why he is uniquely qualified to defeat Voldemort. Harry having > Lily's eyes will play a symbolic role. Julie: I agree that Lily will play a major role, and I think there is a connection between her and Snape. Her potions ability, and his never mentioning her name in any derogatory way must have some significance. But I don't think there was any romantic feeling between them. It was something else, something she did for him, or vice versa. Another secret to be revealed! And whatever it is will help Harry understand Snape, at least enough to let go of his hatred. Jen: > *Petunia will finally crack and tell Harry everything she knows about Lily. > She will let him read the letters from DD (kept under the creaky stair). Julie: And again, I suspect Snape may come into it ("That awful boy!"). Jen: > There will be an attack on Privet Drive and the Dursleys will flee to live > at Grimmauld Place. Julie: Oh, yeah. There has to be *some* humor in DH, after all ;-) Jen: > *Hagrid will die for some reason connected to saving an animal or Grawp. Julie: I think Hagrid will go too. I just don't know how. Jen: > *Lupin will be the last surviving Marauder when Peter dies after > unintentionally killing Fenrir with his silver hand (life debt). Lupin > will help Harry throughout DH with the Horcruxes and also tell him > more about Lily. Julie: Agreed on Peter killing Fenrir--poetic and takes care of that life debt. I also think at least one Marauder has to survive to remember them all for Harry (not that anyone wants to remember Peter). So it will be Lupin, who I think will finally grow a backbone during DH (or at least I hope). Jen: > *Dumbledore is Heir of Gryffindor and Godric's Hollow was his ancestral > home. Julie: Yep, makes sense. Does that now make Aberforth the heir to Gryffindor, and Godric's Hollow his home? It would seem so, and I wonder how that will play out. Jen: > *There's a reason Trelawney wasn't present from the time we see her in HBP > after the tale of the eavesdropper. I won't say she was kidnapped. *hem, hem*. Julie: I think Trelawney's "disappearance" is a non-event. She was at the funeral and Harry just didn't look for or notice her. Or she was in her room downing cooking sherry. Jen: > * There will be a big feast in the Great Hall at the end of the story and > everyone will be there to rejoice in the defeat of Voldemort and to > honor the dead. Julie: Er, this sounds a bit sappy to me, kind of like the end of Return of the Jedi (blech). Maybe something more somber, but a feast? Only if nobody Harry cares about dies (since we usually experience everything from his point of view, and he's not going to be feasting if he's buried friends, IMO.) Now for some predictions about a few more characters: Draco will be turned to the "Good" side, probably by Snape. And he'll survive, maybe to eventually teach Potions at Hogwarts. Percy will help the Order, either because he was working for Dumbledore all along, or because he will finally open his eyes and see what's really going on with the Ministry. He'll likely die for it, but at least then Fred and George won't dig up his grave and pants his corpse. Along with Voldemort, Peter and Fenrir, Bellatrix and Kreacher will be dead by the end of DH. They're all too irredeemable to survive. (Lucius has a small chance if he chooses Draco's welfare over his own, I think.) All the named animals (Crookshanks, Hedwig, Buckbeak, etc) will survive :-) Julie, who doesn't have the temerity to predict that Snape will survive, even while hoping he does! From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 8 07:54:36 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:54:36 -0000 Subject: Tolkien/Homorphus/Morfin/Pig/Yearly Exams/Diary!Tom/Predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167196 Carol wrote in : << The wrong cover art can be very upsetting to an author, as the Ballantine covers were for J.R.R. Tolkien. >> What did Tolkien object to about the Ballantine covers? IIRC he may well have objected to the *existence* of the Ballantine edition, as it was published with no permission from him and no payment to him, due to some loophole in copyright laws. OTOH, it was that Ballantine edition that made Tolkien and Middle Earth universally known, enabling his son to make a fortune out of Dad's old scribbles. Goodlefrood wrote in : << Perhaps Catlady on her next visit could decide which interpretation she likes best ;) >> I like Homo = 'same' plus Morph = 'shape' plus 'Us' = sounding magical. That's the same roots as homorphism and homorphous, but with a different meaning. In *this* case, the 'same shape' is the same as his 'real' shape, not his current shape. << If the Homorphus charm were as easy as you make out, can it honestly be believed that Lupin, or any other werewolf would remain one? >> In this theory, the charm works for only a few seconds. If Tonks can learn it, she can sit by Remus for his whole transformation time (somewhere I think that werewolves transform at sunset for three nights but turn back to human at sunrise, but somewhere else I think that werewolves transform for 24 hours, and I don't know what JKR thinks) and cast the spell on him every four seconds, so there is no time for it to wear off and him turn wolf again and attack her faster than she can say 'Homorphus', but that's hardly a cure. Hermione is a genius, maybe she can become a magic researcher and invent a cure. Carol wrote in : << The etymology, homo = man and morph = form, suggests otherwise.>> This is a chance for me to use the annoying word 'overdetermined', which means a thing that has more than one reason. If the name of the charm affects its effect, perhaps the inventor had an inspiration that a word that means both 'same' and 'man' would be doubly effective at turning someone into the same man he used to be. That seems like sound magical (il)logic to me. I lack JKR's talent for puns (except naming a fanfic jeweller Hyatt Price-Ring) but when I invented a Shield Charm, I tried to combine the words 'protego' and 'aegis' into an incantation: 'protaegiso!' Carol wrote in : << wondering whether there's a link between "morph" or "Morpheus" and "Morfin, >> I can't think of 'Morfin' without thinking of 'Morfran', Welsh for 'big crow', the nickname given to Ceridwen's son Afagddu because he was so ugly. Lynda wrote in : << Well why not?! She's already given us a flying Pig! >> This is a forbidden LOL reply. (Actually, a groan theatrically and slap my head reply.) Leah wrote in : << if there is any canon that suggests passing the exams is necessary to proceed to the year above. >> In PS/SS Chapter 14 "Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback", Hermione tells Harry: "What am I studying for? Are you crazy? You realize we need to pass these exams to get into the second year? They're very important, I should have started studying a month ago, I don't know what's gotten into me...." On the one hand, that's canon. On the other hand, I don't believe it -- I don't believe that Hermione actually said that. I think JKR put it into her mouth as some kind of joke (a joke on Americans telling their children, even kindergarteners, that they have to study hard and get good grades so they can get into a good college so they can have a chance to get a good job, but I don't know if Brits do that). In the last chapter, 17, "The Man with Two Faces", has the bit of which Betsy Hp was thinking: "Harry had almost forgotten that the exam results were still to come, but come they did. To their great surprise, both he and Ron passed with good marks; Hermione, of course, had the best grades of the first years. Even Neville scraped through, his good Herbology mark making up for his abysmal Potions one. They had hoped that Goyle, who was almost as stupid as he was mean, might be thrown out, but he had passed, too. It was a shame, but as Ron said, you couldn't have everything in life." Sometimes I think that Hogwarts, under DD's leadership, falsely warns the kids (altho' we didn't hear it in his or McGonagall's welcoming speeches) that they will have to do a year over if they do too badly in that year. As for Flint spending an extra year in the Upper Sixth (seventh year), maybe he failed all his NEWTs and was allowed to stay to study to try taking them again. Annie T. Squires wrote in : << What do you all think of Harry believing he used to be "friends" with T. M. Riddle? Why would he think that? Why does the name mean something to him? >> I always thought that recognition of the name was something that Harry got from LV the same way he got Parseltongue. If how he got Parseltongue from LV was that a bit of LV's soul entered him, then my theory agrees with yours. If how he got Parseltongue from LV was that a bit of knowledge (how-to knowledge) entered him, then we disagree. << (Who really wants to know what others think of my MPD!LV theory) >> Since you asked ... I was very impressed by your insight (quite new to me) that Dobby's stupid clue was JKR's very clever clue that Diary!Tom had been working at cross purposes to LV. But I recall a JKR quote that Tom Riddle (presumably including Diary!Tom) and LV are the same person: : <> Same person or different person, same purpose or different purpose, Diary!Tom's plan was not against LV's benefit: As Pat quoted in : << ******** http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=17 question: In 'Chamber of Secrets,' what would have happened if Ginny had died and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary? answer: I can't answer that fully *until all seven books are finished,* (emphasis mine) but it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably. ******** >> However, I don't think the other Horcruxes have personalities or wills of their own. The diary is different because it contained a memory even before it was made into a Horcrux. Poo, Doug Samu already said that in . By the way, while I was at Quick Quotes Quill looking for the above quotes, I found the below quote: : <> houyhnhnm predicted in : <<5. Snape's exoneration will be revealed in a surprising twist that no one has anticipated. 6. Two or more characters in HBP were not who they appeared to be (at least part of the time). I don't mean Crabbe and Goyle 7. Dumbledore may be dead, but he did not die on the tower. 8. Madam Pince is Snape's mother. 9. Snape is not the Half Blood Prince. (he he) >> ?? The "Snape" who dueled Harry and ran off with Draco after proclaiming: "I, the Half-Blood Prince!" was someone else disguised as Snape? That's one way of exonerating Snape of having killed DD on the Tower. Except you also say that DD didn't die on the tower... From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 8 07:59:36 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 07:59:36 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167197 > Betsy Hp > Things of Which I'm Smugly Sure: (Yeah, this is what'll come back to bite me if I'm wrong ) > -- Voldemort will be defeated. (What? I'm going out on a limb here! You got to give me an easy one.) Goddlefrood: I'll certainly concede this one ;) and indeed your second, being that Harry will be the one to do it;). My own little theory is that the gu... sorry, showdown will take place at Godric's Hollow where the story of Harry's interaction with LV began. > Betsy Hp: > -- Harry will live. Happily ever after, however Harry (or JKR) defines it, with magical abilities intact and all of his surviving friends. (Yes, OBHWF for all. :/ ) Goddlefrood: This one I can not take as a given, I hope it is correct, but have a nasty feeling it may not be :), as this is predictions in a nutshell, no further expansion as yet. If he does survive he will no longer have the scar. > Betsy Hp: > -- Draco Malfoy will play an important role in helping the good guys beat Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Oh, and he'll survive. Goddlefrood: I have some confidence on this one also, I have stated it on another forum some time ago. My reasoning comes down to the old proverbial that redemption often lies with the young. > Betsy Hp: > -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly and unwaveringly DDM. (SNIP) Goddlefrood: This one is difficult to agree with, for me. I have a post in outline that may appear within a reasonable time. Basically I believe Snape will ultimately redeem himself but for a reason that I'm not prepared to go further into, yet ... > Betsy Hp: > -- I suspect Harry is a Horcrux, or at least, I think his scar might be. Goddlefrood: Unfortunately I can not agree with this, if for no better reason than DD never mentioned the possibility to Harry during their discourse on Horcruxes in the Chapter of the same name in HBP. That part of the plot, I believe, is not a great mystery, in that there will be the locket, the cup, something of Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor's and Nagini. IOW I agree with DD. I also agree with a certain post in this thread that says Zacharias Smith will have a role in the discovery of the Hufflepuff Cup, this despite the fact that Smith is the most common surname in the British Isles. One of the Horcrux items will be found in a tomb, is another prediction I have. Nagini will survive the removal of the Horcrux from her and ma end up in Brazil or Burma or wherever snakes are happiest :) > Betsy Hp: > -- I still think someone we think is good will turn out to be working for Voldemort. No real solid clue on who though. Goddlefrood: It is possible but I have to say unlikely. The only possibility I can divine at present is the duplicitous one, but I don't think he's been working for Voldemort either, at least since he "turned" to the side of the good ;) > Betsy Hp: > -- Somehow the four houses of Hogwarts working together will be a key to defeating Voldemort (finding the horcruxes maybe?). Goddlefrood: As JKR has said the Sorting Hat is usually right ;), and I agree the final resolution will involve improved relations between the houses. It will also, in my divination, involve a resolution of the old conflict between Salazar ad the other three founders. > Betsy Hp: > -- I'm pretty sure both Hermione and Ron will survive the end of the series. Goddlefrood: I'll give you this one too a happily ever after, with just minor bouts of bickering :) > Betsy Hp: > -- If a contemporary of Harry dies, my money is on either Neville or Luna. (I lean more towards Neville.) Goddlefrood: I lean the other way, towards Luna, if anyone. Neville will, naturally, discompose the six-gilled shark and also assist Harry in other ways, as will Luna and Ginny. > Betsy Hp: > -- If Snape actually killed Dumbledore, he'll for sure die. If not, he might, *might* live. Godlefrood: Severus is in a lot of trouble afaik, I predict he will die, and may the Lord have mercy on his soul :) > Betsy Hp: > -- There's a link of some sort between Snape and Lily (fingers crossed it's friendship and not romance). Goddlefrood: I've never bought the Snape loved Lily theories. I agree a friendship of sorts will be uncovered and go out on a limb to say that Lily will have had a greater influence on Snape's Potions ability than Uncle Horace ever did. (SNIP) - Balance as it is time for my turn on what would be good to see, from my pov ;) On other characters: Uncle Horace was never a Death Eater, he may transpire to have been somewhat like the elder Blacks in that regard. That he regrets his involvement in the Horcrux business leads me to this view. All the Weasleys, bar one (which may be one of the twins) will survive. Bill may find some comfort in the application of dittany :). Dumbledore is dead, but not without his uses and Harry will find a way (probably a Pensieve moment) to find out a great deal about Albus. It may also be that Harry's source will be Aberforth, oh and Aberforth will help with the locket Horcrux, if with no other. It will also be Aberforth who finally clears up the Prophecy matter, that is he will make clear which of the two current slightly conflicting versions are true. If Snape is DDM then it will be Aberforth who reveals that, but Harry may not believe it at first. Hogwarts will remain open but some of the teachers will not survive. My best bet is Minerva, I hold out hope for Rubeus. At some point Harry and friends will visit a tomb, most probably Gryffindor's. My other pet theory is that Peter Pettigrew will have a moment of Gryffindor splendour and survive having seen the error of his weak-willed ways. These are subject to further negotiation with my Pensieve material, but stand for now. Goddlefrood, who says that the significance of 1692 as the date when the WW passed the Statute of Secrecy is not unconnected with the Salem Witch Trials, which happened in the same year :) PS I do hope Snape is good because as I've said before here if he's not Harry is in a lot of trouble, LV has possibly the nastiest crew ever assembled with him and Severus is in the top three most gifted alive wizards in the books. That's for another time :) From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Apr 8 08:06:00 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:06:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions for the End In-Reply-To: <2795713f0704072300y7ec164c8vb10f9a34d5977bcb@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0704072300y7ec164c8vb10f9a34d5977bcb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1052978932.20070408010600@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167198 In order from most plausible to most wildly speculative: -- Harry will vanquish LV and survive. -- Hermione, Ron, and Ginny will survive. -- Luna will be the most major young char to die. (To borrow from Noel Coward, she has "an ethereal, not-quite-of-this-world quality" that makes her "the dying sort".) -- Harry, Ron, and Hermione will use time turners to simultaneously attend their 7th year and hunt the Horcruxes. -- A long chapter will be devoted to Harry taking his N.E.W.T. exams. -- Umbridge will be on Harry's trail all through the Horcrux hunt, and will almost ruin everything at a critical juncture. -- Wormtail will kill Greyback, which also results in the "curing" of all Fenrir's victims, including Lupin! -- The Ravenclaw Horcrux is either Fleur's bridal tiara or Neville's wand... In either case, the Horcrux will cause nastily weird things to happen to its owner. -- The vast power of House-Elves will be pivotal. -- Harry will face a Lethifold. (See _Fantastic Beasts_) -- Nagini is *not* a Horcrux -- LV is still determined to acquire a Griffindor object and use Harry's death to make it Horcrux #6. -- R.A.B. is for "Regulus Alphard Black", but is *not* Sirius' brother, but his *Uncle* Alphard! -- Bellatrix will commit suicide when she finds out that LV is indeed half-blood. Also, some things I hope will happen or be resolved, but probably won't: -- Myrtle finds peace, and goes beyond the veil. -- We find out how the Bloody Baron got bloody (and why Peeves fears him). -- "Perseus Evans" turns out to be not a coincidence after all, though less explicit than "I am Lord Voldemort" (Snape once saved Lily and/or Andromeda's life, when Hagrid tried breeding sea monsters.) :) -- Daedalus Diggle plays a meaningful role. -- The House Elves are freed. -- Fred and George patent bottled Dementorcide :) -- Charlie marries a mermaid (one of the sexier species) ;) Dave From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Apr 8 09:29:31 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:29:31 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > When DH finally comes out, this is the post that will either give me > reason to gloat or force me to eat some crow. A breakdown of what > I'm sure will happen, what I think will happen, and what I hope will > happen. Hickengruendler: And I'll play along, since predictions are fun. - Of course Voldie will be defeated (either he'll die or get a fate worse than Death) - Harry will live, so will Ron, Hermione, Ginny and Draco - If any of the main kids die, it will be Neville, though I certainly hope not. Either way, he will do something very important and heroic. - Snape will die, sacrificing himself for Harry. He was DDM!Snape all along. - Myrtle will finally be able to leave this world behind and go beyond. So, in fact, do all the ghosts in the end. - Harry's dead loved ones will somehow be able to help him. - Trelawney will make a third prophecy. - MacNair will be killed by a Magical Beast, I tend towards getting eaten by the Acromantulas. - The final battle will be at Hogwarts, and Filch will be the one doing maghic late in life - Privet Drive will be attacked, causing Aunt Petunia to spill some beans From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Sun Apr 8 06:14:45 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 06:14:45 -0000 Subject: Christmas Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167200 I've just been rereading HP and the Order of the Phoenix. There's a chapter where the Weasleys and Sirius are celebrating Christmas. Two things struck me. 1. Would witches and wizards celebrate Christmas? Wouldn't they have their own (more ancient?) holidays? 2. Mr Weasley, in particular, delights in Muggles' devices because he seems so cut off from the muggles' world. Would he even know about Christmas? Or he'd know about it in much the same way as the average Christian knows about Passover. Any comments? Thanks Barry From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Apr 8 12:07:29 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:07:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christmas Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167201 In a message dated 4/8/2007 6:30:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, whealthinc at ozemail.com.au writes: 1. Would witches and wizards celebrate Christmas? Wouldn't they have their own (more ancient?) holidays? --------------------- Sherrie here: In the real world, yes, Witches DO have our own holidays (we call them sabbats). They often coincide fairly closely in time with the Christian ones, thanks to Pope Gregory the Great. However, in the Potterverse, witchcraft has nothing to do with religion - it's a genetic thing, just as Deryni-ness is in Katherine Kurtz' Gwynnedd. Some may be Witches in the real world sense - Pagans; others are Christians, Jews, Hindus... There may be a slightly greater percentage of Pagans, if many of the old pureblood families stuck with the Old Ways. But surely the centuries-long influx of Muggleborns into the Wizarding World has brought a conglomeration of religions, in similar proportions to that in Britain as a whole? BTW, many Witches celebrate both sorts of holidays - since we're embedded in families which often don't share our beliefs, and since they are in many ways similar. Blessed Be, Sherrie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 8 12:17:47 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:17:47 -0000 Subject: Tolkien/Homorphus/Morfin/Pig/Yearly Exams/Diary!Tom/Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167202 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Carol wrote in > : > > << The wrong cover art can be very upsetting to an author, as the > Ballantine covers were for J.R.R. Tolkien. > >> > > What did Tolkien object to about the Ballantine covers? IIRC he may > well have objected to the *existence* of the Ballantine edition, as > it was published with no permission from him and no payment to him, > due to some loophole in copyright laws. OTOH, it was that Ballantine > edition that made Tolkien and Middle Earth universally known, enabling > his son to make a fortune out of Dad's old scribbles. Geoff: On this subject of covers, we must presume from the published artwork that the illustrators had some clues given about events. We have recognised that they have at least portrayed some characters and scenes from the Wizarding World which we can identify. On the subject of Tolkien, your information is not accurate. The Ballantine editions were the "authorised" paperbacks. It was Ace Books who were producing the pirate edition. The objection to the Ballantine covers was to the cover of "The Hobbit, which showed "a hill, two emus and a curious tree bearing bulbous fruit. Tolkien exploded: 'What nhas it got to do with the story? Where is this place? Why emus? And what is the thing in the foreground with pink bulbs?' When the reply came that the artist hadn't time to read the book and the object with pink bulbs was 'meant to suggest a Christmas tree', Tolkien could only answer: 'I begin to feel that I am shut up in a madhouse'". (Quotes from the Humphrey Carpenter biography 1977) So, although we may have to speculate on some of the items on the published artwork for DH which we haven't identified as yet, at least we are probably able to assume that it bears some resemblance to the story line. Mark you, if JKR had had a similar experience to JRRT, there would be time to smack a few wrists and sack the srtists.... From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Apr 8 12:32:03 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:32:03 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) (getting longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167203 Betsy: > -- Voldemort will be defeated. (What? I'm going out on a limb here! > You got to give me an easy one.) Alla http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167187 >Yeah, Okay I will start with the ones I always do - Voldie will > loose, Harry will live. Jen: > YES, you guys are so good at this. I'm with you on Voldemort finally dying and Harry living. Ceridwen: Joining the chorus of Harry Lives! Voldy Dies! Jen: > Checkmarks down Betsy's list of Harry living happily ever after, everyone marrying a Weasley (thank goodness there are enough to go around) and Draco helping with something crucial. Ceridwen: I'm not much into OBHWF, but I think that's the way JKR is going. BetsyHp: > -- Snape is, and has been for the course of the books, solidly and > unwaveringly DDM. Oh, I'm sure there were moments of "You want to > who? With the what?!?" But that just goes with the territory of > working with Dumbledore. Snape never considered leaving the old guy. Alla: > In short, I will say that Snape killed Dumbledore without any > requests from DD not on the Tower, not before, but Snape killed > Dumbledore because he truly felt trapped on the Tower and has > intentions to help Light side in book 7. Jen: > Hmm, nearing the last chance to pin down the elusive one. 1) Dumbledore trusted Snape would never return to Voldemort and he will be proven right. 2) Snape won't be the first DE to get out of the terminal contract with Voldemort. LV intends to use Snape in some way to get to Harry, and Snape will help Harry in his undercover role until LV realizes he's been had and kills Snape himself. (But not before tempting Harry to act on his hatred and kill Snape--is that too Star Wars??) 3) Snape joined Voldemort because of a combination of the Prank, lost faith in DD, anger/hatred from a hard life & fascination with the dark arts. Hey, he's supposed to be complex. ;-) His return and remorse were a mix of the life-debt and Lily. Ceridwen: Agree with point 1, Dumbledore might make correspondingly larger mistakes, but he makes even larger dead-on calls. Snape was, is, and forever will be DDM. On point 2, the reason Luke's Temptation worked in Star Wars is because because it seems both true to life on that sort of scale, and because it has echoes of other temptations back to earliest stories, and sideways into religion. I'll go with LV tempting Harry this way. I will also really stick my neck out and say that Snape is the character who got the reprieve. His method of demise and the reasons for it are set out by Jen, but the Snape and Harry characters working together took the story in a new direction despite JKR, and Harry saves Snape at this juncture in the story. I agree with the first part of 3 - Snape is complex and has several reasons for doing anything, in most cases. His return to Dumbledore, though, was purely because LV's methods, his intent to target an infant instead of waiting until that infant matured, and the entire DE code/MO/mindset went against Snape's own internal moral code. We don't always agree with Snape's compass, some moreso than others, but he does have one, and he seems rigidly bound to it. In my opinion, of course. BetsyHp: > -- I suspect Harry is a Horcrux, or at least, I think his scar might > be. Alla: > Except of course whether Harry is a horcrux. Okay, he either is ( or > something on him - his scar,etc) or at some point he will believe > that he is and will be fully prepared to sacrifice himself and that > will not be needed eventually. Jen: > Harry has a soul piece. JKR won't treat him as an accidental Horcrux though so Nagini will still be the fourth one. Dumbledore's emotional mistake was overlooking this possibility. Ceridwen: I hate the idea of Harry being a Horcrux, but after thinking about Horcruxes and soul-bits recently, I will agree that Harry has a Voldy soul-bit, though he is not a Horcrux. The soul-bit that was severed at Lily's death, and the one severed by James's death moments before, were both suddenly without housing when LV vaporized. One or both went to the only living being, which was Harry... Unless one went to the only *other* living being, Wormtail. If one soul-bit was left without a place to stay, it went where soul-bits go after the body dies. If Harry does have a soul-bit, it will be easy to get rid of it, or it will not matter. No spell was cast to create a Horcrux, and no magical protections were placed to guard it from expulsion. So, either the soul-bit will flee Harry at some point (or already has), or it has been so well-integrated into Harry's soul that it is a seperate entity from its former host. If it is integrated, especially if Wormtail also has one, then the lack of spell to designate these bits as Horcrux fillers will mean they cannot anchor Voldy's soul. Ancient and arcane magic. Betsy: > -- If a contemporary of Harry dies, my money is on either Neville or > Luna. (I lean more towards Neville.) Alla: > I think Luna will go. Maybe Neville (sob), but hopefully not. Jen: > Wah, my two favorite kids. Luna will help Harry make it through the Veil to see his loved ones. When they are ready to return, Harry will realize only one of them can go back and discover Luna knew all along she would be the one to stay behind. Ceridwen: Luna and Neville certainly seem to be set up to die. I like them, too, and don't want to see it, so I am offering alternatives: Cho dies. Harry feels that anyone he gets close to dies, and it takes the effort of all his friends, plus Dumbledore's portrait and the Hogwarts ghosts to pull him out of his depression. Cho's death will be the last straw for Harry on this point, until Nick et. al. make him see the light. Marietta Edgecomb dies, and Hermione is wracked by guilt before the Big Showdown, due to the Sneak hex. Similar help from friends brings her out of it. McLaggen dies, heroically, after being a jerk every time he is mentioned. Crabbe and Goyle juniors die, caught in the middle, not wanting to be DEs, but wanting to save their fathers. *weep* They'll finally be more than stock bully back-up. Jen: My own predictions: > *Lily will play a major role in DH. The grand finale will take place in the locked room with Harry finally able to open the door once he is able to get past his hatred, identify with Lily and understand why he is uniquely qualified to defeat Voldemort. Harry having Lily's eyes will play a symbolic role. Ceridwen: Concur. It's Lily's moment to really shine, and she does. Jen: *Deathly Hallows refers to both All Hallows Eve at GH and the Horcrux quest. Ceridwen: Concur. DH will *also* refer to the graves of the Founders, which are in a barrow mound on the grounds. At least one Horcrux was placed in their tomb. And, finally, at the end, the Deathly Hallows will be the shades of LV's victims as *they* take his remaining core soul, leaving the body to be killed and buried by the living. Soul takes care of soul, flesh takes care of flesh, and the victims get their rightful payment. Jen: > *Petunia will finally crack and tell Harry everything she knows about Lily. She will let him read the letters from DD (kept under the creaky stair). There will be an attack on Privet Drive and the Dursleys will flee to live at Grimmauld Place. Ceridwen: Yes, Petunia has kept correspondence, including Lily's letters from friends at Hogwarts, which were left with the Evanses, and which Petunia inherited when they died. There may even be a schoolgirl diary. There will be an attack on Privet Drive early on the morning of Harry's seventeenth birthday. Since this is magic and all, LV miscalculates the time, and Harry is still protected because he wasn't born that early in the day. Harry, Ron and Hermione are able to get the Dursleys to GP, where they molder for the rest of the book. Jen: > *Hagrid will die for some reason connected to saving an animal or Grawp. Ceridwen: Yes, Hagrid dies, but not before imparting important information. He may accidentally say things, but he really can keep a secret when he is clearly instructed to do so. He may even think he is going against Dumbledore when he gives this information, but relies on DD's love of Harry for his own forgiveness. Jen: > *Lupin will be the last surviving Marauder when Peter dies after unintentionally killing Fenrir with his silver hand (life debt). Lupin will help Harry throughout DH with the Horcruxes and also tell him more about Lily. Ceridwen: Yes, Lupin survives, and is not ESE, though he makes at least one mistake which helps the bad guys during DH, or is discovered to have done so earlier. This of course would relate to his reluctance to go against his friends. Peter was his friend once, you know, which makes me think that whatever Lupin did has been done since before at least PoA. Peter, yes, slay Fenrir. Good thing Fenrir showed up, or I'd have to go with him killing Remus with that cool silver hand. He dies as his act of remorse. Jen: > *Dumbledore is Heir of Gryffindor and Godric's Hollow was his ancestral home. Ceridwen: And now, Aberforth is the sole surviving heir of Gryffindor. Aberforth gives Harry the okay to enter the GH property where James and Lily died, and lifts any wards protecting the property against DE vandalism. Jen: > *Grindelwald had a Horcrux and there's some connection between he and Riddle. Dumbledore defeated him in some way besides killing him-- maybe the gong spell from the MOM? Ceridwen: Tom learned about Horcruxes from Grindelwald, and was an anonymous tipster leading to his demise. We will learn about Gridelwald and his importance or lack of importance to the story. Jen: > *There's a reason Trelawney wasn't present from the time we see her in HBP after the tale of the eavesdropper. I won't say she was kidnapped. *hem, hem*. Ceridwen: Are you suggesting that Umbridge had something to do with Trelawney's disappearance? I can certainly see her being vindictive, since she was not able to push Trelawney out when she was Inquisitor. But, perhaps, Trelawney didn't come down simply because she didn't want to see Umbridge? DD was gone, maybe Umbridge could persuade Scrimgeour to oust Trelawney now? Trelawney and her abilities will play a role in DH. Harry will remember her card reading before his excursion with DD, and she will be consulted, with Luna providing the *correct* interpretation of the reading. Jen: > *Dobby's socks or portrait of Harry will come back to help and he will be shocked Harry didn't realize they were magical. Dobby will help with the Horcrux hunt (heh, got that from the cover). Ceridwen: Dobby will play a major role in the defeat of Voldemort. He will convince the elves to join the fight against LV, and will go down in House Elf history as a hero and liberator. Jen: > *Ron's and Dumbledore's watches will prove to be time-turners and play a role. Ceridwen: Not sure the watches are time turners, but Harry will inherit DD's watch, and the two watches will play a role. Jen: > * There will be a big feast in the Great Hall at the end of the story and everyone will be there to rejoice in the defeat of Voldemort and to honor the dead. Ceridwen: Agreed. And, someone will Explain It All. And now, my own meager contribution: We will learn about the Prank. I'm hoping we'll get one of those Harry-less chapters and have the Marauders and Snape as the main characters. It may be too much to ask, but this would make a great chapter for me. Ceridwen, agreeing with Jen that the more ideas that are tossed into the pot, the better the chances will be that at least one will be right. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Apr 8 13:53:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:53:22 -0000 Subject: Christmas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167204 Barry: > 1. Would witches and wizards celebrate Christmas? Wouldn't they have their own (more ancient?) holidays? Sherrie: > Some may be Witches in the real world sense - Pagans; others are Christians, Jews, Hindus... There may be a slightly greater percentage of Pagans, if many of the old pureblood families stuck with the Old Ways. But surely the centuries-long influx of Muggleborns into the Wizarding World has brought a conglomeration of religions, in similar proportions to that in Britain as a whole? Ceri (dwen): (Hey, had to rhyme! ;) ) To add to Sherrie's information: The WW passed the Acts of Seclusion in 1692. Before then, it seems that witches and wizards mingled with Muggles, though they may not have wanted to by this point. The translation of the Bible into the common tongue, with its admonishments against witches, would have made life and interaction difficult - the King James Version of the Bible was first published in 1611. Christianity was the majority religion in western countries, and a religion in some eastern Mediterranean countries by this time, too. Witches and wizards would have also been Christians, at least nominally. And, they would have been Hindu, Moslem, Confucian, etc. in their home countries, at least nominally. They were not always separated from Muggle society. Midwinter has always had a significance. It is the darkest point of the year, and the people will hold out hope for better weather, new crops, new births in the human and animal population, so changing from an older belief system regarding the time of year would be fairly simple. As Sherrie said, Christian feasts were identified with older Pagan beliefs and, as Christianity grew as a religion, the Christian traditions supplanted the older beliefs. This took place a millenium before the Acts of Seclusion. If any of the older Pureblood families stuck to the Old Ways, I think they would have done so in private and courted favor of their governments, which to some degree were all bound up with religion, in order to maintain position and prestige. I can see Lucius Malfoy behaving this way, based on his Imperius defense, so I can also see his ancestors, and others, doing the same, especially during the Crusade years and the purges which culminated in the Inquisition and the various witch trials in Europe and America. The point is to survive. Since the modern-day celebration of Christmas as more than a religious observance (Christ's Mass) is much younger than the 1692 date, then the influx of Muggle-borns, and the occasional marraige to a Muggle, would introduce the newer traditions. Muggleborn children, and children of mixed Wizarding/Muggle marriages, would be used to the celebration, and pass it on to their children. At some point, most or at least very many witches and wizards would celebrate like the Muggles, and it would pass into Wizarding tradition. The same would be true of other familiar holidays, and would also be true in the holidays of various religions around the world. Ceridwen. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 8 14:12:26 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 10:12:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christmas References: Message-ID: <002801c779e7$f06a40d0$2166400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167205 Barry: > I've just been rereading HP and the Order of the Phoenix. There's a > chapter where the Weasleys and Sirius are celebrating Christmas. Two > things struck me. > 1. Would witches and wizards celebrate Christmas? Wouldn't they have > their own (more ancient?) holidays? > 2. Mr Weasley, in particular, delights in Muggles' devices because he > seems so cut off from the muggles' world. Would he even know about > Christmas? Or he'd know about it in much the same way as the average > Christian knows about Passover. Magpie: Christianity exists in the Wizard World the same way it exists in our world, since they do celebrate Christmas and Easter pretty much the way we do. They also have a Friar ghost, indicating religious orders like our own, and Saint Mungo's, which is also indicates standard Christian history. Presumably they were Pagan like the rest of Europe at one time, but their history seems to follow Muggle history on that score. They also say "God" and not "Gods" or "Merlin" exclusively, as some people sometimes think. I mean, one might also ask why Wizards have countries the same as Muggles do, following our borders, if they're their own world. But the seem to have that too. Whatever they claim about being cut off, and whatever Arthur's ignorance, they seem to always be a section of whatever society in which they live, and not really a world totally of their own. -m From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Apr 8 15:30:06 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:30:06 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Pippin: > JKR is supposed to have spent ten years working out the story. Now some > people would have felt that they had to use that time on the math and > logistics of world-building, but JKR's emphasis has always been on > that character who strolled into her head one day on the train, and > didn't know who or what he was. > Ken: Being one of those people who feels that our author should have found ten days or at least ten minutes out of those ten years to do some proper world building, I have to comment. Surely the characters are the sparkling gems in this story and I am perfectly fine with that. Some of that luster is obscured by annoying incongruities that result from not paying attention to the "maths". You don't need to master partial differential equations or tensor calculus to build a credible world. But if you are setting your story on planet Earth your weeks need to have seven days, your months the appropriate number of days, you months have to start on the days of the week that the calandar for that year specifies, full moons should occur every 29.53 days, Mars can only be "bright tonight" at two year intervals, and Orion isn't visible in June, to name but a few. Above all you should not write time travel into your story unless you *have* taken a course in tensor calculus! There are science fiction authors who are excellent world builders. Sherri S. Tepper used to be delightful at this. David Brin has created several. Larry Niven's Ringworld is a created world on two levels, his universe is fictional and the Ringworld itself is artificial in that universe, created by intelligent creatures related to us. And then there is Tolkien who's many layered creation is so real you are tempted to believe he was a Maia sent from Eru to reveal the truth to us. The "problem" with many SF stories is that the created world becomes the story at the expense of the characters and everything else. If the world is good enough to carry the story the book can still be rewarding. If not, well Ms. Tepper has been there too. I see the complimentary problem with the Potter stories. The rest of the story is delightful but the Potterverse is always creaking along, ready to come apart at the seams. I am an admitted connoisseur of world building and it seems best to me to pay proper attention to the art without neglecting the rest. The Potterverse comes *so close* to being a truly wonderful created world that its faults are particularly maddening to me. It would not have taken the author much more in the way of effort and resources to do a first class job of this. Since everyone else is making predictions I will make this one which conveniently may be proved in my lifetime but can never be disproved: Someone other than JKR will write published stories in the Potterverse whether Harry lives or dies. The reason is that Harry himself is boring to third party authors but the apparent flaws in the Potterverse itself are an irresistable challenge. Ken From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 8 15:51:13 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:51:13 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167207 Hi all, sorry for picking on corpses of an old thread. :) I've been reading through the 'blood protection at Privet Dr' discussions and couldn't resist to point something out. > > Pippin: > > Harry was removed from the wizarding world because that's where > his > > only blood relation was living. Everything else is secondary. > > a_svirn: > You are just restating Dumbledore's reasons instead of defending > them. Yes, he placed Harry where he did because that's where Lilly's > blood dwelt. Yes, he thought that everything else was secondary. > However, from the way the events unfolded it looks like he was > wrong. Because Harry came close to dying several times and his > survival owes nothing to the blood protection. Kvapost: It's amazing how DD chose to protect Harry from big bad magical bullies but not from Muggle ones and, wait for it, not *from himself*. It's not unusual for a kid in Harry's situation to actually commit suicide. Wouldn't that mess up things for DD and WW. I know, I know, there wouldn't be any HP books then. :) From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 8 14:59:51 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Christmas and Yule In-Reply-To: <002801c779e7$f06a40d0$2166400c@Spot> Message-ID: <682446.14948.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167208 In parts of Europe, before Christianity, Anglo-Saxons and others celebrated Yule which was the celebration of WInter Solstice. Some of the traditons of Yule are mixed in with the Christmas beliefs, the Ylue log, ham, decorating trees. I'm not sure if the Weasley's understand the connection of Yule and Christmas or that J.K. did not wish to go in to that matter. But Christmas is a magical time and she does like to focus on it. She wants wants Harry to understand the happiness of the season regardless of hw he was treated at the Durlsey's dragonkeeper From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 8 16:58:26 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 8 Apr 2007 16:58:26 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/8/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1176051506.34.42179.m23@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167209 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 8, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Apr 8 17:27:16 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:27:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christmas References: <002801c779e7$f06a40d0$2166400c@Spot> Message-ID: <006b01c77a03$2791b6e0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167210 > Barry: > > I've just been rereading HP and the Order of the Phoenix. There's a > > chapter where the Weasleys and Sirius are celebrating Christmas. Two > > things struck me. > > 1. Would witches and wizards celebrate Christmas? Wouldn't they have > > their own (more ancient?) holidays? > > 2. Mr Weasley, in particular, delights in Muggles' devices because he > > seems so cut off from the muggles' world. Would he even know about > > Christmas? Or he'd know about it in much the same way as the average > > Christian knows about Passover. > > Magpie: > Christianity exists in the Wizard World the same way it exists in our world, > since they do celebrate Christmas and Easter pretty much the way we do. They > also have a Friar ghost, indicating religious orders like our own, and Saint > Mungo's, which is also indicates standard Christian history. Presumably they > were Pagan like the rest of Europe at one time, but their history seems to > follow Muggle history on that score. They also say "God" and not "Gods" or > "Merlin" exclusively, as some people sometimes think. > > I mean, one might also ask why Wizards have countries the same as Muggles > do, following our borders, if they're their own world. But the seem to have > that too. Whatever they claim about being cut off, and whatever Arthur's > ignorance, they seem to always be a section of whatever society in which > they live, and not really a world totally of their own. > > -m Shelley now: I'm agreeing with Magpie here. I think, while we look at the canon that Rowlings wrote, that we must not over dissect it. Rowlings wrote a world where the Wizards and the Muggles share a good many things, and this I think is on purpose merely to allow the reader to instantly jump into the plot line to be able to follow along with Harry as he enters this new world. I have seen science fiction writers create such an odd and perculiar universe that the author spends almost a third of the first book explaining the world this series takes place in so that the reader will be able to understand what will happen later in the plot and why. Many a person gives up on the book simply because they want to get to the plot, and really don't care about that "other world" as much as the author does. Make the rules too complicated, and you lose readers. Make the world too complicated, and you have trouble telling your story. Rowling, on the other hand, uses the convience that the Muggles and Wizards share the same world, and so she has the reader's instant understanding of the geography of Europe, of where London and King's Cross are located, for instance. She uses the subway as a humor point when Hagrid has to use it. She uses cars, slightly modified by magic, to accomplish plot points in the story- moving around underaged Wizards. She uses a car to tell the Dolby story. She uses the same seasons and holidays to mark the time of the school term. She uses some common hobbies- while Quidditch is new for us, we also see Arthur tinkering with Muggle cars, and Mrs. Weasley knitting sweaters. She keeps wine and candies. She uses all these things because this is the world that she created. If you go further and ask the question of why would these characters have these things (a Christmas tree), any answer beyond "Because Rowling gave them one!" is mere speculation on our parts. Don't make her world too complicated, because she didn't make it too complicated. For me, this a sticking point of my analysis of this series. If I try to hard too hard to understand the "why" of everything that exists in the HP series, then essentually what I am trying to do is to write a whole book that starts before the HP series. This world, of course, would be of my own making, and not Rowling's work. To explain what the Wizards did during the Middle Ages, or how they evolved with Christianity, would be in itself a new work of fiction. The speculations of Ceridwen in an earlier post answering your question, for example, cross for me entirely too close to this new writing of fiction, and while may be a good theory, is in fact NOT the explanation that Rowling gives us. She gives us the answer of "Because I wrote it that way." Why do the Wizards need Christmas? Rowling needed a Christmas as an element of her setting. Beyond needing it to mark time, she uses the Christmas break to accomplish things Harry will do in the castle without the other students being around (brewing polyjuice potion; infiltrating the Syltherin common room). She uses it to get the kids out of the castle for other plot important events. She needed a Christmas to get Harry together with Sirius so that they could bond before Rowling kills Sirius off. She uses the Christmas carols to show the change in mood in Sirius- he's actually singing and happy. She uses the Suits of Armor in the castle hallway singing Christmas carols for humor, and to show the work of Peeves to distort those carols. She uses the decorations to show the magical world and some of its daily use.(Flitwick using magic to float the decorations up on the tree in the Great Hall ). She uses the Christmas tree to demonstrate the inguinity and mischieviousness of the Weasley twins to make a garden gnome into an angel. She uses Christmas to give Harry presents (the invisibility cloak), and to demonstrate the love he feels in the wizarding world contrasted to the pitiful life he had at the Dursleys. She uses Christmas because it helps her to tell her story. That's why Wizards celebrate Christmas, and why they have any Christian roots at all. Shelley From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 8 18:34:38 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:34:38 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167211 > Ken: > > But if you are setting your story > on planet Earth your weeks need to have seven days, your months the > appropriate number of days, you months have to start on the days of the > week that the calandar for that year specifies, full moons should occur > every 29.53 days, Mars can only be "bright tonight" at two year intervals, > and Orion isn't visible in June, to name but a few. zgirnius: I think this is too high a standard to hold an author to. When you pick up a mystery, a spy novel, a romance, a western, or 'literature' (assuming you read any of the above, naturally...)--do you run a mental calendar and make sure that weekends are indeed a multiple of seven days apart? That the author does not describe scenes as 'bathed in the silver light of the full moon' on days, say, 35 days apart? I think these sorts of details can be taken for granted precisely because we are told the Potterverse is our world, even if the nominal genre of this series is 'fantasy'. > Ken: > Above all you should > not write time travel into your story unless you *have* taken a course in > tensor calculus! zgirnius: As one who has done that and more, I wonder. What did she get wrong? > Ken: > I am an admitted connoisseur of world building and it seems > best to me to pay proper attention to the art without neglecting the > rest. The Potterverse comes *so close* to being a truly wonderful > created world that its faults are particularly maddening to me. zgirnius: I suppose I can see that... since I myself find the worldbuilding pretty good, but would not call myself a connoisseur. --zgirnius, noting with amusement that what *she* finds most intriguing is the other characters of the Potterverse, not its logistics. From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Apr 8 19:37:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:37:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4619448E.2010605@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167212 sugandha_jasmine wrote: > Voldemart is a Dark Lord, but in my thoughts I look at him as a guy > who was very lonely from the start and took a bad turn. I think he is > very much more unfortunate than Harry because even his mom and > dad are dead. Bart: From Robert Hare's PSYCHOPATHS: NEW TRENDS IN RESEARCH (by way of Wikipedia): "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret." Here is Robert Hare's website: http://www.hare.org/ As far as Tommy and Harry being cousins, according to Sirius, pretty much ALL the "purebloods" are cousins, and Jimmy Potter was pureblood, so the math is easy from here. Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Apr 8 18:53:05 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:53:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] World Building And The Potterverse References: Message-ID: <00a401c77a0f$244ef180$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167213 > Ken: > Being one of those people who feels that our author should have found > ten days or at least ten minutes out of those ten years to do some proper > world building, I have to comment. Surely the characters are the sparkling > gems in this story and I am perfectly fine with that. Some of that luster > is obscured by annoying incongruities that result from not paying attention > to the "maths". You don't need to master partial differential equations or > tensor calculus to build a credible world. But if you are setting your story > on planet Earth your weeks need to have seven days, your months the > appropriate number of days, you months have to start on the days of the > week that the calandar for that year specifies, full moons should occur > every 29.53 days, Mars can only be "bright tonight" at two year intervals, > and Orion isn't visible in June, to name but a few. Above all you should > not write time travel into your story unless you *have* taken a course in > tensor calculus! "Mars is bright tonight" can have several meanings, and only ONE of them has anything to do with the calculation of how close it is to Earth and how often it occurs. That it the first meaning, that Mars is close to Earth in relative proximity. Another possible explanation can be that the sky is clear, and that region of the sky where Mars sits is particularly unemcumbered with clouds, atmospheric interference, and so forth. It may have been cloudy yesterday, obscuring Mars, but Mars is bright tonight. A third possible explaination is along the lines of smelling rain before it comes- the Centaurs are reading signs that Mars is telling them, and that those signs are usually strong for them at that moment. In the same way that I don't need to be a professional meteorologist to smell rain or have an arthritic knee telling me of coming rain, the Centauars reading that Mars is bright tonight could be Rowling's way of telling us that the Centaurs are reading the cosmic winds of change, so to speak. Frankly, my money is on that final explanation, and in that, I see no mistake of Rowling in that passage! As for Orion, using a star program, I see that it does drop off the horizon for Scotland in February, and that indeed, it's not visible in June. By the way, what the hell does tensor calculus have to do with time travel? My husband is an engineer, he uses tensor calculus in his daily professional life, and he agrees with me that your wisecrack about needing it to be able to write any story involving time travel is just bullshit. So we know, and Rowlings has admitted to making mistakes in the series. So what. I don't think any of us have the right to criticize her for doing something that is way beyond what any of us can do- which is to write a 7 book series that makes us instant millionaires and shatters records for book sales in all categories. It's kind of like those of us who can't skate criticizing a Olympic skater for putting their foot down a fraction of a second early in a single jump while earning the Gold medal with a stunning performance. Shelley From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Apr 8 19:13:16 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 15:13:16 -0400 Subject: Muggle vs. Wizardling geopolitics, was Re: Christmas Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167214 Magpie wrote: " I mean, one might also ask why Wizards have countries the same as Muggles do, following our borders, if they're their own world. But the seem to have that too. Whatever they claim about being cut off, and whatever Arthur's ignorance, they seem to always be a section of whatever society in which they live, and not really a world totally of their own." Wizardling political boundaries do not always follow Muggle ones. Ireland has been independent of Britain (except for the Six Counties) for some time, but the British Ministry of Magic seems to regulate Irish wizardry still. Also, Transylvania seems to be a separate political unit among Wizards, but in the Muggle world it is divided between Romania and Hungary. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 8 20:37:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:37:31 -0000 Subject: Christmas In-Reply-To: <006b01c77a03$2791b6e0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167215 Shelley wrote: To explain what the Wizards did during the > Middle Ages, or how they evolved with Christianity, would be in itself a new work of fiction. The speculations of Ceridwen in an earlier post answering your question, for example, cross for me entirely too close to this new writing of fiction, and while may be a good theory, is in fact NOT the explanation that Rowling gives us. She gives us the answer of "Because I wrote it that way." > > Why do the Wizards need Christmas? Rowling needed a Christmas as an element of her setting. Beyond needing it to mark time, she uses the Christmas break to accomplish things Harry will do in the castle without the other students being around (brewing polyjuice potion; infiltrating the Syltherin common room). She uses it to get the kids out of the castle for other plot important events. She needed a Christmas to get Harry together with Sirius so that they could bond before Rowling kills Sirius off. She uses the Christmas carols to show the change in mood in Sirius- he's actually singing and happy. She uses the Suits of Armor in the castle hallway singing Christmas carols for humor, and to show the work of Peeves to distort those carols. She uses the decorations to show the magical world and some of its daily use. She uses Christmas to give Harry presents (the invisibility cloak), and to demonstrate the love he feels in the wizarding world contrasted to the pitiful life he had at the Dursleys. She uses Christmas because it helps her to tell her story. That's why Wizards celebrate Christmas, and why they have any Christian roots at all. Carol responds: I'm not so sure that we can dismiss details like the Fat Friar and the painting of the monks and a hospital called St. Mungo's quite so easily. My own impression is that the history of Muggle Britain and Wizarding Britain developed hand in hand until the Act of Secrecy in 1692 (despite occasional witch-burnings and the more successful hangings, etc. in the Salem Witch Trials). Nearly Headless Nick's botched beheading, cut by the editors from the books but presented on JKR's site, was done by Muggles in 1492 (not for religious reasons or anti-wizard prejudice but because he botched some magic performed on a Muggle). IOW, I think that British wizards celebrate Christmas because it's part of British tradition (complete with Christmas trees, thanks to the Muggle Prince Albert). And their Christmas traditions are largely secularized as a mirror of Muggle Britain's. IMO, Christmas is not so much a plot device as a part of the setting and atmosphere of Hogwarts as a very British boarding school that happens to have a very different curriculum than otherwise similar Muggle boarding schools. But I don't think that speculation on the origins of wizarding customs or the relationship of the Muggle and Wizarding worlds in the past is fruitless. It's certainly fun, and there's just enough canon and other information to make it worth our while, especially in connection with JKR's own Christian beliefs. Questions such as why wizards celebrate Christmas--or hold baptisms--when there's no apparent system of religious worship are, I think, legitimate--and Muggle/Wizarding relations are much more interesting, IMO, than the goblin rebellions, interspersed with an occasional giant war or a bit of legislation relating to vampires, that Professor Binns drones on about. I have other ideas as to why JKR may have chosen to depict the WW as a secularized Christian society rather than eliminating religion altogether or inventing a new religion or making her witches pagan, but I'd rather state them here because I fear they would be unpopular and I don't feel inclined to dodge virtual tomatoes or hexes. I think the *primary* reason, however, was that she wanted to include familiar elements in her unfamiliar world and she imagined an audience of (British( children, who would celebrate Christmas (and Easter) in ways similar to those she depicted (minus gnomes and hippogriffs). And I suspect that the holidays (in the sense of "vacations," nor "holy days") she assigns to the students and teachers at Hogwarts correspond with those of most British children as well. Carol, wondering if British children really have stacks of presents at the ends of their beds rather than under the Christmas tree and thinking it's rather sad if that's the case because it makes the present-opening more solitary From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Sun Apr 8 21:59:45 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Could Kreacher be a spy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <749685.79368.qm@web51911.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167216 Petra, previously: > One possible advantage to such a pretense would be that Bella > would have furtive access to Number 12 since she would be the > true owner. Are there evidence to that? If Bella is able to > penetrate the Order's headquarters, I cannot imagine she > wouldn't have done so. Ryan: > Do we have any evidence that Bella is the "true owner" of Number 12 > Grimmauld Place? Petra: Ah, let me clarify: We don't. We have evidence to the contrary: Kreacher obeying Harry's command is taken to be evidence that Harry has indeed become the true owner of Grimmauld Place. Since Kreacher's obedience is the proof of ownership, whether Kreacher is a spy or not, whether his obedience is pretense or not, calls such a proof into question. Ryan: > Sure, she's part of the Black clan, but that > doesn't mean her particular part of the Black family has any claim > to the house. Petra: True however it's not her branch of the family having claim but the likelihood that once the male line had ended, the family's preference for pure-bloods would kick in thus over-riding Sirius's will, that makes the pure-blood and next in kin Bella the likely owner. My thinking is that *if* Kreacher is a spy for the Death Eaters and only pretending that Harry is his master (and if Dumbledore understands the Black family dynamics correctly), then Bella is the true owner and surely at some point shows up at her property. If Bella is able to penetrate the Order's defenses and destroy its headquarters, I cannot imagine she wouldn't have done so. We have no evidence that she was able to wreak havoc at Number Twelve, *therefore* I find it unlikely that Kreacher is a spy. Not at all impossible but unlikely. But this is rather secondary in answering the original question from christopherauk in #167165: > Could Kreacher be a spy and only pretending that Harry is > his master? As christopherauk said: > Admittedly my evidence for this is very limited, but why didn't Kreacher > have to punish himself when he insulted Harry? Dobby did when he worked > for the Malfoys. Petra: I find it completely plausible that the Malfoys would insist that their house elves be punished for insulting their owners and that this is not an intrinsic part of house elvery in general. Petra a n :) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 8 22:55:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:55:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle vs. Wizardling geopolitics, was Re: Christmas References: Message-ID: <008c01c77a31$0280f360$2166400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167217 > Magpie wrote: > " > I mean, one might also ask why Wizards have countries the same as Muggles > do, following our borders, if they're their own world. But the seem to > have > that too. Whatever they claim about being cut off, and whatever Arthur's > ignorance, they seem to always be a section of whatever society in which > they live, and not really a world totally of their own." Bruce: > Wizardling political boundaries do not always follow Muggle ones. Ireland > has > been independent of Britain (except for the Six Counties) for some time, > but the > British Ministry of Magic seems to regulate Irish wizardry still. Also, > Transylvania seems to be a separate political unit among Wizards, but in > the > Muggle world it is divided between Romania and Hungary. Magpie: But even so, that's more alike than not. Ireland is still Ireland. Translylvania may now be divided between Romania and Hungary, but it, too, was a Muggle designated place at one time. It seems to fit in with other things in the WW that are old-fashioned, but still Muggle. Just Muggle at a certain time, not modern, but not ancient. At least that's how it feels to me. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 8 23:56:09 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:56:09 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: <002801c779e7$f06a40d0$2166400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167218 > >>Magpie: > > I mean, one might also ask why Wizards have countries the same as > Muggles do, following our borders, if they're their own world. But > the seem to have that too. Whatever they claim about being cut off, > and whatever Arthur's ignorance, they seem to always be a section > of whatever society in which they live, and not really a world > totally of their own. Betsy Hp: I *totally* have those questions. Like, what did they have before a "wireless" and did it actually have wires? How come they got the concept of sweaters, but couldn't figure out pants? And just how "British" are these wizards? After the battle of Dunkirk, were there wizards out there helping to collect the British army? Did any wizards help defend England from German air-raids when the RAF was stretched so dangerously thin? And for that matter, how did Hogwarts function during, say, the "Rough Wooing" of Mary, Queen of Scots in the 1500's? What about the death of Diana: did wizards know or care about the actions of the Queen? > >>Ken: > > The rest of the story is delightful but the Potterverse is always > creaking along, ready to come apart at the seams. I am an admitted > connoisseur of world building and it seems best to me to pay proper > attention to the art without neglecting the rest. The Potterverse > comes *so close* to being a truly wonderful created world that its > faults are particularly maddening to me. It would not have taken > the author much more in the way of effort and resources to do a > first class job of this. Betsy Hp: I tend to agree, especially when it comes to the functioning of the WW as a parasitical world within the Muggle one. There is so much that is hinted at, and even more that (IMO, anyway) seems to be glossed over. It keeps the world very surfacy. Though, I do think the sort of "realistic" blue-print as to how the WW really works would have taken a bit of time on JKR's part. > >>Shelley: > > So we know, and Rowlings has admitted to making mistakes in the > series. So what. I don't think any of us have the right to > criticize her for doing something that is way beyond what any of us > can do- which is to write a 7 book series that makes us instant > millionaires and shatters records for book sales in all categories. > It's kind of like those of us who can't skate criticizing a Olympic > skater for putting their foot down a fraction of a second early in a > single jump while earning the Gold medal with a stunning > performance. Betsy Hp: Now, now Shelley, don't make me cite the 1st amendement . Seriously, I think this is exactly what this site is all about: digging down into the minutia and pulling up the good, the bad, and the ugly to study and examine to our hearts content. That we bother to pull it up gives us the right to criticize. It's the cool part about being a reader. Personally, I'm so math blind myself that what bothers Ken doesn't register with me. That the Quidditch team straddles brooms and flies about with great speed *while wearing robes* bothers me quite a bit. (Seriously, why this weird attachment to *robes*? And also, what's up with the goofy hats? Are they even still around?) Why are most spells in latin? Where does paper come from? Or beakers? Or plates? Or the cloth for those darn robes? It's all part of world building, and I do suspect that you're right and JKR does a lot of "because I said so"-ing. Which, okay, fine. It's a kid's book and maybe I'm looking for too much depth. But it'd have been nice. And I notice it. And I wonder if the lack won't effect her in the end? Will the Harry Potter books have the necessary weight to stick around after the party is over? Betsy Hp (who loves the sort of world building that kind of slowly builds its layers and depths and is most notable when it's *not* there, and thinks Sarah Monette does a good job at it, and also wonders if there's some sort of award for longest sign off tag) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 00:27:54 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:27:54 -0000 Subject: Muggle vs. Wizardling geopolitics, was Re: Christmas In-Reply-To: <008c01c77a31$0280f360$2166400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167219 > Magpie: > But even so, that's more alike than not. Ireland is still Ireland. Goddlefrood (with a few answers for our Transatlantic, in my case Transpacific friends :)) It may be of interest that Ireland only split into two after 1921. Long after the WW's boundaries would have been set. > Magpie: > Translylvania may now be divided between Romania and Hungary, but it, too, was a Muggle designated place at one time. Goddlefrood: Not strictly the case, but close enough to be prescient ;). As at 1692 the boundaries of many countries globally were different from how they now are, let's say :) There was also a little wonderment over British children and Christmas in another post, tyopically children there have their sack fron Santa at the end of their beds, which are opened in seclusion and further presents from non-Santas under a tree, which are opened communally. Unable to tie this further to canon, but there we are :) Goddlefrood who also reminds you all that in 1692 Elias Ashmole, the English Antiquarian and namesake of an HP character died :) From lfreeman at mbc.edu Mon Apr 9 01:07:17 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:07:17 -0400 Subject: Predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167220 In no particular order: 1. The Dursleys will be horrible to Ron and Herminone when they visit with Harry. This will result in Uncle Vernon losing a large dental drill order. 2. We'll learn more about the three times Lily and James defied Voldemort before their deaths. One of them involved rescuing Petunia from a Dementor attack, explaining her familiarity with them in OOTP. 3. Hagrid will die (sniff!) unless Grawp sacrifices himself for his brother. 4. At least one person (Emmeline Vance, Madam Bones, Regalus Black, someone in the picture that Moody showed Harry) who we believe killed by Voldemort is not dead. 5. Madam Bones may have died trying to destroy a Horcrux. 6. Not all of the Weasleys will survive book 7. 7. Mr. Ollivander's disappearance will be important, as will the fact that Neville bought his last wand. 8. Neville will play a small but significant role in Voldemort's defeat, and will either die or become a squib as a result. 9. The Ministry will be forced to grant House-elves rights to enlist their magical talents against Voldemort. 10. Harry and Hermione will be Head Boy and Girl. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Apr 9 01:11:34 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:11:34 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167221 BetsyHp: > Personally, I'm so math blind myself that what bothers Ken doesn't > register with me. That the Quidditch team straddles brooms and flies > about with great speed *while wearing robes* bothers me quite a bit. > (Seriously, why this weird attachment to *robes*? And also, what's > up with the goofy hats? Are they even still around?) Jen: LOL, you reminded me of a review of 'Revenge of the Sith' in which the reviewer noted that people were able to zip around to different galaxies at light speed, but Padme didn't know she was carrying twins. Hehe, that kind of inconsistency can be annoying if you think too much about. But it *is* part of the fun to me, noticing the things that don't quite fit or I should say bother *me* because mine probably seem perfectly okay to others. JKR mentioned she would like to edit all the books once she's done; I'd imagine she has inconsistencies bothering her as well. I'm trying to think what bothers me. Sitting on the brooms in Quidditch was one until we found out someone invented the Cushioning Charm in 'Quidditch Through the Ages'. Wondering why there aren't a bunch of owl droppings during deliveries at breakfast is one. Maybe I just don't know enough about owl behavior? And it's such a clever idea about the moving staircases in Hogwarts, but I don't get how the kids found their way so quickly since I'm spatially challenged myself. And how come Hagrid's completely broken wand works okay but Ron's with Spellotape was a mess? How do people transform from animals and have clothes on? I should stop, the more I think about it the more I have.... Jen, who loves the books anyway or maybe even moreso because of all the quirky things she thinks about while reading them. From indiasjones at msn.com Mon Apr 9 01:14:37 2007 From: indiasjones at msn.com (India Jones) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:14:37 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167222 http://www.bloomsbury.com/media/hp7childrens_high_complete.jpg I noticed that on the inside jacket of DH there's an image of a stag, I don't remember seeing it on the other books (so I'm guessing it's not a company logo). Do you think it means that somehow Harry will be helped by his dad? I know James isn't coming back but do you think something he may have left behind will help Harry in his search? indiasjones From indiasjones at msn.com Mon Apr 9 01:04:15 2007 From: indiasjones at msn.com (India Jones) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:04:15 -0000 Subject: Motorbike? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167223 Hello everyone, I am new to the group, I'm sure you have already discussed this many times but where do you think Sirius' old motorbike is? indiasjones From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Apr 9 01:35:28 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:35:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0704081835o4f651eb7i54b658d593cff3bb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167224 Julie: Er, this sounds a bit sappy to me, kind of like the end of Return of the Jedi (blech). Maybe something more somber, but a feast? Only if nobody Harry cares about dies (since we usually experience everything from his point of view, and he's not going to be feasting if he's buried friends, IMO.) Lynda: Celebrating the defeat of Voldemort with a feast would be appropriate. They would, of course, remember their dead with speeches, toasts and etc. Harry, being himself, may choose to not eat or drink, but he might surprise us. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Apr 9 01:42:57 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:42:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0704081835o4f651eb7i54b658d593cff3bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167225 Lynda: Celebrating the defeat of Voldemort with a feast would be appropriate. They would, of course, remember their dead with speeches, toasts and etc. Harry, being himself, may choose to not eat or drink, but he might surprise us. Lynda Sherry now: Harry may choose not to attend a feast. I know, that I, personally, in similar circumstances, would choose not to attend celebrations. But we have precedence in the WW for this kind of thing. Everyone seems to have been very sad that lily and James died, but still the wizarding world was celebrating the loss of Voldemort. People have to celebrate the end of the war I think. The people in general need and deserve the chance to rejoice that the evil is gone. At least for now. Sherry From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 01:42:41 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:42:41 -0000 Subject: Motorbike? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167226 > Indiasjones > Hello everyone, I am new to the group, I'm sure you have already discussed this many times but where do you think Sirius' old motorbike is? Goddlefrood: Welcome to the group! I suppose Sirius's flying motorbike would be in the Forbiddden Forest with Arthur Weasley's Flying Ford Anglia happily breeding some bizarre offspring :) Goddlefrood. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Mon Apr 9 04:52:25 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 04:52:25 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > When DH finally comes out, this is the post that will either give me > reason to gloat or force me to eat some crow. A breakdown of what > I'm sure will happen, what I think will happen, and what I hope will > happen. Quick_Silver: I'll play this game too. Things that I'm fairly confident about: --Voldemort will be defeated utterly and Harry will survive. --Snape is DDM. --Hermione and Ron will survive. Things that I'm semi-confident about: --Draco will be a huge asset to the "good" side. --Harry is not a horcrux. --The Dementors will play a rather large role in DH and Snape's method of fighting them is most defiantly wrong or flawed in some way that will cost someone their life (Neville? Luna?). --The Weasley wedding will be disrupted in some manner...either by Death Eaters or an emergency of some sort. --Snape will survive. --The Prank was an attempt to kill Snape plain and simple. Things that I'd love to see (but probably won't happen): --Harry kills Voldemort with an AK however because Harry was infected by a sliver of Voldemort's soul the soul splitting effects of AK cut the Voldemort out of Harry. --Harry realizes that Snape is good (on his own...no help from anyone) quite early in the book and shamelessly uses it to his personal advantage while Snape is totally unaware. --Snape isn't simply DDM he's....Marauder!Snape (loyal to the cause but independent and with his own code). --A quantity of Weasley's, at least one professor, and several students perish. --Snape will be forced to eat a large quantity of crow about either Harry or James or both. In fact I'd settle for any humbling of Snape. Quick_Silver From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 9 03:02:09 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:02:09 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy...? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167228 I've been getting some interesting replies re Christmas in the Potterverse. Another thing that's been bothering me is death. When a W or W dies, they (all?) move into picture frames and seem to maintain their existence. Does it mean that they all have a picture frame horcrux? Or is it that JKR can't really bring herself to kill her characters? Barry From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 9 03:26:43 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:26:43 -0000 Subject: Christmas In-Reply-To: <002801c779e7$f06a40d0$2166400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167229 I had a Jewish education in the east end of London. Until I went to university, I had little knowledge of the 'others' and they had little knowledge of the 'aliens'. So I find it very easy to believe that the WW, especially the Weasleys, would have little idea about Christmas. Much as I love the HP books, I feel JKR has been a bit sloppy about her thinking here. In the last 2 or 3 books, I find the main message to be more about politics than magic. The Ministry of Magic is very much about spin. The Freedom Fighters are the terrorists and vice versa. Barry From logistis_20 at yahoo.gr Mon Apr 9 07:49:25 2007 From: logistis_20 at yahoo.gr (george_19.5 george) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:49:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: Death, where is thy...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070409074925.36960.qmail@web27302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167230 > Barry: > I've been getting some interesting replies re Christmas in the Potterverse. Another thing that's been bothering me is death. When a W or W dies, they (all?) move into picture frames and seem to maintain their existence. Does it mean that they all have a picture frame horcrux? Or is it that JKR can't really bring herself to kill her characters? George Replies: I believe that only the w or w that has made something of their life can have a picture. The others have just a portrait. If the people wanted. As an example DD must have more than one portrait. One for sure in Hogwarts as he was a headmaster. George --------------------------------- ?????????????? Yahoo! ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???? ???? (spam); ?? Yahoo! Mail ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? http://login.yahoo.com/config/mail?.intl=gr [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 08:53:35 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:53:35 -0000 Subject: What happens after death (Was Re: Death, where is thy...?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167231 > Barry > Another thing that's been bothering me is death. When a W or W dies, they (all?) move into picture frames and seem to maintain their existence. Does it mean that they all have a picture frame horcrux? Or is it that JKR can't really bring herself to kill her characters? Goddlefrood: It is one of the continuing mysteries of the series. In respect of ghosts we are apparently to learn more of them in book 7. The portraits, so JKR tells us, repeat catchphrases only, more or less, from when they were alive. My opinion, fwiw, is that the portrait that we have seen the most of in the series to date (Phineas Nigellus) does rather more than simply repeat catchphrases. The portraits had been a useful part of DD's spy network by being able to keep an eye on matters elsewhere. It may transpire that a portrtait was DD's original informant for the happenings at Godric's Hollow when Harry's parents were kiled. This also suggests more than just catchphrase repetition to me, but JKR has said it is simply catchphrases in an interview (the joint Mugglenet / Leaky Cauldron one I believe). OTOH it could have been by patronus or another form of communication altogether that he found out seemingly so quickly. The pictures, in terms of photographs, seem only to be able to wave, or scowl in Sirius's case, and smile. There is also no kind of Horcrux at work for the creation of any of these things, otherwise the WW would be split between those killed to create a Horcrux and those doing the killing to create one. :). My view is that only LV and possibly Grindelwald of the wizards and witches named in the serties so far have or had a Horcrux or Horcruxes. Of course, Barry, as you suggest, it may just be a case of JKR having difficulty letting go of her characters. This seems to be reinforced by the shades appearing on the US cover that was recently released. Not much sting to death at all :). This will hopefully change in book 7 when we see the real consequences of death :>. The other small point I make is that, of the characters who have died so far few have actually been met again. Quirrell would be one example of this. The title of book 7 would suggest that we will be spending some time with those who have died at points during the story's course, and perhaps at the same time some further light will be shed on this matter. This is all I can tell you, off the top of my head anyway ;) Goddlefrood From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 9 14:21:58 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:21:58 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167232 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "India Jones" wrote: > > http://www.bloomsbury.com/media/hp7childrens_high_complete.jpg > > > I noticed that on the inside jacket of DH there's an image of a stag, I > don't remember seeing it on the other books (so I'm guessing it's not a > company logo). Do you think it means that somehow Harry will be helped > by his dad? I know James isn't coming back but do you think something he > may have left behind will help Harry in his search? Geoff: It doesn't necessarily indicate anything to do with James. Remember that Harry's own Patronus is a stag. JKR hammered this home to us in a number of sources in canon: 'The Patronus turned. It was cantering back towards Harry across the still surface of the water. It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn either. It was a stag.' (POA "Hermione's Secret" p.300 UK edition) 'He was never going to see Ron and Hermione again - And their faces burst clearly into his mind as he fought for breath. "EXPECTO PATRONUM!" An enormous silver stag erupted from the tip of Harry's wand; its antlers caught the Dementor in the place where the heart should have been; it was thrown backwards, weightless as darkeness and as the stag charged, the Dementor swooped away, bat-like and defeated. (OOTP "Dudley Demented" p.22 UK edition) 'Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge and imagined her being sacked. "Expecto Patronum!" His silver stag erupted from the end of his wand and cantered the length of the Hall.' (OOTP "OWLs" p.630 UK edition) My feeling, for what it's worth, is that Harry will be calling on his Patronus again in DH. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 14:26:30 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:26:30 -0000 Subject: What happens after death (Was Re: Death, where is thy...?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167233 > Goddlefrood: > It is one of the continuing mysteries of the series. In respect > of ghosts we are apparently to learn more of them in book 7. The > portraits, so JKR tells us, repeat catchphrases only, more or > less, from when they were alive. My opinion, fwiw, is that the > portrait that we have seen the most of in the series to date > (Phineas Nigellus) does rather more than simply repeat > catchphrases. zgirnius: I tend to agree abd Phineas. He even appears to take completely independent actions on his own initiative for his own personal reasons. For example when he is told that Sirius has died, and he goes back to 12 GP to investigate. My thoughts on this are that perhaps the portraits do not retain all that much details of their past lives, more just general traits, but are able to act in the present somewhat as they might have. So PNB remains snarky (as he presumably was in his past life as Hogwarts' least favorite Headmaster) and concerned with the fate of his descendants, and he can shuttle back and forth between Hogwarts and 12 GP interacting with all he meets in those places, but could not recount secrets of his past actual life. And likewise Dumbledore's portrait will retain a quirky sense of humor, wise demeanor, concern with the fate of Hogwarts and its human residents, and opposition to prejudice against Muggle-borns and non-human magical creatures, but, likewise, will not be able to shed all that much light on the living Dumbledore's secrets and actions. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 14:38:28 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:38:28 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167234 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" > wrote: > > > > Betsy Hp: > > When DH finally comes out, this is the post that will either give > me > > reason to gloat or force me to eat some crow. A breakdown of what > > I'm sure will happen, what I think will happen, and what I hope > will > > happen. > > > Quick_Silver: > Things that I'm fairly confident about: > > --Snape is DDM. > Things that I'd love to see (but probably won't happen): > --Snape isn't simply DDM he's....Marauder!Snape (loyal to the cause > but independent and with his own code). zgirnius: I wonder that this is in the list of things that probably won't happen. It seems to me that this is something extremely likely to be left to the readers' interpretation, since the books are narrated in the limited third person. We don't know why Snape does things, in other words, and will not know for sure even if he tells us in gory detail on page. Like you, I believe Snape is DDM!. And I think we already have excellent reasons for believing him to be 'independent and with his own code'. At the end of Prisoner of Azkaban, for example, he was clearly acting on his own initiative and based on his own ideas. Dumbledore was not there telling him what to do or pulling his strings, and would, in my opinion, have preferred the matter to have been handled somewhat differently. It seems highly unlikely to me that DH would overturn this. > Quick_Silver: > --Harry realizes that Snape is good (on his own...no help from > anyone) quite early in the book and shamelessly uses it to his > personal advantage while Snape is totally unaware. zgirnius: Oh, this would be fun! But I agree, fairly unlikely. It seems to me that Harry's closing thoughts on Snape in HBP are setting up their next meeting as one Harry will experience, at least at first, as a confrontation between enemies. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Apr 9 14:39:22 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:39:22 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167235 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Ken: > > > > But if you are setting your story > > on planet Earth your weeks need to have seven days, your months the > > appropriate number of days, > > zgirnius: > I think this is too high a standard to hold an author to. When you > pick up a mystery, a spy novel, a romance, a western, or 'literature' > (assuming you read any of the above, naturally...)--do you run a > mental calendar and make sure that weekends are indeed a multiple of > seven days apart? Ken: In every case? Surely not. For the record I do read "literature" but rarely mysteries, spy novels, romances, or westerns. The thing is that when something is critical to the story like full moons to a werewolf, then yes, I do demand that the author get it right. When something is obvious like the number of days in a week or the fact that months do not start on the same day of the week from year to year, then yes, I do demand that the author get it right. There are many cheats a lazy author can use to avoid these problems like being vague about time intervals, months and days. Fictional works don't have to be set in any specific year and stories that don't span more than a year can't have some of these issues. But when an author does take the time to mention these details I expect her or him to get them right. > > > Ken: > > Above all you should > > not write time travel into your story unless you *have* taken a > course in > > tensor calculus! > > zgirnius: > As one who has done that and more, I wonder. What did she get wrong? > Ken: I suppose I should admit that I just hate time travel stories in general. It is patently obvious to me that it is impossible. Human nature being what it is our "descendents" would be constantly strip mining earlier time periods and generally making human life as we know it impossible if time travel really existed. I am confident that it will never be invented for this reason alone. But this is fiction and I will tolerate time travel stories if they are amusing enough. What did she get wrong? Well the Earth moves for one thing. Time travel machines must be able to account for this. You could argue that a time turner can magically account for this and I *would* buy that if the argument had been made but it wasn't. And if you do make that argument then you cannot simultaneously have a world in which many witches and wizards struggle to master the very difficult art of apparation and some fail. The reason is that you could simply manufacture "time turners" that include the ability to move through space but not time. Then only those with a nostalgia for the old fashioned ways would have to learn to apparate. If you are not going to do even *that* then you owe me a reason why not. Then there is the problem I have with a Harry Potter who is de-souled in a dementor attack coming back from the future to save himself. How is that possible? Something similar happens in the concluding episode of "Red Dwarf" but I accept that in a comedy series. They also had an earlier time travel frolic that was wickedly funny, perhaps the only time travel story I have *truly* enjoyed. Finally there is the energy problem. In order to transport yourself back in time you have to somehow create a copy of the mass contained in your body because during the period you are time traveling there are either two copies of your self, or the matter that your body will eventually be made of. This either requires enormous amounts of energy to create a "new you" out of nothing or else you have to create a copy of yourself from matter existing in your world. If the former, where does this energy come from and what an awesome weapon it would make when used in reverse. If the latter, my what a fascinating technology you have there. Time travel has been done to death why not write a story about that instead? Of course that would more or less be the basis of David Brin's "Kiln People" sans any notion of time travel. So unless it is being played for laughs, I could do without time travel. On a less SF nerdy level I also think that time travel would profoundly change us and our society and I don't think any time travel author has ever even begun to explore this. I'm not even sure it is possible to imagine what time travel would do to use. > > --zgirnius, noting with amusement that what *she* finds most > intriguing is the other characters of the Potterverse, not its > logistics. > Ken: I would say the same thing and in fact I believe that I have already. Those (others) who have reacted so strongly to that post should keep in mind that I do enjoy these books quite a bit after all. I'd enjoy them more without the flaws I see in the structure of the Potterverse. Ken From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 14:49:51 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:49:51 -0000 Subject: What happens after death (Was Re: Death, where is thy...?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167236 > > Goddlefrood: > > It is one of the continuing mysteries of the series. In respect > > of ghosts we are apparently to learn more of them in book 7. The > > portraits, so JKR tells us, repeat catchphrases only, more or > > less, from when they were alive. My opinion, fwiw, is that the > > portrait that we have seen the most of in the series to date > > (Phineas Nigellus) does rather more than simply repeat > > catchphrases. > zgirnius: > I tend to agree abd Phineas. He even appears to take completely > independent actions on his own initiative for his own personal > reasons. For example when he is told that Sirius has died, and he > goes back to 12 GP to investigate. > > My thoughts on this are that perhaps the portraits do not retain > all that much details of their past lives, more just general traits, > but are able to act in the present somewhat as they might have. Ryan: Agreed. I tend to think the portraits are some of the sloppiest writing JKR has done. If she intended to portray them (as she seems to have said in interviews) as doing nothing more than repeating catchphrases, then I think she's failed. The portraits (especially the ones in the Headmaster's office) certainly seem to be self-aware. Even if they don't retain much memory of their lives, they seem to have retained the memories of what they've seen and heard since their creation. And, they clearly interact with each other and their surroundings. Given that, I'd say the portraits are sentient beings, and that Dumbledore's portrait will most likely help Harry to defeat Voldemort, but probably won't have any juicy secrets to share. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 16:37:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:37:16 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167237 Quick_Silver wrote: > I'll play this game too. > > Things that I'm fairly confident about: > > --Voldemort will be defeated utterly and Harry will survive. > > --Snape is DDM. > > --Hermione and Ron will survive. Carol responds: Agreed on all three. > Quick_Silver: > Things that I'm semi-confident about: > > --Draco will be a huge asset to the "good" side. > > --Harry is not a horcrux. Carol: I agree that Harry is not a Horcrux, but I'm divided on Draco's role and importance. I think he'll be persuaded by Snape to turn against Voldemort, but at the last minute. I don't think, for example, that he'll be involved in any Horcrux hunts. (Zacaharias Smith, OTOH, will probably help HRH to find, but not destroy, the Hufflepuff Horcrux). Quick_Silver: > --The Dementors will play a rather large role in DH and Snape's > method of fighting them is most defiantly wrong or flawed in some way > that will cost someone their life (Neville? Luna?). Carol: You mean "definitely," not "defiantly," right? If so, I completely disagree. Many wizards, including adult wizards, have difficulty casting a Patronus, and Harry himself points out that casting a Patronus for fun in the RoR is very different from casting one when you're facing a Dementor, which even he finds difficult. (TT!Harry was in no danger from the Dementors that were attacking his other self and Sirius; casting a Patronus on Magnolia Crescent facing only two Dementors was much more difficult.) He wishes that they had a Boggart to practice on (the problem is, it would have been confused by all the people or turned into the Boggart of the person facing it instead of his own). So I think that Hermione (who pays attention in Snape's classes) will use Snape's alternate method of fighting a Boggart, which will prove very effective indeed, and cause HRH to start wondering why the "evil" Snape would have taught them such an effective piece of defensive magic. They may start wondering about, and testing, other things he taught, find them effective, and decide to go back to Hogwarts for the HBP's book and/or start wondering about Snape himself and the events on the tower. I agree, however, that the reference to Snape's alternate method of fighting Dementors was not just tossed in lightly. It will prove to be very important. But I doubt very much that it will be ineffective given Snape's knowledge of both the Dark Arts and Healing. > Quick_Silver: > --The Weasley wedding will be disrupted in some manner...either by Death Eaters or an emergency of some sort. Carol: I have mixed feelings on this one. I think that if they keep it small and semi-private, it will go off smoothly. (Maybe it will be a double wedding with Tonks and Lupin as the other couple!) But I certainly hope that Madame Maxime doesn't bring her giant carriage and Abraxan horses to the Burrow. They'll be a bit hard to hide. > Quick_Silver: > --Snape will survive. Carol: I'm not wuite as confident as you seem to be, but I hope you're right. Either JKR planned him to live all along or she gave him a reprieve. He's just too fascinating, too conflicted, too talented, to kill off. Let him live a useful life doing research for St. Mungo's or write textbooks or even teach DADA if the curse is lifted. (He's an expert potion-maker, but I don't think he likes *teaching* Potions because the kids don't appreciate the subject.) > Quick_Silver: > --The Prank was an attempt to kill Snape plain and simple. Carol: I don't think it's quite that simple. Sirius certainly wanted to terrify Severus and put him in terrible danger, but thinking before he acts isn't his strong point. I think that Snape is right about James being involved from the beginning and getting cold feet. At any rate, I think that the Prank prompted him to invent Sectumsempra as an act of revenge. I doubt that it affected his studies--he would still want to excel in his NEWTs, but maybe it affected his ambitions, pushing him toward the Death Eaters out of revenge as well as a desire for recognition. (I don't know, but we'll find out!) > Quick_Silver: > Things that I'd love to see (but probably won't happen): > > --Harry kills Voldemort with an AK however because Harry was infected by a sliver of Voldemort's soul the soul splitting effects of AK cut the Voldemort out of Harry. Carol: No, thanks. It's unfortunate that Snape had no good alternative to using an AK. I don't want Harry to have to use one and suffer the kind of remorse that Snape is suffering. Harry may have powers that he doesn't yet know about acquired from Voldemort at GH. I can see him possessing Voldemort, filling him with unendurable Love, and forcing him through the Veil that way. Voldie with his fragmented soul would be unable to leave, but Harry could use Sirius's body, now separated from his soul, to return to his own body outside the Veil. Unfortunately for my theory, the U.S. cover seems to suggest some alternate solution. But the absence of wands suggests that no AK will be involved, either. > Quick_Silver: > --Harry realizes that Snape is good (on his own...no help from anyone) quite early in the book and shamelessly uses it to his personal advantage while Snape is totally unaware. Carol: On his own? That strikes me as very unlikely. Not only does Harry hate Snape and want revenge against him, Harry has very few epiphanies of that sort. The closest is his recognition that Luna isn't just some kook. I think it will be Hermione who figures out that Snape is good (in the sense of loyal to DD and opposed to Voldemort) and that she'll draw out details of what really happened on the tower, remind Harry that Snape spied for DD before Godric's Hollow, and, bit by bit, cause him to start questioning his own conclusions so that he's ready, when he finally encounters Snape, to accept what Snape has to say and accept his help. I don't know what you mean by shamelessly using Snape's goodness (or loyalty to DD?) on his own without Snape's awareness of what Harry is doing. > Quick_Silver: > --Snape isn't simply DDM he's....Marauder!Snape (loyal to the cause > but independent and with his own code). Carol: Hmm. I think "Marauder" just refers to a certain group of four who sneaked around the castle under James's Invisibility Cloak looking for secret passages and whatnot. I agree that Snape has his own independent moral code, but I'm not sure that we'll discover it. I think his loyalty to Dumbledore is personal, just as his enmity to Voldemort is personal (but based on lines that his moral code won't allow him to cross, such as being partly responsible for the death of a baby). His opposition to Voldemort trumps other personal enmities, such as his hatred of James Potter and contempt for Harry, just as his loyalty to Dumbledore trumps his personal safety and reputation. > Quick_Silver: > --A quantity of Weasley's, at least one professor, and several > students perish. Carol: Not a "quantity" of Weasleys, IMO, but probably at least one Weasley. Maybe Percy will die redeemed and either Bill or Charlie will die. It's possible that the Twins are the two whose deaths were unplanned. (Please, JKR, don't kill off a single Twin. That would be too cruel to the other one.) I think that Molly's Boggart foreshadows at least one death. I agree that a teacher, probably Hagrid, will die (but not before he tells Harry why he trusted Snape). As for students, I hope not. Maybe Luna though I hope not. I like her a lot. Neville will survive to teach his beloved Herbology (and his Mimbulus Mimbletonia will come in handy for something). Quick_Silver: > --Snape will be forced to eat a large quantity of crow about either > Harry or James or both. In fact I'd settle for any humbling of > Snape. Carol: I don't understand this reaction given your belief that the so-called Prank was a murder plot pure and simple. And James *was* arrogant, however heroic he later proved himself. Snape will certainly be forced to accept Harry's abilities, but maybe he saw them all along and only wanted his Slytherin students and their Death Eater parents, as well as Voldemort himself, to underestimate him. And I think that he himself was trying to push Harry, trying to make him see and overcome his own inadequacies (a method that might have worked for him as a boy but unfortunately not for Harry). At any rate, I have no desire to see Snape eat crow. It's much more important to the themes and plot of the book, and to Harry's development as a hero, for him to forgive Snape and accept his help. In my view, of course. Carol, who also thinks that the secrets that Petunia has been concealing from both Vernon and Harry for sixteen years will come bursting out of her just before Harry's seventeenth birthday From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Apr 9 16:37:00 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:37:00 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167238 India Jones wrote: > > http://www.bloomsbury.com/media/hp7childrens_high_complete.jpg > > > > > > I noticed that on the inside jacket of DH there's an image of a stag, I > > don't remember seeing it on the other books (so I'm guessing it's not a > > company logo). Do you think it means that somehow Harry will be helped > > by his dad? I know James isn't coming back but do you think something he > > may have left behind will help Harry in his search? > Geoff: > It doesn't necessarily indicate anything to do with James. > > Remember that Harry's own Patronus is a stag. JKR hammered this home > to us in a number of sources in canon: Dana: I do not totally agree because we are also told that his Patronus = Prongs not just any stag. This is what DD told Harry in PoA. Pg312 UKed paperback: `Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular Patronus? Prongs rode again last night' `So you did see your father last night Harry you found him inside yourself.' End quote from canon. For what it is worth I do think Harry's father and mother (and the once we love that never truly leave us, like Sirius and DD)will play a significant role in DH. Ps: Has anyone noticed the face of a woman on the back on the UK cover? When you look at the clouds underneath the moon, you see a face of a woman; with the white being her face, the grey her hair and blue to outline the face? Could this be Harry's mother? Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 16:54:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:54:16 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse/Sarah Monette books/timetravel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167239 > Betsy Hp (who loves the sort of world building that kind of slowly > builds its layers and depths and is most notable when it's *not* > there, and thinks Sarah Monette does a good job at it, and also > wonders if there's some sort of award for longest sign off tag) Alla: Oh my goodness. You just had to mention Sarah Monette to make me to respond, yes? You **know** that I adore these books and will be forever grateful to you for recommending them, but I have to disagree, sort of. While I do not think that her world building is horrible or worse then some other universes I read about, I found it often to be quite confusing and find that JKR is much better in introducing detailed, richly layered world, no matter how many inconsistencies we can find in Potterverse. Having said that, I have to say that I find Sarah Monette books to be superior on more important level ( for me) ? in writing character driven story. There was not once while I read those books that I felt that Felix and Mildmay behaved as somebody else, contrary to what I felt they are as "people". Felix does not loose his obnoxiousness, his desire to be in control even when he is going through hell and Mildmay is well, Mildmay, always. I cannot imagine Sarah Monette for example writing Dumbledore "the giver of second chances" as not giving Sirius a second chance, because to me that compromises one of the core qualities of Dumbledore as a character a great deal. No matter how much plot will demand it. Do not get me wrong, I believe sometimes characters in Potterverse do influence the plot, but I think that often enough the contrary happens ? the character development is sacrificed to make plot move along. Which is sometimes fine, the characters are still interesting, but sometimes it grates on me badly. I mean Ron was supposed to overcome his Quidditch insecurities in OOP, wasn't he? Why is he back to them in HBP? > Ken: > > I suppose I should admit that I just hate time travel stories in > general. It is patently obvious to me that it is impossible. Human > nature being what it is our "descendents" would be constantly strip > mining earlier time periods and generally making human life as we know > it impossible if time travel really existed. I am confident that it > will never be invented for this reason alone. > > But this is fiction and I will tolerate time travel stories if they > are amusing enough. What did she get wrong? Well the Earth moves for > one thing. Time travel machines must be able to account for this. You > could argue that a time turner can magically account for this and I > *would* buy that if the argument had been made but it wasn't. And if > you do make that argument then you cannot simultaneously have a world > in which many witches and wizards struggle to master the very > difficult art of apparition and some fail. The reason is that you > could simply manufacture "time turners" that include the ability to > move through space but not time. Then only those with a nostalgia for > the old fashioned ways would have to learn to apparate. If you are not > going to do even *that* then you owe me a reason why not. > > Then there is the problem I have with a Harry Potter who is de- souled > in a dementor attack coming back from the future to save himself. How > is that possible? Something similar happens in the concluding episode > of "Red Dwarf" but I accept that in a comedy series. They also had an > earlier time travel frolic that was wickedly funny, perhaps the only > time travel story I have *truly* enjoyed. > > Finally there is the energy problem. In order to transport yourself > back in time you have to somehow create a copy of the mass contained > in your body because during the period you are time traveling there > are either two copies of your self, or the matter that your body will > eventually be made of. This either requires enormous amounts of energy > to create a "new you" out of nothing or else you have to create a copy > of yourself from matter existing in your world. If the former, where > does this energy come from and what an awesome weapon it would make > when used in reverse. If the latter, my what a fascinating technology > you have there. Time travel has been done to death why not write a > story about that instead? Of course that would more or less be the > basis of David Brin's "Kiln People" sans any notion of time travel. > > So unless it is being played for laughs, I could do without time > travel. On a less SF nerdy level I also think that time travel would > profoundly change us and our society and I don't think any time travel > author has ever even begun to explore this. I'm not even sure it is > possible to imagine what time travel would do to use. Alla: Well, of course I understand what you are saying. I respect your right to criticize that or any other aspect of the series. None of your concerns bothers me in the slightest though, to each their own. I like time travel stories. They may bother me a little when they do not function within the possibility that time travel exists, but I do not believe that JKR's time travel belongs to that category. I think she packaged it very neatly, IF of course you are willing to assume that it is possible. If you just hate time-travel period, that is different story. I did read plenty of SF in my time and the main reason why I like time travel is how it reflects on characters. Time travel to me reflects the longing that many people have to change something that went wrong in the past and I think that I love how JKR shows that Harry and Hermione cannot change that much, cannot change something that Harry would have really wanted to change. THAT what I find so poignant in time travel in PoA. That despite being able to save Sirius, the possibility of time travel will still not let Harry to have a home with him. If time travel will be introduced again in DH, I think we will see again that Harry cannot resurrect his parents, no matter how much he wants to. On the other hand, they did save Sirius and wouldn't many of us in RL wish to change something that we did wrong and never can turn time back? I know I would for sure. I think some other people may want to do that too. I know it is impossible, but I sure like to see that sort of wish fulfillment sometimes in fantasy or science fiction. So, yeah, like time travel, would not mind to see it again at all. JMO, Alla From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 16:54:39 2007 From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (sarah barthell) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:54:39 -0000 Subject: Number of Dead people Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167240 JK has said repeatedly that two people will die in DH but one who was on her list survives now. What is driving me crazy is wondering if she includes LV in her list or is he a given, and actually three people die because she has also said that he has become less and less human over the years? Sarah From mongo62aa at yahoo.ca Mon Apr 9 17:38:57 2007 From: mongo62aa at yahoo.ca (Bill) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:38:57 -0000 Subject: Number of Dead people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167241 What she said is that two ADDITIONAL people, who had not originally been scheduled to die, end up dying in DH, and that one of the people who had been scheduled to die in DH got a 'reprieve', and does not die in the book. There is no indication of the total number of deaths in DH, but I think that the list will include one or more of the 'fan favorites'. Bill --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sarah barthell" wrote: > > JK has said repeatedly that two people will die in DH but > one who was on her list survives now. What is driving me > crazy is wondering if she includes LV in her list or is > he a given, and actually three people die because she has > also said that he has become less and less human over the > years? > > Sarah > From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Apr 9 17:54:24 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:54:24 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: <00a401c77a0f$244ef180$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167242 > > Shelley: > > "Mars is bright tonight" can have several meanings, and only ONE of them has > anything to do with the calculation of how close it is to Earth and how > often it occurs. I spend many clear nights out on the lawn with a telescope so I have a passing acquaintance with Mars. At its minimum it is dimmer than Bellatrix, at its maximum it is brighter than Sirius. That is an enormous range and the only sensible physical meaning of the phrase "Mars is bright tonight" is tied to this. Atmospheric phenomena affect the entire sky and Mars won't appear particularly bright or dim due to them since everything else will vary by the same degree. In fact the opposite is true. Crystal clear nights when everything is in fact brighter than normal are chiefly notable because the transparency of the atmosphere allows you to see things that are normally too faint to see. Mars peeking through a hole in the clouds is unlikely to elicit this comment. The centaur certainly was making a mystical comment. I know that, you know that, the centaur knows that. Given all the rest I do not believe that the author knows that. > Shelley: > > By the way, what the hell does tensor calculus have to do with time travel? > My husband is an engineer, he uses tensor calculus in his daily professional > life, and he agrees with me that your wisecrack about needing it to be able > to write any story involving time travel is just bullshit. Ken: I thank you for your thoughtful and restrained language. Perhaps you and your husband have heard of the concept of humor? I apologize if my use of hyperbole offended you both. I am an engineer too and most of my peers would have recognized that as a comedic exaggeration. As to criticizing the author/plot/characters, you *have* read the other posts on this list haven't you? My post contained nearly as much compliment as critique. That makes it fairly mild by the standards of this list. Perhaps we should rehash the Ton Tongue Toffee Incident for your benefit.... Ken, who, all should remember, does not join lists to discuss books he doesn't like and who only rarely joins lists to discuss books he *does* like. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 17:57:02 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:57:02 -0000 Subject: What happens after death - Portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167243 --- "rlace2003" wrote: > > >> Goddlefrood: > >> It is one of the continuing mysteries of the series. > >> ... The portraits, so JKR tells us, repeat > >> catchphrases only, more or less, from when they were > >> alive. My opinion, fwiw, is that the portrait that > >> we have seen the most of in the series to date > >> (Phineas Nigellus) does rather more than simply > >> repeat catchphrases. > > > zgirnius: > > I tend to agree abd Phineas. He even appears to take > > completely independent actions on his own initiative > ... > > > Ryan: > > Agreed. > > I tend to think the portraits are some of the sloppiest > writing JKR has done. If she intended to portray them > ... as doing nothing more than repeating catchphrases, > then I think she's failed. > > The portraits (especially the ones in the Headmaster's > office) certainly seem to be self-aware. ... And, they > clearly interact with each other and their surroundings. > > Given that, I'd say the portraits are sentient beings, > ... bboyminn: While JKR hasn't spelled it out in detail, she clearly makes a distinction between 'portraits' and 'HEADMASTER Portraits'. Headmaster's leave a faint imprint of them selves at Hogwarts. That 'faint imprint' gives them a level of realization that is not found in the typical portraits. You will notice that all the seeming sentient portraits have indeed been Headmaster portraits. All the seeming non-sentient, like Mrs. Black, have NOT been Headmaster portraits. Again, JKR hasn't really made this distinction clear, but I think given what we see in the books and what she has said in interviews, it can reasonably be deduced. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:00:30 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:00:30 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167244 > > Geoff: > > It doesn't necessarily indicate anything to do with James. > > > > Remember that Harry's own Patronus is a stag. JKR hammered this > home > > to us in a number of sources in canon: > > Dana: > I do not totally agree because we are also told that his Patronus = > Prongs not just any stag. > > This is what DD told Harry in PoA. > > Pg312 UKed paperback: > > `Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly > when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular > Patronus? Prongs rode again last night' > > `So you did see your father last night Harry you found him inside > yourself.' > > End quote from canon. > Ryan: Well, either Dumbledore was speaking metaphorically or Hermione's Patronus is Ron and Tonk's is Lupin. I do think however, that the form of the patronus is linked to the inspiration for the Patronus. Which makes me wonder why Ron's patronus is a Jack Russell terrier and Cho Chang's is a swan. Also, Dumbledore's phoenix Patronus (probably inspired by Fawkes) suggests that DD might've felt closer to Fawkes than any of his human associate. That's a sad thought, because it tends to emphasize how isolated DD feels, even from his friends and allies. But, as JKR has said, "where is his equal?" But, I think it also may indicate the following: 1. The concept of the phoenix may be even more important to Dumbledore (and perhaps to the story) than just that Fawkes is a phoenix. I mean, why call your resistance movement "The Order of the Phoenix?" Maybe some of the Order members will clarify that in DH. 2. Fawkes, himself, might be far more important tham we may have thought. Ryan, who hopes this post is coherent. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Apr 9 18:06:30 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:06:30 -0000 Subject: What happens after death - Portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167245 bboyminn: > > You will notice that all the seeming > sentient portraits have indeed been Headmaster portraits. > All the seeming non-sentient, like Mrs. Black, have NOT > been Headmaster portraits. Ceridwen: Maybe it's an institution thing. Didn't a wizard from a portrait at St. Mungo's chase Ron up the stairs (through the other picture frames) trying to figure out what horrible disease his freckles showed, in OotP? Ceridwen. From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 17:29:47 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:29:47 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167246 > Carol: > I agree that Harry is not a Horcrux, but I'm divided on Draco's role > and importance. I think he'll be persuaded by Snape to turn against > Voldemort, but at the last minute. I don't think, for example, that > he'll be involved in any Horcrux hunts. (Zacaharias Smith, OTOH, will > probably help HRH to find, but not destroy, the Hufflepuff Horcrux). > Ryan: If Draco has a role to play in Book 7, I'm not sure what it is. He's wanted by Voldie & the DE's. Where's he going to go? Will he & Narcissa go into hiding? If so, who can they trust? Perhaps Snape, but nobody else. I mean, Bella seems to be far more loyal to Voldemort than to her sister. On the other hand, what if Draco &/or Narcissa are killed? Will Lucius attempt to break out of Azkiban & take revenge on Voldie & DE's? I could see him doing that. Zacharias Smith does seem to be brave enough for the task (he responded to the commotion in the hallways in HBP,) and he has the skills, but he's still untested. I wonder if he has some information that he doesn't even realize is valuable. > > Carol: > You mean "definitely," not "defiantly," right? If so, I completely > disagree. Many wizards, including adult wizards, have difficulty > casting a Patronus, and Harry himself points out that casting a > Patronus for fun in the RoR is very different from casting one when > you're facing a Dementor, which even he finds difficult. (TT!Harry was > in no danger from the Dementors that were attacking his other self and > Sirius; casting a Patronus on Magnolia Crescent facing only two > Dementors was much more difficult.) He wishes that they had a Boggart > to practice on (the problem is, it would have been confused by all the > people or turned into the Boggart of the person facing it instead of > his own). So I think that Hermione (who pays attention in Snape's > classes) will use Snape's alternate method of fighting a Boggart, > which will prove very effective indeed, and cause HRH to start > wondering why the "evil" Snape would have taught them such an > effective piece of defensive magic. They may start wondering about, > and testing, other things he taught, find them effective, and decide > to go back to Hogwarts for the HBP's book and/or start wondering about > Snape himself and the events on the tower. I agree, however, that the > reference to Snape's alternate method of fighting Dementors was not > just tossed in lightly. It will prove to be very important. But I > doubt very much that it will be ineffective given Snape's knowledge of > both the Dark Arts and Healing. > > Ryan: Actually, I think TT Harry was indeed potentially in danger from the Dementors at the lake. He just happened to get the jump on them and generate a Patronus powerful enough to chase them all off. Snape's defense against Dementor's may not involve fighting them at all. A master occlumens may actually be able to mask himself so completely that he can walk unnoticed through a whole horde of Dementors. > Carol: I can see him > possessing Voldemort, filling him with unendurable Love, and forcing > him through the Veil that way. Voldie with his fragmented soul would > be unable to leave, but Harry could use Sirius's body, now separated > from his soul, to return to his own body outside the Veil. > Unfortunately for my theory, the U.S. cover seems to suggest some > alternate solution. But the absence of wands suggests that no AK will > be involved, either. > > Ryan: Wait. When did Sirius's body separate from his soul? As best I can recall, we haven't seen any support for that in canon. Sirius's fell through the Veil in his body. I don't see any reason to think that his soul has been separated from his body. > Carol: I like her a lot. Neville will > survive to teach his beloved Herbology (and his Mimbulus Mimbletonia > will come in handy for something). > Ryan: I think we've already seen the effects of the Mimbulus Mimbletonia in OotP. It just hasn't been made explicit yet. Notice that the students who got sprayed by it on the train are the ones hearing the voices behind the veil. I think the plant has an important role to play in Deathly Hallows. > > Carol, who also thinks that the secrets that Petunia has been > concealing from both Vernon and Harry for sixteen years will come > bursting out of her just before Harry's seventeenth birthday > Ryan, who agrees and can't wait to (FINALLY!!!) find out what the heck it is! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Apr 9 18:15:06 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:15:06 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167247 Ryan: *(snip)* > I do think however, that the form of the patronus is linked to the inspiration for the Patronus. Which makes me wonder why Ron's patronus is a Jack Russell terrier and Cho Chang's is a swan. Ceridwen: Jack Russells are tenacious and hyper. My friend has a blind Jack Russell, but that doesn't stop her: she will still chase down any strange dog she smells on her lawn. She is loyal; brave; and fearless, which is not always the same thing as brave. Maybe this characterizes Ron. As for Cho, I think her Patronus was a hint that she was still loyal to and in love with Cedric, since swans mate for life (or at least, I've always heard that they do). Ryan: > 1. The concept of the phoenix may be even more important to Dumbledore (and perhaps to the story) than just that Fawkes is a phoenix. I mean, why call your resistance movement "The Order of the Phoenix?" Maybe some of the Order members will clarify that in DH. Ceridwen: The phoenix self-immolates and rises, recreated again, from its own ashes. I think the phoenix symbolism parallels Dumbledore's usual habit of giving second chances. And for naming the organization for it, DD is associated with the Phoenix, as we find out (but of course the Order members would already know that), and at least one (if not many more than one) person in the Order has been given a second or subsequent chance by DD. That's just my opinion, of course. Ceridwen. From cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:13:40 2007 From: cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com (Cassandra Lee) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What if Dumbledore never left? Message-ID: <20070409181340.31857.qmail@web53809.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167248 I'm not sure if this has been dicussed here, but my friends and I are re-reading all 6 books together and something came to my mind about Dumbledore. All those times that he left the school at what seemed like the most inappropiate time (example: SS when the trio ran into McGonagal and she informed them that he was gone. OOTP when he vanished in his office) What if he never left? He was the transfiguration teacher, so he could have easily turned himself into a desk against the wall. If not, where was Dumbledore all those times? And how did he know just when to show up? Could it be that he was at Hogwarts the whole time and new what was going on? cassandralee1120 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:22:04 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:22:04 -0000 Subject: What happens after death - Portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167249 --- "Ceridwen" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > > You will notice that all the seeming sentient > > portraits have indeed been Headmaster portraits. > > All the seeming non-sentient, like Mrs. Black, have > > NOT been Headmaster portraits. > > Ceridwen: > Maybe it's an institution thing. Didn't a wizard from > a portrait at St. Mungo's chase Ron up the stairs > (through the other picture frames) trying to figure out > what horrible disease his freckles showed, in OotP? > > Ceridwen. > bboyminn: The portrait of the Healer who chased Ron through St. Mungo's may have appeared somewhat sentient, but how rational did he appear? Not very I would say. Certain not as full realized as the Portraits in Dumbledore's office. This 'healer' seemed to be playing out an ancient role. He certainly hadn't gained any modern knowledge by hanging out a St. Mungo's for an unknown number of centuries. If he was sentient, he would have, if not gained knowledge, at least picked up some information. I would say he was stuck playing out an ancient role that modeled his life and times, which is pretty much what Mrs. Black was doing. In short, he certainly seemed far more 'cartoonie' than the Headmaster portraits. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Apr 9 18:36:09 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:36:09 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167250 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > > I've been getting some interesting replies re Christmas in the > Potterverse. Another thing that's been bothering me is death. When a W > or W dies, they (all?) move into picture frames and seem to maintain > their existence. Does it mean that they all have a picture frame > horcrux? Or is it that JKR can't really bring herself to kill her > characters? > Ken: Well, they are not horcruxes. They are a bit problematical in that dead is supposed to be dead but there are several cheats for that in the Potterverse. Portraits are one and I disagree with another post that says it is only the headmaster portraits. The Fat Lady interacts with the living as much or more so than the headmaster portraits to cite one example. To a much lesser extent you have the photographs of deceased people and images in the Mirror of Erised. There are ghosts too but a plausible story has been woven around them so I don't consider that a cheat. Then there are the echoes from Voldemort's wand. They convey information to Harry that he did not have and could not have by any other means. They plot strategy with him. They actively help him. Pretty heady stuff for "echoes". JKR can definitely bring herself to kill characters but she can't quite stay within her dictum that dead is dead. So while she may say that Dumbledore will not pull a Gandalf I think the odds are at least 50-50 that in some fashion he will do just that. Perhaps the final confrontation will take place in some unusual realm that is neither life nor death and Sirius and Dumbldore will both be able to help Harry. Ken From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:40:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:40:33 -0000 Subject: Motorbike? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167251 --- "India Jones" wrote: > > Hello everyone, I am new to the group, I'm sure you > have already discussed this many times but where do > you think Sirius' old motorbike is? > > indiasjones > bboyminn: Indeed this has been discussed many times, and of course, the final answer is 'We Don't Know'. We don't know what happened to Sirius's motorbike. The last person known to have it was Hagrid. Consequently, I think he still has it. That is, Sirius was captured before Hagrid had a chance to return it, so Hagrid just stored it somewhere at or near Hogwarts and forgot about it. I suspect at some point, Harry will stumble across it again. Now there are certainly some imaginative theories. Some speculate that like all things that need to be 'off-page' temporarily, like the Ford Anglia, the bike is in the Forbidden Forest. Personally, that one seems unlikely to me. Many have speculated that the House at Godrics Hollow belonged to Dumbledore. That it was his ancestral home and he gave permission for the Potter's to hide there. However, it could have been Hagrids family home, in which case, Hagrid may have hidden the motorbike near his family home. Again, that means Harry is likely to find it there. It is possible it was returned to Sirius's family along with his other personal possessions when he was sentenced to Azkaban. That means Harry could stumble across it in one of the out-buildings (storage shed, etc...) at #12 Grimmauld Place. Personally, I think Hagrid just stashed it somewhere at or near Hogwarts and forgot about it. Though, I have been hoping Harry will stumble across it and use it again. For that it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:47:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:47:48 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167252 Barry wrote: > Another thing that's been bothering me is death. When a W or W dies, they (all?) move into picture frames and seem to maintain their existence. Does it mean that they all have a picture frame horcrux? Or is it that JKR can't really bring herself to kill her characters? Carol responds: I agree that death and what happens after it is one of the mysteries of the Potterverse. All we know, really, is that death is not the end of everything that Voldemort envisions it as being. DD in his wisdom regards it as "the next great adventure"; Luna and Harry hear voices beyond the Veil; NHN says that not all wizards choose to become ghosts and that Sirius Black "will have gone on"; Dementors can suck out a person's soul, resulting in a fate worse than death. The portraits, presumably painted during a person's lifetime (see the Wizard of the Month for April on JKR's site) apparently paint the portrait during its subject's lifetime http://www.jkrowling.com and in the case of the headmaster, that portrait somehow magically appears on the office wall when the headmaster dies. But they are not the character himself returned to life. There's no portrait of James or Lily Potter that we know of, but it's possible that one of Sirius Black magically appeared in Grimmauld Place. (Could Regulus's portrait also be there? We know that Mrs. Black's isn't the only one, just the noisiest. I assume that Mr. Black also has a portrait though I'm not sure what we can learn from it. Maybe it will just yell catchphrases like Mrs. Black's.) At any rate, neither the ghosts nor the portraits are reincarnations of the dead person. Ghosts, Snape tells us, are an *imprint* of the person's departed soul. I believe that JKR used the term "imprint" in relation to portraits, too. I agree with some of the points that have been made in previous responses to your post. First and most important, portraits are not Horcruxes, which can only be created through murder, which splits the soul, and an incantation enclosing the soul bit split off by the act of murder in an object. The point of the Horcrux is to keep the (Dark) wizard's soul "anchored" to the earth so that even if his body is destroyed, he can't die. We know of only one wizard who has made multiple Horcruxes, Voldemort, and one other who has made a single Horcrux, probably Grindelwald (IMO). So whatever the portraits are, they're not Horcruxes, the Darkest form of Dark magic. They are not keeping their subjects alive. They are to some degree sentient beings or objects, but so is the Sorting Hat, which supposedly contains some of the "brains" of the Four Founders." I also agree that the portraits, especially that of Phineas Nigellus appear to do more than repeat catch phrases and seem to be capable of independent action (like running off to 12 GP when he hears that Sirius is dead). Phineas also seems to disapprove of Harry's comments about Snape ("Impertinent!" etc.). Someone else brought up the idea that they don't remember their own past lives as living people (I'm not sure about that, but it's true that we haven't seen them referring to those lives), but they certainly have witnessed some interesting conversations in Dumbledore's office and would remember those. I'd like to hear Phineas, who fortunately for the plot has a second portrait in Harry's room at 12 GP, tell Harry about Dumbledore's conversations with Snape--not the one in the forest, unfortunately, but he must have overheard Snape's reports to DD about the Occlumency lessons and much else. He could be a very useful and valuable source of information if Harry will just listen to him. Which takes us back to the question, what are the portraits, exactly? They're not Horcruxes. They don't contain bits of the subject's soul, which can only be split through an act of murder, and is permanently maimed when that soul bit is placed in a Horcrux. (We see the dehumanizing effects of that action in Voldemort's altered appearance.) Unlike ghosts, they have limited mobility, but they, too, seem capable of holding a conversation (as does the Sorting Hat). Even the "recorded voices" of the Marauders can respond in a characteristic fashion to a perceived kindred spirit (Harry, the Twins) or a perceived enemy (Severus Snape). In a more limited way, even photographs can act characteristically (most notably, Percy's leaving the family photo taken in Egypt). I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that something like sympathetic magic is involved here. Just as people in certain cultures fear(ed) being photographed because they thought the photograph would capture their spirit, both a wizarding photograph (to a small extent) and a wizarding portrait (to a larger extent) seem to to me capture something of the subject's personality or character or spirit--*not* the same as his soul, which is the immaterial and immortal essence that will leave the body and pass beyond the Veil when the witch or wizard (or Muggle??) dies. Just as the Founders could place some of their "brains" in the Sorting Hat to determine the proper placement of a student based on his personality and aptitudes and the Marauders could place their voices or personalities in the Marauder's Map to interact in a limited way with those who attempted to discover their secrets, the portraits also seem to capture the voice and personality and facial expressions of the subject. JKR's response to a question about portraits, like most of her interview responses, is both helpful and unhelpful: "[Question]: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them? "[JKR]: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind *a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost,* in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. *They repeat catchphrases, almost.* The portrait of Sirius' mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix?I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained?there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death." Sunday 15 August 2004 J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival ttp://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 So we need to figure out what JKR means by "imprint" or "aura." I think the "almost" is important in "they repeat catchphrases, almost." IOW, I think the portraits of the headmasters and headmistresses are more fully realized, more independent, than the portrait of Mrs. Black. Phineas Nigellus seems as fully realized to me as NHN, JKR to the contrary. And her description of the headmasters' portraits as faint "imprints" of themselves (intentionally left behind to counsel new headmasters?) is too close to Snape's description of ghosts as "the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth" (not the departed soul itself, which is presumably beyond the Veil) to be coincidental. They're not ghosts, not as fully realized as ghosts (who definitely *do* remember their time on earth, as NHN illustrates), but the concept appears to me to be similar. At any rate, please forgive the length of this response. I have trouble thinking in generalities or finding simple answers. But I think we can confidently say that the portraits are not the characters themselves made two-dimensional and transferred to picture frames. We'll probably encounter at least two portraits again, Dumbledore's and Phineas Nigellus's, and I hope they'll give us some answers, but it won't be the same as having the living Dumbledore restored but trapped in a portrait. I think the real DD would consider that a fate worse than death, but his portrait can sleep peacefully, reconciled to being just a portrait of a dead headmaster who has "gone on," as NHN so delicately puts it. Carol, who likes Phineas Nigellus and hopes that he'll be useful in opening Harry's eyes to the possibility of DDM!Snape From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:35:25 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:35:25 -0000 Subject: What happens after death - Portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167253 > bboyminn: > > While JKR hasn't spelled it out in detail, she clearly > makes a distinction between 'portraits' and 'HEADMASTER > Portraits'. Headmaster's leave a faint imprint of them > selves at Hogwarts. That 'faint imprint' gives them a > level of realization that is not found in the typical > portraits. You will notice that all the seeming > sentient portraits have indeed been Headmaster portraits. > All the seeming non-sentient, like Mrs. Black, have NOT > been Headmaster portraits. > > Again, JKR hasn't really made this distinction clear, but > I think given what we see in the books and what she has > said in interviews, it can reasonably be deduced. > Ryan: Has JKR stated that she makes a distinction? I agree that there does seem to be a distinction between Headmaster portraits and the others, but that distinction doesn't seem to be absolute. Several of the other portraits seem to possess, at least, a limited sentience. The Pink Lady, Violet, and Sir Cadogan come to mind. Also, Mrs. Black's portrait sounds insane and senile to me. That may, in fact, have been what she was like when the portrait was commisioned. It's possible that there's a difference between portraits of real people and those of imaginary people. There's also the question of varying skill on the part of the wizards who created the portraits. And, there are probably different methods for creating different kinds of portraits. Maybe the portraits aren't that important, overall, but I don't think JKR thought them over enough when she wrote them into the story. I think Philip K. Dick would've had a blast with them. Ryan, who wonders if--since the Headmaster's office has portraits of past headmasters--the offices of the heads of house have portraits of their predecessors. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 19:11:38 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:11:38 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167254 > Ken: > Fictional works don't have to be set in > any specific year and stories that don't span more than a year can't > have some of these issues. But when an author does take the time to > mention these details I expect her or him to get them right. > zgirnius: So Rowling should not have let Nick name the year of his death, in your view. Fair enough. I do think she included it not in order to establish the correct modern day time reference for her readers (which I believe was already wrong, 1992 Halloween fell on the wrong day of the week), but because, for whatever reason, she likes the year, and she did want to place him in a particular historical era. > Ken: > > I suppose I should admit that I just hate time travel stories in > general. It is patently obvious to me that it is impossible. Human > nature being what it is our "descendents" would be constantly strip > mining earlier time periods and generally making human life as we know > it impossible if time travel really existed. I am confident that it > will never be invented for this reason alone. zgirnius: Unless you can't really change time. This approach has been used elsewhere. The Dragonriders of Pern series comes to mind. In one book the heroine deduces that a certain group of people who disappeared mysteriously in the past wihtout leaving traces must have travelled into the future, and travels back into their time to issue the appropriate invitation. So nothing in her past changes, since it turns out that she was right. (The importance of her action to the plot is that this greatly improves the *future* prospects of her world). Ken: > Then there is the problem I have with a Harry Potter who is de- souled > in a dementor attack coming back from the future to save himself. How > is that possible? zgirnius: It is my opinion that Harry was always saved at the nick of time by his future self, his soul was not sucked out on the pages of the book. Hence, no paradox. More generally, I believe that *nothing* changed as a result of Harry and Hermione's trip. I interpret Dumbledore's hope that they might even save two innocent lives, to mean that he believes they will certainly save Bucky, because he already knows Bucky somehow escaped before his execution. What he hopes, is that this was part of a successful rescue of Black (the second innocent life). Ken: > This either requires enormous amounts of energy > to create a "new you" out of nothing or else you have to create a copy > of yourself from matter existing in your world. If the former, where > does this energy come from and what an awesome weapon it would make > when used in reverse. If the latter, my what a fascinating technology > you have there. zgirnius: You must therefore have an equally great problem with Transfiguration, Conjuring, Refilling Spells, and a host of other magic we have seen in the books, which also seem to violate the law of conservation of energy. But it seems to me you are judging a fantasy with an SF meterstick. Such impossibilities in SF are explained with a slew of technobabble and reference to novel exceptions to the laws of physics invented by future scientists and the like. But not in fantasy. In Tolkien, for example, (my personal gold standard for fantasy worldbuilding...) there are beings of great magical power who can conjure flames, cause fordable rivers to turn into raging floods, and the like, and the only explanation we have of this is that they are Maiar or High Elves who once lived in the presence of the Valar in the Uttermost West. This is very nice and poetic and mythic, but seems to me, from a scientific point of view, to be logically equivalent to "Harry can Apparate because he is a wizard". > > --zgirnius, noting with amusement that what *she* finds most > > intriguing is the other characters of the Potterverse, not its > > logistics. > > > > Ken: > I would say the same thing and in fact I believe that I have already. > Those (others) who have reacted so strongly to that post should keep > in mind that I do enjoy these books quite a bit after all. I'd enjoy > them more without the flaws I see in the structure of the Potterverse. zgirnius: That last was not intended as a criticism or defense of Rowling at all. It was in response to the prediction you made, that someone else would someday publish a work of fiction about the Potterverse, because that fictional world's flaws just beg for correction and someone will be unable to resist. I was just stating a personal preference. As a reader (and writer of fan fiction) I am far more tempted by works about characters in the Potterverse about whom we have limited information owing to the constraints of time and point-of-view that Rowling chose for herself. Stories like Dumbledore's past and how he came to be the very powerful and respected wizard we know in the series, or Snape's behind-the-scenes activities in either or both of the wars, or the details of the Tonks/Lupin romance, or an account of the Marauder Era at Hogwarts, as some examples. From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:54:52 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:54:52 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167255 > Ryan: > *(snip)* > > I do think however, that the form of the patronus is linked to the > inspiration for the Patronus. Which makes me wonder why Ron's > patronus is a Jack Russell terrier and Cho Chang's is a swan. > > Ceridwen: > Jack Russells are tenacious and hyper. My friend has a blind Jack > Russell, but that doesn't stop her: she will still chase down any > strange dog she smells on her lawn. She is loyal; brave; and > fearless, which is not always the same thing as brave. Maybe this > characterizes Ron. > Ryan: Actually, I think that characterizes the relentless, overachieving, prodding Hermione far better than it does Ron. So it seems you've answered that question for me. Thanks! Ceridwen: > As for Cho, I think her Patronus was a hint that she was still loyal > to and in love with Cedric, since swans mate for life (or at least, > I've always heard that they do). Ryan: Perhaps. According to Wikipedia, "Swans usually mate for life, though "divorce" does sometimes occur, particularly following nesting failure." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan There's also a bunch of mythological references mentioned, which are too numerous for me to go into now. In any case, I think Cho's probably played her part in the story already. It's possible that the swan Patronus ties into her flying ability. She is, after all, a Seeker who's dated 2 other Seekers. Interestingly, the constellation Cygnus (the Swan) borders Draco and is in the Zodiac sign of Sagittarius (the Archer, who also happens to be a centaur.) > Ryan: > > 1. The concept of the phoenix may be even more important to > Dumbledore (and perhaps to the story) than just that Fawkes is a > phoenix. I mean, why call your resistance movement "The Order of > the Phoenix?" Maybe some of the Order members will clarify that in > DH. > > Ceridwen: > The phoenix self-immolates and rises, recreated again, from its own > ashes. I think the phoenix symbolism parallels Dumbledore's usual > habit of giving second chances. And for naming the organization for > it, DD is associated with the Phoenix, as we find out (but of course > the Order members would already know that), and at least one (if not > many more than one) person in the Order has been given a second or > subsequent chance by DD. That's just my opinion, of course. > > Ceridwen. Ryan: Those are all good possibilities. Still, I'd like to hear that coming from one of the Order members themselves. Maybe the Order members named it because of their respect for Dumbledore. As it is now, I find myself imagining DD inviting prospective members: DD: "Would you like to join the Order of the Phoenix?" Prospect: "What's that?" DD: "It's the secret resistance I'm putting together to fight Voldemort." Prospect: "Why's it called the Order of the Phoenix?" DD: "Because I like phoenixes." Prospect: "Oh. . . sure. . . ok. Sign me up!" From va32h at comcast.net Mon Apr 9 19:24:05 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:24:05 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlace2003" wrote: > > Those are all good possibilities. Still, I'd like to hear that > coming from one of the Order members themselves. Maybe the Order > members named it because of their respect for Dumbledore. va32h here: This is what I think. Dumbledore seems entirely too modest to name an organization after himself. But we already know that those who are loyal to him have no hesitation to do so (i.e. "Dumbledore's Army"). I don't have any problem imagining that the membership decided to name themselves the Order of the Phoenix in honor of DD, and that DD was suitably touched by the gesture. va32h From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:33:39 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:33:39 -0000 Subject: Number of Dead people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sarah barthell" wrote: > > JK has said repeatedly that two people will die in DH but > one who was on her list survives now. What is driving me > crazy is wondering if she includes LV in her list or is > he a given, and actually three people die because she has > also said that he has become less and less human over the > years? > > Sarah > JW throws in his two knuts: Whether any reader's analyses are correct and conclusions come to pass is irrelevant - our guesses tell us a lot more about ourselves than they say about JKR's books. This is especially true when we consider particularly murky areas, such as perceived patterns hidden in book covers, the motivations and goals of ambiguous characters (such as Snape), and the fates of particular characters. In a sense, ALL guesses and predictions are correct - they accurately describe how WE would write the final book. In another sense, all predictions are completely wrong - it is impossible to determine how JKR has written the book. Sara, there are some underlying assumptions and logic which drive your conundrum. Please allow me to point them out. You will see that they differ from my assumptions and logic. However, that does NOT necessarily mean that one of us is more perceptive and discerning than the other. Undoubtedly, when it comes to guessing JKR's outcomes, we are BOTH wrong. I have seen the same JKR quotes as you. Two people will die. Your assumption is that this is an exact figure, and worry about whether LV is included. My assumption is that JKR, always imprecise in math, was talking about good guys who are not incidental characters. IOW, the two would NOT include death eaters, LV, and an untold number of relatively obscure or unnamed others. Further, you seem to assume LV must die. While DD agreed with HP that HP would be in a kill-or-be-killed situation, there are ways in which LV can be defeated without HP (or any other good guy) murdering him. For example, a Dementor sucking out the remaining 1/7th of LV's soul before all horcruxes are destroyed would leave LV immortal but impotent, soulless, in a zombie-like state (imagine Crouch Jr's state at the end of GoF, but without the release of eventual death). As DD said, there are fates much worse than death. To summarize: I predict (most probably, inaccurately) that more than two characters will die, and that LV will suffer a fate WORSE than death. JW, who as a professional business analyst, strategist, planner and forecaster, is often humbled by his (in)accuracy, which may not be much better than Trelawney's. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 18:59:56 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:59:56 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: As Quick Silver has addressed most of the important points, I'll play off this post: > > --Voldemort will be defeated utterly and Harry will survive. I'll give that one a 99% chance. Given the genre and drift of the story, it's hard to see how anything else could work. > > --Snape is DDM. At this point DDM seems to mean pretty much whatever you want it to. Let's just say that Snapey-poo will end up working against Voldums for whatever reason. I'll give it a 75% chance. > > --Hermione and Ron will survive. I'll give this a 95% chance. It could work out another way but it would be extraordinarily difficult. > > --Draco will be a huge asset to the "good" side. I'll give Draco being "good" a 50% chance. I'll give him a 50% chance of not being much of an asset to either side, and pretty much a 0% chance of being an asset for Voldy. > > --Harry is not a horcrux. Well, I hate horcruxes. They are, I think, an unnecessary and uninteresting addition horned into the story when there were a lot more interesting things to pursue. But being as they HAVE been introduced, and we DO have DD's "in essence divided" crypticism, I'm going to give Harry, or his scar, a 60% chance of being a horcrux or something like a horcrux. > > --The Dementors will play a rather large role in DH and Snape's > method of fighting them is most defiantly wrong or flawed in some way > that will cost someone their life (Neville? Luna?). An interesting scenario, but I've often thought that too much is made of Snape's dementor-fighting-method comments. I'll give it a 25%. > > --The Weasley wedding will be disrupted in some manner...either by > Death Eaters or an emergency of some sort. I have no idea about this one, but it sounds plausible, so I'll give it a wild guess of 50%. > --Snape will survive. I'll give that one a 1%. Based on genre, plot developments, and fit with a post-Voldums universe, I'd say Snapey-poo is pretty much a goner. > > --The Prank was an attempt to kill Snape plain and simple. I'll give that one another 1%. It just doesn't fit well with the Marauders, even post-OOTP. > --Harry realizes that Snape is good (on his own...no help from > anyone) quite early in the book and shamelessly uses it to his > personal advantage while Snape is totally unaware. Well, I think that has about a 2% chance of developing. Snape's ultimate loyalties are simply too large a plot point to reveal short of some ultimate or penultimate confrontation. > > --Snape isn't simply DDM he's....Marauder!Snape (loyal to the cause > but independent and with his own code). That would be OFH!Snape, I guess. I'll just stick with the 75% chance of Snapey-poo fighting against Voldums for whatever reason. > > --A quantity of Weasley's, at least one professor, and several > students perish. I don't know about a quantity, but I'll give a 90% chance that at least one Weasley, one professor, and one student (and I include Draco in that category) will not survive. > --Snape will be forced to eat a large quantity of crow about either > Harry or James or both. In fact I'd settle for any humbling of > Snape. Don't know how to measure this one. Certainly if this doesn't happen, JKR will, I think, have slipped into a contemptible and idiotic stance of approving of the abuse of children. But I suspect you are right, and the books are headed for the wood chipper. So give it 20%. Further estimations: -- One of the Malfoys will die, 75%. -- The Dursleys will end up staying at Grimmauld Place, 25%. -- There will be some sort of attack on Privet Drive, 90%. -- Ron and Hermione's presence at Privet Drive will provide for much- needed comedy, 80%. -- Neville will be a Hogwarts professor, 85%. -- Harry will end up being an Auror (although why he would want to I can't imagine), 65%. -- Ron and Hermione will be Head Boy and Head Girl. Harry and Ginny will be Head Boy and Head Girl in the first post-Voldy year, thus allowing Hermione to fulfill her academic destiny, Ronniekins to get a boost, and Harry to recapitulate James' career at Hogwarts down to being Head Boy without being prefect and marrying his Head Girl. I'll give it 50%. -- Percy is not Dumbledore's spy. 90%. -- Lupin will live and marry Tonks. 85%. -- Lupin will play a major role in DH, 40% (although why she's kept him around like a wolf pelt all this time I can't say, otherwise). -- JKR will reveal enough of the future in the last chapter to forestall any sequels. This will allow her to send Harry over the Reichenbach Falls without killing him. 35%. -- The mysterious drawing on the spine of the British Edition is a Time Turner in cross section. 1%. -- The mysterious drawing on the spine of the British Edition is the symbol of the Unspeakables. 2% -- The mysterious drawing on the spine of the British Edition, being a variant of the alchemical symbol for fire, relates to the Ministry project to assemble an army of Heliopaths. 2%. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 20:01:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:01:20 -0000 Subject: Patronus forms (Was: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167259 Ryan wrote: > *(snip)* > > I do think however, that the form of the patronus is linked to the inspiration for the Patronus. Which makes me wonder why Ron's patronus is a Jack Russell terrier and Cho Chang's is a swan. > Ceridwen responded: > Jack Russells are tenacious and hyper. My friend has a blind Jack Russell, but that doesn't stop her: she will still chase down any strange dog she smells on her lawn. She is loyal; brave; and fearless, which is not always the same thing as brave. Maybe this characterizes Ron. > > As for Cho, I think her Patronus was a hint that she was still loyal to and in love with Cedric, since swans mate for life (or at least, I've always heard that they do). Carol notes: I wonder if we're not confusing the concepts of Animagus and Patronus here. A Patronus, according to JKR, is a "spirit guardian," a protector rather than an indication of the caster's personality and character, as the Animagus form clearly is. Sirius Black's Animagus form, a Grimlike black dog, reflected his personality and character, just as Peter Pettigrew's rat form reflects his, but I doubt that their Patronus forms were identical to their Animagus forms. By the same token, Harry's Patronus form reflects his father's personality and character, not his own. I'm no expert on animal symbolism, by any means, but I *think* that the stag (besides being an obviously masculine symbol) suggests courage and nobility but also possibly arrogance or pride. I think that Harry's own Animagus form, were he to develop one, would be a lion rather than a stag (the Gryffindor symbol, with its well-known implications of courage and kingliness). Tonks's (new) werewolf Patronus obviously reflects Lupin rather than some aspect of her own personality. Thanks for your insights into Jack Russell terriers. I think that a Jack Russell sounds like a good "spirit guardian" for Ron, who is brave but not fearless, but could use a fearless protector. I think Hermione's otter could be Ron at his playful best, minus any of the less pleasant traits that might be associated with their weasel cousins. I'd like it if Cho's Patronus somehow connoted faithfulness to Cedric (or Cedric himself, but I think it's a feminine symbol). If we see a unicorn Patronus in DH, it will probably be Snape's and will mean that the Lily/Snape faction is right about Snape's loving Lily--Lily as Snape's spirit guardian. Personally, I'd rather that Snape's Patronus would connect him somehow with Dumbledore, reflecting his undying loyalty to the man he had to kill--a Phoenix Patronus resembling DD's, or even DD's Patronus transferred to Snape, or even a lowly "dumbledore" (bumblebee). Again, a definition and etymology may prove useful: Main Entry: pa?tron Pronunciation: 'pA-tr&n, for 6 also pa-'trOn Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin patronus patron saint, patron of a benefice, pattern, from Latin, defender, from patr-, pater 1 a : a person chosen, named, or honored as a special guardian, protector, or supporter http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/patron So Patronus is related to the concept of patron saint and, perhaps not coincidentally in Harry's case, to "father." The -us ending is masculine, but possibly that's a technicality. I see no reason why Lily, represented by a female unicorn, could not be Snape's (new?) Patronus if that's the direction that JKR wants to take the story. But I doubt very much that Snape's Animagus form, if he had one, would be a unicorn! I just found this description of owl symbolism, which describes what I think would be the perfect nonDumbledorean Patronus for Snape (but doesn't necessarily sum up informed opinion on the subject--I don't know how authoritative the webmaster is: "Owl--Silent and Swift Movement, Seeing Behind Masks, Keen Sight, Messenger of Secrets and Omens, Shape-Shifting, Link Between the Dark, Unseen World and the World of Light, Comfort with Shadow Self, Moon Magick, Freedom, Silent Wisdom, Nocturnal Vision, Healing Powers, Magical, Detachment, Change, the Mystery of Magic, Omens, the Arts, Watchfulness, Night Magicks, Truth, Patience." http://onespiritx.tripod.com/magick18.htm More likely, though, the owl is McGonagall's Patronus rather than Snape's given the mythological connection between Minerva and owls. Carol, wishing that we knew McGonagall's Patronus form, which would answer some of our questions on the subject, especially if it's *not* a cat From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 19:40:44 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:40:44 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > zgirnius: More generally, I believe that *nothing* > changed as a result of Harry and Hermione's trip. I interpret > Dumbledore's hope that they might even save two innocent lives, to > mean that he believes they will certainly save Bucky, because he > already knows Bucky somehow escaped before his execution. What he > hopes, is that this was part of a successful rescue of Black (the > second innocent life). > Ryan: Yes! Dumbledore knows that Buckbeak escapes and he knows that Hagrid didn't set him free because Buckbeak's escape takes place almost silently while he's in Hagrid's hut. Notice that Dumbledore stalls McNair and Fudge at just the right moments to give Harry, Hermione, & Buckbeak time to escape. I propose that Dumbledore has some seer ability--not prophecy, but the ability to sense "flavors" or "auras" of magic. Remember him "reading" the wall of the cave with his hand in HBP? I suspect that he senses 2 Harrys and 2 Hermiones in the area around Hagrid's hut. He also knows that Hermione has a time-turner. He puts that data together and concludes that Hermione and Harry had something to do with Buckbeak's escape. Knowing that, he needs to make sure that what happened will happen. Being a clever cookie, he also takes the opportunity to plant the seed for Sirius's escape from the tower. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Apr 9 20:55:47 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:55:47 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167261 Ryan: > Well, either Dumbledore was speaking metaphorically or Hermione's > Patronus is Ron and Tonk's is Lupin. Dana: Actually Tonk's Patronus IS Lupin as we have seen in HBP. Pg 150 ` She waved her wand; an immense silvery four-legged creature erupted from it and streaked off into the darkness.' Pg 582 Uked Paperback: `And the meaning of Tonk's Patronus , all suddenly became clear to Harry; it had not been Sirius that Tonks had fallen in love with after all' > I do think however, that the form of the patronus is linked to the > inspiration for the Patronus. Which makes me wonder why Ron's > patronus is a Jack Russell terrier and Cho Chang's is a swan. Dana: The inspiration for the Patronus is a powerful memory that is most linked to your inner self. That is how Harry found Prongs inside himself and why Tonk's Patronus changed. I think for those people that never needed a protector or felt the pain of love their Patronus will just take the shape of the animal most fitting to their own character but once the powerful memory needed to conjure the Patronus is linked to the essence of someone else, it changes and takes the shape of that person's animal shape. JMHO So Hermione's Patronus still could be able to change into the Jack Russell, but we do not know if JKR is ever going to use it in the last book,for us to find out. Ryan: > Also, Dumbledore's phoenix Patronus (probably inspired by Fawkes) > suggests that DD might've felt closer to Fawkes than any of his > human associate. As we have seen in CoS and OotP, Fawkes is not merely DD's pet, he is also his protector (and in CoS Harry's). > 1.The concept of the phoenix may be even more important to > Dumbledore (and perhaps to the story) than just that Fawkes is a > Phoenix. I mean, why call your resistance movement "The Order of > the Phoenix?" Maybe some of the Order members will clarify that in > DH. Dana: In Egyptian mythology the Phoenix was associated with the Sun, the rising and setting of the Sun and represented the soul of the Sun God. It is called the Bennu Bird in Egypt but also carries the name "fire bird" and symbolizing immortality, resurrection and life after death. If you look at the Egyptian mythology and the story behind this bird, then with some imagination, you can link it to every important person in Harry's life. The story of Harry is very similar to the story of Osiris, Isis and their son Horus. No, not a direct copy but if you read the concept of the Osiris story I think you get my drift; "The story of Isis and Osiris was a great love story, a story of betrayal, of death and resurrection. It was also a story of the miraculous conception and birth of their divine Son, Horus/Har/Hor/Heru, the Egyptian Savior God, who was destined to avenge the death of His divine Father and restore divine Order to the kingdom of Egypt". http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/IsisDawn/sirius.htm The Bennu bird is linked to all of them but he is also linked to Sirius, as the star represents summer but also the flooding of the Nile which was thought to be caused by the rising of the Star Sirius. (it is interesting to note Sirius the character is killed in OotP ;o)) The star Sirius in Egyptian mythology is thought to be the place that holds the soul of Isis. Orion (the constellation) is thought to be the place that holds the soul of Osiris and is referred to as the hunter (the symbol of a hunter is often a stag) and one of his dogs is Sirius. The bird is often shown pirched in his sacred willow tree (Whomping Willow anyone?) and is also connected to the moon and the planet Venus and after it died it rises from the ashes as a worm (yes, I know maybe farfetched but it is nevertheless mentioned). http://www.phoenixmoon.org/bennu.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology) Just some thoughts of course. Dana From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 21:59:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:59:38 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy...? -More Portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167262 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Barry wrote: > > > Another thing that's been bothering me is death. > When a W or W dies, they (all?) move into picture > frames and seem to maintain their existence. Does it > mean that they all have a picture frame horcrux? Or > is it that JKR can't really bring herself to kill her > characters? > > Carol responds: > > ... Ghosts, Snape tells us, are an *imprint* of the > person's departed soul. I believe that JKR used the > term "imprint" in relation to portraits, too. > bboyminn: I think you have a valid point relative to the use of 'imprint' but I think you are interpreting it too rigidly. Yes, she used the term 'imprint' twice, but did so in very different contexts, so they don't have absolutely and rigidly the same precise meaning. But then, that's just my opinion. > Carol continues: > > ... First and most important, portraits are not > Horcruxes, which can only be created through murder, > ... The point of the Horcrux is to keep the (Dark) > wizard's soul "anchored" to the earth ... So whatever > the portraits are, they're not Horcruxes, .... They > are not keeping their subjects alive. They are to some > degree sentient beings or objects,... > > ... > > Which takes us back to the question, what are the > portraits, exactly? They're not Horcruxes. They don't > contain bits of the subject's soul, > ... > > I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that > something like sympathetic magic is involved here. Just > as people in certain cultures fear(ed) being > photographed because they thought the photograph would > capture their spirit, both a wizarding photograph (to > a small extent) and a wizarding portrait (to a larger > extent) seem to to me capture something of the > subject's personality or character or spirit--*not* > the same as his soul, which is the immaterial and > immortal essence ... the portraits also seem to capture > the voice and personality and facial expressions of > the subject. > bboyminn: Once again, I am going to trot out a tired old theory of mine. I am absolutely sure I read this, but I have never been able to find it again, so maybe I just dreamed it. But real or dream, it does explain how a portrait can magically portray its subject. What I remember reading (whether real or in a dream) is that in the final process of animating the portrait, a piece of the subject is added; ie: hair, skin, blood, etc.... It is from that bit of the subject that the portrait draws the essence needed to recreate the character and personality of the subject. Remember this is magic, and they use of, say, blood could very easily have this effect. The second part is that, by way of analogy, the character in the portrait is like an actor playing a role. They can so so very convincingly, but there is a limit to the depth of what they know and how they can react. Speaking mostly of the more realized Headmaster portraits here, but this still applies to a lesser degree to general Living Portraits. They do have an 'essence' to draw on, but it is not mind, spirit, or soul. It is a script of sorts that is drawn from the living tissue added to the portrait by the living subject, and brought to life by the special unique magic that is used to animate Living Portraits. Again, while I'm sure I read this, in many years, no one has been able to verify it. Still again, whether real or a dream, it still make some logical sense as as a means to explain how the portraits can so accurately, yet with such limitations, portray their subject. The Living Portrait is drawing on a Life Script contained in the Living Tissue of the portrait's subject. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From andie1 at earthlink.net Mon Apr 9 22:29:58 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:29:58 -0000 Subject: Death, where is thy...? -More Portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167263 > > > Carol continues: > > > > Which takes us back to the question, what are the > > portraits, exactly? They're not Horcruxes. They don't > > contain bits of the subject's soul, Actually, in HBP when Harry goes back to Gryffindor Tower after Dumbledore's death, there is some interesting phrasing that JK uses... Harry had left his invisibility cloak on the top of the astronomy tower, but he didn't need it because he did not meet another "SOUL" until he reached the fat lady... Interesting... :) grindieloe From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Apr 9 22:47:00 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:47:00 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167264 Betsy Hp: > Why are most spells in latin? Where does paper come > from? Or beakers? Or plates? Or the cloth for those darn robes? Jen: > I'm trying to think what bothers me. Sitting on the > brooms in Quidditch was one until we found out someone > invented the Cushioning Charm in 'Quidditch Through the > Ages'. Wondering why there aren't a bunch of owl droppings > during deliveries at breakfast is one.[...] And how come > Hagrid's completely broken wand works okay but Ron's with > Spellotape was a mess? How do people transform from animals > and have clothes on? houyhnhnm: What keeps me awake at night are the miles of parchment that Hogwarts students (not to mention the Ministry of Magic) go through every year . That's a lot of mutton and I haven't seen any of it show up on the table. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 23:08:01 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:08:01 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse/Character Building/Sarah Monette books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167265 > >>Alla: > Oh my goodness. You just had to mention Sarah Monette to make me to > respond, yes? > > You **know** that I adore these books and will be forever grateful > to you for recommending them, but I have to disagree, sort of. > While I do not think that her world building is horrible or worse > then some other universes I read about, I found it often to be > quite confusing and find that JKR is much better in introducing > detailed, richly layered world, no matter how many inconsistencies > we can find in Potterverse. > Betsy Hp: Hmm. I'm trying to think of a way to respond to this without getting too much into Monette's books. And also to not spoil anyone interested in reading them. (I think I succeeded, so no spoiler warnings needed.) IMO, Monette has the richly layered and detailed world, while JKR's is highly simplistic, relying on broad-strokes and common knowledge to fill in holes that, IMO, needed a bit more effort on her part. For example: In JKR's world we have this tension between the Muggle world and the Wizard world. And we've no real idea how the problems came about and why they've stuck around. There's been a few mumbles about Muggles making too many demands on wizards, and a jokey history blurb about wizards enjoying their burnings, but in 6 books no real look into what started and maintained this sort of on-going cold war. On the flip side, in Monette's world we have this powerful and wealthy city with an underbelly so dark it makes Oliver Twist look like a sheltered and cosseted young man. In two books (one if you consider that Melusine and Virtu were apparently written as one book) we've had several hints at the political pressures from both within and without that allowed this underbelly to flourish. I mean, yes, it can be confusing since the information is culled from various sources. But at least it's there. Of course, this kind of thing can really interest me. *Especially* if it's revealed in dribs and drabs as we follow the main characters through their various adventures. (I'm not a fan of world building at the cost of character and story.) So it's something I think about and look for, and miss if it's not there. YMMV. And I'll also add that JKR has the advantage of only *hinting* at greater depths in her world. Since she relies on her fans to fill everything in themselves (or, more fairly, probably thinks the hints are fun enough and details aren't really needed) she doesn't have to do the heavy lifting involved in actually *explaining* why various things are so. > >>Alla: > Having said that, I have to say that I find Sarah Monette books to > be superior on more important level ( for me) ? in writing > character driven story. > > Do not get me wrong, I believe sometimes characters in Potterverse > do influence the plot, but I think that often enough the contrary > happens ? the character development is sacrificed to make plot move > along. Which is sometimes fine, the characters are still > interesting, but sometimes it grates on me badly. I mean Ron was > supposed to overcome his Quidditch insecurities in OOP, wasn't he? > Why is he back to them in HBP? Betsy Hp: On this I totally agree. And I think it may be because the books are winding to a close that this type of weakness (for want of a better word) is coming to the fore. Ron's quidditch struggles are a perfect example. It made no sense to revisit the issue, and yet with the limited time still left, we did. Did Ron develop too fast? Is there a reason (a plot one I can only assume) that he remain the "goofy" and "not quite good enough" member of the Trio? I do know I'm a bit nervous about how it's all going to end. Will I still love the Potter books as I used to? Or will it all end with a whimper? Betsy Hp (looking a bit more forward to 8/7/07 than 7/21/07 -- yeah, I said it! ) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Apr 9 23:32:14 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:32:14 EDT Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167266 Quick_Silver: > --The Prank was an attempt to kill Snape plain and simple. Carol: I don't think it's quite that simple. Sirius certainly wanted to terrify Severus and put him in terrible danger, but thinking before he acts isn't his strong point. I think that Snape is right about James being involved from the beginning and getting cold feet. At any rate, I think that the Prank prompted him to invent Sectumsempra as an act of revenge. I doubt that it affected his studies--he would still want to excel in his NEWTs, but maybe it affected his ambitions, pushing him toward the Death Eaters out of revenge as well as a desire for recognition. (I don't know, but we'll find out!) Julie: I recall JKR saying we will find out more about the Prank in Book 7, and I agree with Carol. I think the Prank may be one of those pivotal moments that set the course leading to the Potter's deaths and Harry becoming the Boy who Lived. I think JKR may show the Prank, along with Dumbledore's reaction to it, as a main motivator for Snape turning toward Voldemort. In one sense, the Marauders helped set a course toward Voldemort ultimately targeting Harry and his parents for death. Please note, I am IN NO WAY absolving Snape of blame in regards to the Potters' deaths. But it's similar to those who give Snape some of the blame for getting Sirius killed because of his goading Sirius about his inactivity at Grimmauld Place. If that was one of the straws that finally broke the camel's back in regards to Sirius throwing caution and orders to the wind and going to the MoM, then it may be that Sirius (and James if he was involved at all in the original idea) playing the Prank on Snape may have provided the straw that broke *that* camel's back and ultimately sent Snape to Voldemort. (The analogy isn't exact, as the actions in the latter case were more direct and malicious, but similar enough to compare.) If James were alive, I think he might regret how he treated Snape during their school years, and how he helped shape Snape's later actions. Just as Snape (at least per Dumbledore) regrets how his informing Voldemort about the Prophecy helped shape Voldemort's later targetting of the Potter family. (Here Snape's action was far more direct, but when one's actions, small or large, affect the actions of others, there's no erasing that effect later.) Definitely the Prank has something to reveal about the characters involved and their motivations or JKR wouldn't be featuring it in the crowded plot of DH. And if the revelation is that Snape was equally responsible for the Prank (he knew Remus was a werewolf, planned to kill Remus, etc) as some fans hope, it could make sense if Snape is ESE or perhaps a version of OFH. But since I believe Snape is DDM, I think the more likely revelation is going to be that Snape *was* the victim in *that* particular incident, and it ultimately drove him into Voldemort's arms...er, so to speak. It's also the more interesting revelation, because it spreads blame and responsibilty among everyone whose actions out of anger, spite, and hatred lead to unexpected and regrettable consequences, which is reflective of the true human condition, rather than deliniating bad guys versus good guys in a cartoonish way that isn't representative of human society. I believe that was the real point of the Pensieve scene in OotP, and will be the lesson of the Prank when it plays out in DH. Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 23:20:24 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:20:24 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167267 > Jen: > > I'm trying to think what bothers me. Sitting on the > > brooms in Quidditch was one until we found out someone > > invented the Cushioning Charm in 'Quidditch Through the > > Ages'. Wondering why there aren't a bunch of owl droppings > > during deliveries at breakfast is one.[...] And how come > > Hagrid's completely broken wand works okay but Ron's with > > Spellotape was a mess? How do people transform from animals > > and have clothes on? > houyhnhnm: > What keeps me awake at night are the miles of parchment > that Hogwarts students (not to mention the Ministry of > Magic) go through every year . That's a lot of mutton > and I haven't seen any of it show up on the table. >From JW for Jen and hou: That's why they call it MAGIC. If it made any sense, they would call it LOGIC. ;D When in doubt, blame it on Shesezso. Why do some broken wands work, and not others? Why is there so much sheepskin, and so few sheep? Because ... Shesezso! ;D JW, who as a businessman knows the Real World is often irrational, and so thinks it is foolish to demand a whole lot of logical consistency from a fantasy world in which there is no viable economic or political system. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Apr 9 23:46:14 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:46:14 EDT Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167268 "rlace2003" wrote: > > Those are all good possibilities. Still, I'd like to hear that > coming from one of the Order members themselves. Maybe the Order > members named it because of their respect for Dumbledore. va32h here: This is what I think. Dumbledore seems entirely too modest to name an organization after himself. But we already know that those who are loyal to him have no hesitation to do so (i.e. "Dumbledore's Army"). I don't have any problem imagining that the membership decided to name themselves the Order of the Phoenix in honor of DD, and that DD was suitably touched by the gesture. Julie: I've always assumed the organization was named Order of the Phoenix partly to reflect the rebirth characterization of a phoenix. I.e., the Order is saying that if they are struck down they will simply rise again (reorganize) and will not quit until they defeat their enemy. A taunt to Voldemort, in other words ;-) That, along with the fact that the name associates them with Voldemort's most feared rival, Dumbledore... Julie, who agrees it probably wasn't Dumbledore who suggested the name. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 9 23:29:00 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 17:29:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death, where is thy...? -More Portraits References: Message-ID: <020c01c77afe$daa6e100$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167269 > bboyminn: > Once again, I am going to trot out a tired old theory > of mine. I am absolutely sure I read this, but I have > never been able to find it again, so maybe I just > dreamed it. But real or dream, it does explain how > a portrait can magically portray its subject. > > What I remember reading (whether real or in a dream) is > that in the final process of animating the portrait, > a piece of the subject is added; ie: hair, skin, blood, > etc.... It is from that bit of the subject that the > portrait draws the essence needed to recreate the > character and personality of the subject. Remember > this is magic, and they use of, say, blood could > very easily have this effect. > > The second part is that, by way of analogy, the character > in the portrait is like an actor playing a role. They > can so so very convincingly, but there is a limit to the > depth of what they know and how they can react. Speaking > mostly of the more realized Headmaster portraits here, > but this still applies to a lesser degree to general > Living Portraits. > > They do have an 'essence' to draw on, but it is not > mind, spirit, or soul. It is a script of sorts > that is drawn from the living tissue added to the > portrait by the living subject, and brought to life > by the special unique magic that is used to animate > Living Portraits. > > Again, while I'm sure I read this, in many years, no > one has been able to verify it. Still again, whether > real or a dream, it still make some logical sense as > as a means to explain how the portraits can so > accurately, yet with such limitations, portray their > subject. The Living Portrait is drawing on a Life > Script contained in the Living Tissue of the portrait's > subject. > > For what it's worth. > > Steve/bboyminn Shelley now: This theory makes perfect sence to me, because we see multiple other times where "the essance" of something added to the potion affects how that potion behaves. Polyjuice potion, of course, needs a bit of the person to be imitated to work, but we also see other ingredients used because of their properties that it imparts to the end product. I'm at a loss to bring up other examples in canon to explain in this post, but now my eye will look out for them as I reread the books in preparation for Book 7. I am thinking of all the ingredients that the Weasley twins used to concoct their magical wares- clearly they understood this imparting of traits and exploited it with varying degrees of ingredients to give just the right amount of end effect. I can see the portraits that had been created with the stongest amounts of flesh or tissue ingredients of the owner as having the greatest degree of the owner's personality displayed in the final product. Along these lines, clearly, LV wanted bits of his dead father, and blood on an enemy, and a part of a follower because of the traits that those tissues would impart to him, and I wonder what "essance" he then gained from each of those people. For his father, we can say that he gained some of the good looks back; from Harry he gained traits of Harry's blood (protection?) but from Wormtail we have yet to see any of that essance manifest. I could be wrong, and I am sure plenty here will take stabs at what that essance might have been. It's got to be more than just "life" in that blood and body part, for if that were true, any person's body parts would do. LV was careful to pick exactly who fullfilled the parts of his spell/potion for his restoration. Shelley From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 00:39:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:39:51 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167270 > Julie: > I recall JKR saying we will find out more about the Prank in Book 7, and > I agree with Carol. I think the Prank may be one of those pivotal moments > that set the course leading to the Potter's deaths and Harry becoming > the Boy who Lived. I think JKR may show the Prank, along with Dumbledore's > reaction to it, as a main motivator for Snape turning toward Voldemort. In > one sense, the Marauders helped set a course toward Voldemort ultimately > targeting Harry and his parents for death. Alla: Yes, of course that is ALL Marauders' fault . Snape knowing the word mudblood and possibly thinking that maybe Voldemort's philosophy is superior to all others may not possibly come into play at all. Yes, I am being a little sarcastic here :) Yes, JKR said that we will find out more about Prank and about the reasons of the hatred between Sirius and Snape, no?. That makes me to believe that Snape will not be just victim of that night. If for no other reason then because right now he **already** looks like a victim, no? To me more means discovering something that we may not yet know. Julie: > Please note, I am IN NO WAY absolving Snape of blame in regards to the > Potters' > deaths. Alla: Um, Okay. Reads like that to me though. It is your right of course to read it this way - that Marauders and only Marauders drove poor Snape to Voldemort. I mean, this is your reading, right? There are no other reasons why Snape joined Voldemort that we may learn. He was just so pissed at James and Co that he decided to execute revenge and join Voldemort. Sorry if I misread your argument. Julie: But it's similar to those who give Snape some of the blame for > getting > Sirius killed because of his goading Sirius about his inactivity at Grimmauld > Place. If that was one of the straws that finally broke the camel's back in > regards to Sirius throwing caution and orders to the wind and going to the > MoM, > then it may be that Sirius (and James if he was involved at all in the > original > idea) playing the Prank on Snape may have provided the straw that broke > *that* > camel's back and ultimately sent Snape to Voldemort. (The analogy isn't > exact, > as the actions in the latter case were more direct and malicious, but similar > enough to compare.) Alla: Actually, I am not sure about other people who advanced this argument, I know that I never did or at least never intended to. Snape's goating made no influence on Sirius death as far as I am concerned. I find it disgusting, but certainly do not think that it is translates in Sirius death. I will most definitely blame Snape for Sirius death, but that is more connected to that he himself claimed to take part in it. I interpret it as Snape supplying Voldemort with extrainformation about him - be it the same info that Kreacher provided or anything else. Julie: > If James were alive, I think he might regret how he treated Snape during > their > school years, and how he helped shape Snape's later actions. Just as Snape > (at least per Dumbledore) regrets how his informing Voldemort about the > Prophecy helped shape Voldemort's later targetting of the Potter family. > (Here Snape's action was far more direct, but when one's actions, small or > large, > affect the actions of others, there's no erasing that effect later.) Alla: Well, as valid speculation as any, I would say, but I would also say that we do not know that James helped shape Snape later actions, at least not yet. Unless we of course learn that James was involved in Prank and got the feet later, your analogy falls flat for me. Because we **know** for a fact what Snape did - informing Voldemort of the prophecy and what we know James did is going and saving Snape life. Julie: > Definitely the Prank has something to reveal about the characters involved > and > their motivations or JKR wouldn't be featuring it in the crowded plot of DH. > And > if the revelation is that Snape was equally responsible for the Prank (he > knew > Remus was a werewolf, planned to kill Remus, etc) as some fans hope, it could > make sense if Snape is ESE or perhaps a version of OFH. Alla: Well, some fans ( me :)) have those two exact essays flashing before their eyes which were used for specific purpose to recognise who Remus was when Snape is a teacher, so some fans ( me :)) think that it is plausible that twenty years ago ( or something) Snape may have had that exact revelation and acted on that. Some fans ( me) could be wrong of course and have their crow handy. Julie: But since I believe > Snape is DDM, I think the more likely revelation is going to be that Snape > *was* > the victim in *that* particular incident, and it ultimately drove him into > Voldemort's > arms...er, so to speak. Alla: Snape **already** looks like one. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Apr 10 00:55:42 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:55:42 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167271 Julie: > It's also the more interesting revelation, because it > spreads blame and responsibilty among everyone whose > actions out of anger, spite, and hatred lead to > unexpected and regrettable consequences, which is > reflective of the true human condition, rather than > deliniating bad guys versus good guys in a cartoonish > way that isn't representative of human society. I believe > that was the real point of the Pensieve scene in OotP, > and will be the lesson of the Prank when it plays out in DH. houyhnhnm: I am just up to the sorting in OotP. I overlooked the following lines before because I was so intent upon what the Hat said about the nature of the Houses. /But then discord crept among us/ /Feeding on our faults and fears/ I think the Hat is saying essentially what you said. Discord crept among *us*, *our* faults and fears, not "those people over there". From zanelupin at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 01:09:28 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:09:28 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167272 > Betsy Hp wrote: > When DH finally comes out, this is the post that will either give me > reason to gloat or force me to eat some crow. A breakdown of what > I'm sure will happen, what I think will happen, and what I hope will > happen. KathyK: Apologies for disregarding anything that has been said in this thread but I want to play! What I think will happen: -Harry will live -We'll learn Snape killed Dumbledore to save himself but will do something to redeem himself (Harry, though, will never forgive him), and he'll die -Petunia will impart some interesting and important knowledge about Lily -One of the Dursleys will Bite It -Hagrid and his annoying brother will die (argh, alright, I think Hagrid will die, I *hope* Grawp dies) -One Weasley will die and hopefully not Percy -Harry will find all the unaccounted for Horcrux(es?) and he will not be among them -Peter Pettigrew will die trying to repay the debt he owes Harry -Some questions about the goings-on at GH the night James and Lily died will be explained What I hope will happen: -Snape will die a horribly painful death at the hands of LV -We learn that Snape is a horrible, wicked man who deserves every nasty thing that happens to him -Percy will live (And it would be nice if he was working for Dumbledore...and very nice if he reunited with his family in a way that didn't mean he had to grovel and beg *thier* forgiveness because there are things to be forgiven on both sides, IMO) -JKR will fully and completely explain the Fidelius Charm and all questions raised about said charm (A girl can dream, can't she?) KathyK, who really doesn't care what happens in DH as long as it is well-written From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Apr 10 01:44:57 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:44:57 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Quick_Silver: This is my second attempt at formulating a coherent reply (the ideas are all jumbled up in my head). > Carol: > I agree that Harry is not a Horcrux, but I'm divided on Draco's role > and importance. I think he'll be persuaded by Snape to turn against > Voldemort, but at the last minute. I don't think, for example, that > he'll be involved in any Horcrux hunts. (Zacaharias Smith, OTOH, will > probably help HRH to find, but not destroy, the Hufflepuff Horcrux). Quick_Silver: I like the Zacaharias Smith angle but I'm disagreeing with the whole Snape persuading Draco to go good at the last minute. Draco seems to have made some sort of choice on top of the Tower (which Harry witnessed) so to have Snape suddenly swoop in and "convert" Draco seems to be stealing Draco's story from him. (Jeez I've become a Draco fan) > Quick_Silver: > > --The Dementors will play a rather large role in DH and Snape's > > method of fighting them is most defiantly wrong or flawed in some way > > that will cost someone their life (Neville? Luna?). > > Carol: > You mean "definitely," not "defiantly," right? If so, I completely > disagree. Many wizards, including adult wizards, have difficulty > casting a Patronus, and Harry himself points out that casting a > Patronus for fun in the RoR is very different from casting one when > you're facing a Dementor, which even he finds difficult. (TT!Harry was > in no danger from the Dementors that were attacking his other self and > Sirius; casting a Patronus on Magnolia Crescent facing only two > Dementors was much more difficult.) He wishes that they had a Boggart > to practice on (the problem is, it would have been confused by all the > people or turned into the Boggart of the person facing it instead of > his own). Quick_Silver: Sorry about the spelling error (my bad). I disagree with main thrust of your counterargument...that Patronus is too difficult. Snape's method is, as far as I can tell, being taught to 6th year students so I'd say it probably has the same difficulty level of Patronus. > Quick_Silver: > > --The Prank was an attempt to kill Snape plain and simple. > > Carol: > I don't think it's quite that simple. Sirius certainly wanted to > terrify Severus and put him in terrible danger, but thinking before he > acts isn't his strong point. I think that Snape is right about James > being involved from the beginning and getting cold feet. At any rate, > I think that the Prank prompted him to invent Sectumsempra as an act > of revenge. I doubt that it affected his studies--he would still want > to excel in his NEWTs, but maybe it affected his ambitions, pushing > him toward the Death Eaters out of revenge as well as a desire for > recognition. (I don't know, but we'll find out!) Quick_Silver: I disagree. Sirius does seem to think before he acts (his plans are just reckless...like the man), it's Sirius that's blamed for the Prank, he comes up with the dubious switch with Peter, he gets Crookshanks to steal the passwords, he gives Harry the mirror, which is why I suspicious of the Prank just being a "prank". I honestly think that Snape easily manipulated to his demise and the factor that Sirius miscalculated was James and not Snape. That being said I go the opposite direction...James didn't know about the plan but I think Lupin did. It'd explain a lot...why the mistrusted each other (each knew the other was capable of consenting to murder), why their friendship survived the fallout (they were in it together). As for Sectumsempra I think we've disagreed on this before...Snape used a cutting spell in SWM, the cutting spell that's introduced (from Snape's potion book) in HBP is Sectumsempra. It seems open and closed to me. I don't think it's all or nothing with the Marauders and Snape. Sirius said Snape knew Dark magic (wait...is it curses or Dark magic?) hence we're shown him using Sectumsempra. SWM showed that the James was the arrogant boy that Snape said he was and more. There's grains of truth in everything...you just have to pick though them. > Quick_Silver: > > Things that I'd love to see (but probably won't happen): > > > > --Harry kills Voldemort with an AK however because Harry was > infected by a sliver of Voldemort's soul the soul splitting effects of > AK cut the Voldemort out of Harry. > > Carol: > No, thanks. It's unfortunate that Snape had no good alternative to > using an AK. I don't want Harry to have to use one and suffer the kind > of remorse that Snape is suffering. Harry may have powers that he > doesn't yet know about acquired from Voldemort at GH. I can see him > possessing Voldemort, filling him with unendurable Love, and forcing > him through the Veil that way. Voldie with his fragmented soul would > be unable to leave, but Harry could use Sirius's body, now separated > from his soul, to return to his own body outside the Veil. > Unfortunately for my theory, the U.S. cover seems to suggest some > alternate solution. But the absence of wands suggests that no AK will > be involved, either. Quick_Silver: But Snape is suffering remorse because he killed his mentor and friend in a situation that he helped bring about whereas Harry would have used AK to rid the world of a dangerous madman. AK is what bound Harry to Voldemort in the first place; if an AK forged the bond perhaps an AK must break it? > Quick_Silver: > > --Harry realizes that Snape is good (on his own...no help from > anyone) quite early in the book and shamelessly uses it to his > personal advantage while Snape is totally unaware. > > Carol: > On his own? That strikes me as very unlikely. Not only does Harry hate > Snape and want revenge against him, Harry has very few epiphanies of > that sort. The closest is his recognition that Luna isn't just some kook. > > I think it will be Hermione who figures out that Snape is good (in the > sense of loyal to DD and opposed to Voldemort) and that she'll draw > out details of what really happened on the tower, remind Harry that > Snape spied for DD before Godric's Hollow, and, bit by bit, cause him > to start questioning his own conclusions so that he's ready, when he > finally encounters Snape, to accept what Snape has to say and accept > his help. I don't know what you mean by shamelessly using Snape's > goodness (or loyalty to DD?) on his own without Snape's awareness of > what Harry is doing. Quick_Silver: No offense but I really hope that it's Harry and not Hermione that first understands Snape. Hermione just doesn't seem to have the right mindset or experience to grasp Snape. Harry spent all of HBP following Draco and by the end of it was able to feel pity for Draco and Harry knows that Snape spied for Dumbledore before Godric's Hollow. Harry spent significant time watching the development of Tom Riddle and understanding the morality of Slughorn, things that Hermione didn't experience firsthand. To suddenly have Hermione figure out Snape would be jarring...at least for me. > Quick_Silver: > > --Snape isn't simply DDM he's....Marauder!Snape (loyal to the cause > > but independent and with his own code). > > Carol: > Hmm. I think "Marauder" just refers to a certain group of four who > sneaked around the castle under James's Invisibility Cloak looking for > secret passages and whatnot. Quick_Silver: The reason that I use Marauder to describe Snape really comes back to how I view Snape and to be honest I view Snape as almost a fifth or lost "Marauder". Most of the major charges thrown at the Marauders (arrogance, disregard for the rules, uncaring towards others, bullies) can be leveled at the later day Snape (not SWM Snape). I could go on but this isn't the place. Quick_Silver (realizing that the last response is highly subjective) From va32h at comcast.net Tue Apr 10 03:27:05 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:27:05 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End) - Now with Music! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167274 First Julie said: > > It's also the more interesting revelation, because it > > spreads blame and responsibilty among everyone whose > > actions out of anger, spite, and hatred lead to > > unexpected and regrettable consequences, which is > > reflective of the true human condition, rather than > > deliniating bad guys versus good guys in a cartoonish > > way that isn't representative of human society. I believe > > that was the real point of the Pensieve scene in OotP, > > and will be the lesson of the Prank when it plays out in DH. > Then houyhnhnm said: > > I am just up to the sorting in OotP. I overlooked the > following lines before because I was so intent upon what > the Hat said about the nature of the Houses. > > /But then discord crept among us/ > /Feeding on our faults and fears/ > > I think the Hat is saying essentially what you said. > Discord crept among *us*, *our* faults and fears, not > "those people over there". Now me (va32h): If you will indulge me - I find HP echoing the theme of one of my favorite musicals, Into the Woods, written by the incomparable Stephen Sondheim. The plot is simply - what happens happily ever after? In the second act of the play, the characters must face the complex and far reaching consequences of their actions from the first act. Chiefly - Jack from Jack in the Beanstalk must contend with the vengeance-seeking widow of the giant he slew (slayed?). The point is illustrated in a wonderful song called "No One is Alone" which I could completely sing for you here, but I won't - even though let me tell you - the lyrics are a perfect outline for what I see coming in DH. Anyway - the lines I am thinking of in reference to the Prank are "Someone is on your side, someone else is not, while we're seeing our side, maybe we forgot, they are not alone. No one is alone." My interpretation - our actions do not exist in a vacuum, we have to be conscious of what we are doing to each other, and where our actions can lead us. I have no idea if JKR has ever seen Into the Woods, but the similarity of theme just gives me goosebumps. And for what it's worth, even though there are some surprising and poignant deaths in Into the Woods the hero lives! va32h From joannesthemom at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 02:43:05 2007 From: joannesthemom at yahoo.com (joannesthemom) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:43:05 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167275 "quick_silver71" wrote: > The reason that I use Marauder to describe Snape really > comes back to how I view Snape and to be honest I view > Snape as almost a fifth or lost "Marauder". Most of the > major charges thrown at the Marauders (arrogance, > disregard for the rules, uncaring towards others, bullies) > can be leveled at the later day Snape (not SWM Snape). Joanne's response: I really like that idea of the fifth Marauder, but what does SWM mean? From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 04:03:02 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:03:02 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "joannesthemom" wrote: > > "quick_silver71" wrote: > > The reason that I use Marauder to describe Snape really > > comes back to how I view Snape and to be honest I view > > Snape as almost a fifth or lost "Marauder". Most of the > > major charges thrown at the Marauders (arrogance, > > disregard for the rules, uncaring towards others, bullies) > > can be leveled at the later day Snape (not SWM Snape). > > > Joanne's response: > > I really like that idea of the fifth Marauder, but what does > SWM mean? > JW: Had me going too! My bet is it means Snapes Worst Memory. Sometimes this is worse than trying to figure out vanity plates :-P From juli17 at aol.com Tue Apr 10 05:09:23 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:09:23 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167277 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "joannesthemom" > wrote: > > > > "quick_silver71" wrote: > > > The reason that I use Marauder to describe Snape really > > > comes back to how I view Snape and to be honest I view > > > Snape as almost a fifth or lost "Marauder". Most of the > > > major charges thrown at the Marauders (arrogance, > > > disregard for the rules, uncaring towards others, bullies) > > > can be leveled at the later day Snape (not SWM Snape). > > > > > > Joanne's response: > > > > I really like that idea of the fifth Marauder, but what does > > SWM mean? > > > > > JW: > > Had me going too! My bet is it means Snapes Worst Memory. > > Sometimes this is worse than trying to figure out vanity plates :-P > Julie now: Thank you! For a minute there I thought Snape had taken out an ad in the personals section of the Daily Prophet and I somehow missed it! (Single White Male, you know...) Julie From juli17 at aol.com Tue Apr 10 05:51:26 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:51:26 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167278 Julie: I think JKR may show the Prank, along with > Dumbledore's > > reaction to it, as a main motivator for Snape turning toward > Voldemort. In > > one sense, the Marauders helped set a course toward Voldemort > ultimately > > targeting Harry and his parents for death. > > Alla: > > Yes, of course that is ALL Marauders' fault . Snape knowing the > word mudblood and possibly thinking that maybe Voldemort's > philosophy is superior to all others may not possibly come into play > at all. Yes, I am being a little sarcastic here :) > > Yes, JKR said that we will find out more about Prank and about the > reasons of the hatred between Sirius and Snape, no?. That makes me > to believe that Snape will not be just victim of that night. If for > no other reason then because right now he **already** looks like a > victim, no? To me more means discovering something that we may not > yet know. Julie now: As I noted later in my post, I'm referring to this incident alone where Snape was the victim. I have no doubt that Snape also victimized the Marauders whenever he could, though at this point there isn't any evidence he actually put any of them in mortal danger DURING THEIR SCHOOLDAYS rivalry. > Julie: > > Please note, I am IN NO WAY absolving Snape of blame in regards > to the > > Potters' > > deaths. > > Alla: > Um, Okay. Reads like that to me though. It is your right of course > to read it this way - that Marauders and only Marauders drove poor > Snape to Voldemort. I mean, this is your reading, right? There are > no other reasons why Snape joined Voldemort that we may learn. He > was just so pissed at James and Co that he decided to execute > revenge and join Voldemort. Sorry if I misread your argument. Julie now: I don't know why it reads that way to you, because I stated clearly above that it was "a" main motivator, "along" with Dumbledore's reaction to the Prank (indicating the latter was part of the motivation, and that there were also even more motivators). So, no, I do not think the Marauders and only the Marauders drove Snape to Voldemort. I suspect Snape's upbringing (where he learned more Dark Arts than any other 11 year old entering Hogwarts), his bad choice of friends/mentor (Lucius Malfoy), and his personality (easy to offense, fragile ego, inability to let go of a grudge, etc) all played a part in Snape turning to the Dark Lord. And NONE of these motivators discounts that Snape had a CHOICE and had made the wrong one, repeatedly. > > Julie: > But it's similar to those who give Snape some of the blame for > > getting > > Sirius killed because of his goading Sirius about his inactivity > at Grimmauld > > Place. If that was one of the straws that finally broke the > camel's back in > > regards to Sirius throwing caution and orders to the wind and > going to the > > MoM, > > then it may be that Sirius (and James if he was involved at all in > the > > original > > idea) playing the Prank on Snape may have provided the straw that > broke > > *that* > > camel's back and ultimately sent Snape to Voldemort. (The analogy > isn't > > exact, > > as the actions in the latter case were more direct and malicious, > but similar > > enough to compare.) > > Alla: > > Actually, I am not sure about other people who advanced this > argument, I know that I never did or at least never intended to. > > Snape's goating made no influence on Sirius death as far as I am > concerned. I find it disgusting, but certainly do not think that it > is translates in Sirius death. > > I will most definitely blame Snape for Sirius death, but that is > more connected to that he himself claimed to take part in it. I > interpret it as Snape supplying Voldemort with extrainformation > about him - be it the same info that Kreacher provided or anything > else. Julie now: There's no logic to that argument IMO, because Sirius's death was completely *unplanned.* Voldemort had no way to know Sirius would be at the DoM, no way to know he'd duel with Bellatrix, no way to know she'd get the upper hand on him, etc, etc. Snape may have taken credit, but if he did so to Voldemort, and Voldemort had even as much of his brain left as he has of his original soul, he'd crucio Snape for his unmitigated arrogance. (Apparently at Spinner's End Bellatrix is too insane and Narcissa to distraught to notice the illogic of Snape's claim.) As for the analogy, it wasn't a perfect one I know. I was just illustrating that actions piled upon other actions, even when those actions seem insignificant, can have an ultimate effect. > Julie: > > If James were alive, I think he might regret how he treated Snape > during > > their > > school years, and how he helped shape Snape's later actions. Just > as Snape > > (at least per Dumbledore) regrets how his informing Voldemort > about the > > Prophecy helped shape Voldemort's later targetting of the Potter > family. > > (Here Snape's action was far more direct, but when one's actions, > small or > > large, > > affect the actions of others, there's no erasing that effect > later.) > > Alla: > > Well, as valid speculation as any, I would say, but I would also say > that we do not know that James helped shape Snape later actions, at > least not yet. Unless we of course learn that James was involved in > Prank and got the feet later, your analogy falls flat for me. > Because we **know** for a fact what Snape did - informing Voldemort > of the prophecy and what we know James did is going and saving Snape > life. Julie now: I agree that we do need to know more about the Prank, but here I am referring to the entirety of the relationship between Snape and the Marauders during their schooldays. If the Marauders did indeed make a habit of ganging up on Snape, of hexing him because he "existed" and so on, then that may well have helped shape Snape's later actions. And by thinking James might have regretted those actions at a later date (had he lived), I'm making an assumption about James's character, a positive one. After all Lupin regretted it and even Sirius admitted the Mauraders often acted like berks (right word?) at school. > Julie: > > Definitely the Prank has something to reveal about the characters > involved > > and > > their motivations or JKR wouldn't be featuring it in the crowded > plot of DH. > > And > > if the revelation is that Snape was equally responsible for the > Prank (he > > knew > > Remus was a werewolf, planned to kill Remus, etc) as some fans > hope, it could > > make sense if Snape is ESE or perhaps a version of OFH. > > Alla: > > Well, some fans ( me :)) have those two exact essays flashing before > their eyes which were used for specific purpose to recognise who > Remus was when Snape is a teacher, so some fans ( me :)) think that > it is plausible that twenty years ago ( or something) Snape may have > had that exact revelation and acted on that. > > Some fans ( me) could be wrong of course and have their crow handy. Julie now: This doesn't work for me because if Snape went to the Shack knowing Lupin was a werewolf and hoping to kill him, it really doesn't make much sense that he's still so angry that Sirius tried to kill *him,* or that he would feel he owes a life debt to James. Not when he knew what was waiting all along. And, yes, you can say he's some great actor who just pretends all this affronted rage, or that he's completely irrational to be so irrational in POA. Or something like that... > Julie: > But since I believe > > Snape is DDM, I think the more likely revelation is going to be > that Snape > > *was* > > the victim in *that* particular incident, and it ultimately drove > him into > > Voldemort's > > arms...er, so to speak. > > Alla: > > Snape **already** looks like one. > Julie now: I know. I'm basically saying that this incident IS exactly what it appears as related by Snape so far (and Lupin). That Snape was the victim. (Again, *this* incident, not in every confrontation with the Marauders.) Julie, admiring va32h's comparison to Into the Woods, and believing that our actions, both good and bad, do have consequences, and that the actions of others are largely irrelevant in evaluating the right or wrong of our *own* actions. (I.e., two wrongs almost never make a right.) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 10 06:37:11 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:37:11 -0000 Subject: Most memorable book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167279 USA Today printed a list of the most memorable books in the past 25 years. Number one on the list was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The first printing of the first book was of only 50,000 copies; the first printing of the last book will weigh 17,000 tons, and that's just counting the American edition. For more see: http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20070409/DCM00109042007-1.html Eggplant From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 10:18:41 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:18:41 -0000 Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167280 A Post in Four Parts Goddlefrood, with a few introductory quotes: "It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person." JKR in an extract from Katy Abel - Family Education, Summer 1999 "Inspiration for Professor Snape, the spine-chilling teacher at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, who made Harry's life a misery, was drawn from a teacher at Rowling's former school - although she declined to name him." - Danielle Demetriou - The Daily Telegraph, 1st July, 2000. "Why did you make Quirrell the bad guy instead of Snape? Because I know all about Snape, and he wasn't about to put on a turban." JKR in America Online Chat, 19th October 2000 "So, is Snape good or bad? In our opinion, everything follows from it. JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say is ... right." >From An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp, 2nd August 2006. Enough quotes, for now ;) This series of posts will be split into four separate portions. The first post is to give a little background on Severus Snape and goes up to the time of the incident with Lupin when Severus was saved from death by James (I say this because, as I have said before, it makes sense that a life debt would only be incurred in a situation where the person saved is sufficiently proximate to death to incur such a debt). I also present this (from joint Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three, 16 July 2005): "MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary - JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul, you saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it's gone. And Ginny is definitely in no way possessed by Voldemort. MA: Is she still a parselmouth? JKR: No. MA: Does she have a life debt to Harry from book two? JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know, I honestly would." Full interview available here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm >From this it seems not unreasonable to conclude that someone owing a life debt must have been nearer to death than Ginny was in the Chamber. There is, of course, that "not really", but it is surely safe enough to conclude that Ginny does not owe Harry a life debt. This view also receives support from the incident with Peter Pettigrew, Remus Lupin and Sirius Black in the Shrieking Shack in PoA. Had Harry not intervened the rat would not be alive, pure and simple. Then again had he not intervened in the Chamber Ginny would not be alive, but then I think I have struck on the explanation for that matter to. It runs something like this: Ginny would not have died; she would have continued to exist without a soul, much as those whose souls have been sucked out by a Dementor's kiss exist. They would still be undead in the usual understanding of the term, being zombies, but this is not my world and I comment no further on this aspect of it. Just an explanation that would fit with what we have to work from, as it were. The second post will be my interpretation of how Severus Snape could be, from a certain viewpoint, that I do not necessarily believe, good. The third post, which is the view of Severus I favour, is a not so good, but nevertheless not working for Voldemort, Snape, and the fourth is, as the title says, a downright ridiculous Snape, and just a little fun, but it will also contain some conclusions and give an account of how I think his story ark may play out in Deathly Hallows. I ask you to bear in mind throughout this series that I do not believe Snape loved Lily, his paramour lies elsewhere, what material I have on that will be placed before you at the appropriate points ;) Whichever of these three possible Severuses Snape may be, I will start with a little of his background, what we know of him up to the point he started at Hogwarts and up to the point of taking his OWLs. The son of Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince, Severus grew up in misery. This suggestion I draw from certain matters contained in Chapter Twenty-Six: Seen and Unforeseen in OotP. A cowering child who learned any number of hexes and curses in order to alleviate the depravity that surrounded him and his own boredom. A gifted child who was clearly magical from birth. An interjection here on the names of Severus's parents, the possible origins of his own first name I will leave for one of the later posts. Tobias first. "Think baby names" has this as the origin of the name: `The boy's name Tobias \t(o)-bias\ is of Hebrew origin, and its meaning is "God is good". Biblical name from the Old Testament, used by the Puritans and revived in the 19th century.' Further down it says `Tobias is an uncommon male first name and a very popular surname.' Intriguing of course ;). The link for you: http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Tobias Tobias as a surname is of old usage. The family has its own coat of arms. This incorporates some kind of bird of prey's foot (possibly an eagle?) as a part of it. You can see the full Coat of Arms for Tobias here: http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/tobias-family-crest.htm I save further comment about Tobias until the next post in this series. Eileen is a derivative of Helen, this from "think baby names" again `The girl's name Helen \he-len\ is pronounced HEL-en. It is of Greek origin, and its meaning is "sun ray; shining light".' Further intrigue. The link: http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Helen And one to Eileen itself: http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Eileen If you care to follow some of the names around that site you will see a link to the name Avila. This is also the name of a lovely hillside town in Spain with its Mediaeval Walls still intact, a town most famous for St. Theresa of Avila, a sixteenth century nun whose autobiography is considered a leading work in expounding on personal theology and giving guidelines on how to lead a blameless life. Also of interest perhaps :) The origin of the name Snape has been mentioned by JKR in the eToys interview, Fall (as a concession to the origin of the quote ;)) 2000, where this: `"Snape" is the name of a place in England.' will be found. The full interview: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/fall00-etoys.html Some two years ago I trawled the net and placed a picture in a little blog I keep with a question, that being, "Is this a fair representation of the Slytherin ring?". Why, you may ask, is this relevant in a post about Snape? Well, the ring in that blog post came from the Village of Snape's web site, the Snape Village in Suffolk. Here is the source: http://www.snapevillage.org.uk/indexfr.html?home.html~info Thereafter scroll down a short way and click on "About Snape" to find the ring. There is also further down the page from the ring a sketch of the old priory barn. When I read the books, and before the movies (what can I say?, my son likes them) polluted the images somewhat, that barn, on a larger scale, was how I pictured the Great Hall to look :) Also quite intriguing, I think you can agree. To return to the narrative, it may or may not be relevant whom the people glimpsed in the memories Harry broke into in Seen and Unforeseen are. I believe it partially is not and partially is, further expansion will follow later in this post. The first two snippets of memory (the hooked-nosed man shouting at a cowering woman and the greasy-haired teenager shooting down flies) are shown, in my divination, to demonstrate Snape had an uncaring and depressed background. The third is of particular interest to me, hopefully you'll see why :) A partial explanation, but the rest will be in the third post of this series, I will now give you. This quote from Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview with J. K. Rowling: Part Three, 16th July, 2005: "MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has." Found in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm The sniggering little girl, I divine, will be the one whom Snape loved. Who she is I have as yet to divine. Not, IMHO, as stated above, Lily Evans. There is also this, from an early interview, this time Christopher Lydon, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12th October, 1999: "Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love? JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ..." That is available in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm A little odd, IMHO, Snape it appears loved, but he was not, as a reasonable extrapolation from this latter quote, loved in return, nor will he find love. Possibly because he is doomed :> Upon arrival at Hogwarts Severus was sorted into Slytherin House. He fell in with a group, first with Bella as its leader and then with Lucius, of Slytherins. Snape was impressed with their pure blood status and I see no reason why he would ever have divulged his own half-blood status to them. Had he done so, and with what we have been shown of Bella and Lucius and indeed others, he would almost certainly have been friendless within his own house as well as throughout the rest of the school during his time at Hogwarts (at least, that is, up to the time of his OWLs). Severus may be many things, but he is certainly no fool :| For his first two years at Hogwarts, at least, there were others of this Slytherin circle at the school. As Severus grew older there were less and less friendly people around him. He was unpopular from the beginning, or so it seems, with the group now known to us as The Marauders. By the time he, and the rest of his year, sat their OWLs he was ostracised by many and back to his solitary ways. Snape's Worst Memory refers, shortly after which IMO the incident between Snape and the Marauders that led to Snape owing a life debt to James Potter occurred. That is where I leave you, for now. Next up when I am inclined will be the version of "Snape is good" that I personally could live with, although obviously, as somewhat of an addict of the books, I could live with any version of him :) Do feel free to add material in any responses that would shed light on Snape's formative years, and if there are any pertinent matters up to the point where Severus sat his OWLs that I may have missed I would be interested to find out about them. Goddlefrood, with a little date for you once more, this time 1492, the death year of Nearly Headless Nick (and I wonder if JKR, when putting this date had taken account of the Julian Calendar?). It was the same year in which, not only was America "discovered" by Christopher Columbus, but it was also Year 7000 from the Dating Creation, and one of the many in which an anticipated Apocalypse failed to happen :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 11:28:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:28:46 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167281 > > Alla: > > Yes, JKR said that we will find out more about Prank and about the > > reasons of the hatred between Sirius and Snape, no?. That makes me > > to believe that Snape will not be just victim of that night. If for > > no other reason then because right now he **already** looks like a > > victim, no? To me more means discovering something that we may not > > yet know. > > Julie now: > As I noted later in my post, I'm referring to this incident > alone where Snape was the victim. I have no doubt that Snape > also victimized the Marauders whenever he could, though at > this point there isn't any evidence he actually put any of > them in mortal danger DURING THEIR SCHOOLDAYS rivalry. Alla: Well, yes, I understand that you are referring to the Prank alone saying that Snape will be revealed as a victim. And that is exactly what I was talking about saying that he **already** looks like a victim to me ( I mean, he looks like a victim in their school rivalry as well, but I was talking about the prank, just as you were). I mean how much **more** like a victim Snape can look in that night? I mean, he was **sent** to be eaten by big bad werewolf, was he not? ( Iccidentally my favorite question - did Sirius imperio him to go there or forced by any other means? How did he trick him? But I digress) > Julie now: > I don't know why it reads that way to you, because I stated > clearly above that it was "a" main motivator, "along" with > Dumbledore's reaction to the Prank (indicating the latter > was part of the motivation, and that there were also even > more motivators). So, no, I do not think the Marauders and > only the Marauders drove Snape to Voldemort. I suspect > Snape's upbringing (where he learned more Dark Arts than > any other 11 year old entering Hogwarts), his bad choice > of friends/mentor (Lucius Malfoy), and his personality > (easy to offense, fragile ego, inability to let go of a > grudge, etc) all played a part in Snape turning to the > Dark Lord. And NONE of these motivators discounts that > Snape had a CHOICE and had made the wrong one, repeatedly. Alla: It read that way to me because you did not mention any of those other factors probably? :) Except Dumbledore's reaction, which for the record I also believe will turn out to be quite the different one from what many of us think. But I can be wrong. It is that my memory is as good as ever which I keep thinking of. Dumbledore does not say I am sorry Severus in responce to his Sirius Black tried to kill me. He just says my memory is as good as ever. I read as you are the one to talk , but I can be wrong. >> > Alla: > > I will most definitely blame Snape for Sirius death, but that is > > more connected to that he himself claimed to take part in it. I > > interpret it as Snape supplying Voldemort with extrainformation > > about him - be it the same info that Kreacher provided or anything > > else. > > Julie now: > There's no logic to that argument IMO, because Sirius's > death was completely *unplanned.* Voldemort had no way to > know Sirius would be at the DoM, no way to know he'd duel > with Bellatrix, no way to know she'd get the upper hand on > him, etc, etc. Snape may have taken credit, but if he did > so to Voldemort, and Voldemort had even as much of his brain > left as he has of his original soul, he'd crucio Snape for > his unmitigated arrogance. (Apparently at Spinner's End > Bellatrix is too insane and Narcissa to distraught to > notice the illogic of Snape's claim.) > > As for the analogy, it wasn't a perfect one I know. I was > just illustrating that actions piled upon other actions, > even when those actions seem insignificant, can have an > ultimate effect. Alla: Sorry for being unclear. I was trying to say that I blame Snape for Sirius death if he **correctly** took such credit. We may not know what he did, but whatever it was, if he is telling the truth to Bella ( and who am I to not believe him ;)), he is to blame in my mind together with Voldemort, period. It does not look planned now, but we may learn what Snape did and picture may change. I was trying to say that in that instance Snape should be blamed and should pay with horrible death ;) NOT because he goated Sirius. > Julie now: > This doesn't work for me because if Snape went to the Shack > knowing Lupin was a werewolf and hoping to kill him, it > really doesn't make much sense that he's still so angry > that Sirius tried to kill *him,* or that he would feel he > owes a life debt to James. Not when he knew what was waiting > all along. And, yes, you can say he's some great actor who > just pretends all this affronted rage, or that he's completely > irrational to be so irrational in POA. Or something like > that... Alla: I do not consider this to be more than a speculation of course, but with possible support because of those essays. So, we shall see in DH :) I also do not think that he cannot still be angry at Sirius, because really Sirius could still wanted to bring him there ( I so wonder how) and it sort of played out differently than Snape imagined it would ( speculating wildly). > Julie now: > I know. I'm basically saying that this incident IS exactly > what it appears as related by Snape so far (and Lupin). That > Snape was the victim. (Again, *this* incident, not in every > confrontation with the Marauders.) > Alla: Yeah, I understand as I said above and to me the fact that we are going to discover more means that he may not be just the victim or something else. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 10 14:56:26 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:56:26 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167282 > > > Alla: > ? To me more means discovering something that we may > not yet know. Pippin: It could be that Lupin was actively involved , or that Snape was forced to enter the willow. Either or both of those would make Snape more of a victim than he is now. Snape speaks as if he was expected to treat it as a joke gone wrong, not a serious attempt to kill him. > > > > Julie now: > > As I noted later in my post, I'm referring to this incident > > alone where Snape was the victim. I have no doubt that Snape > > also victimized the Marauders whenever he could, though at > > this point there isn't any evidence he actually put any of > > them in mortal danger DURING THEIR SCHOOLDAYS rivalry. > > Alla: > I mean how much **more** like a victim Snape can look in that night? > I mean, he was **sent** to be eaten by big bad werewolf, was he not? > ( Iccidentally my favorite question - did Sirius imperio him to go > there or forced by any other means? How did he trick him? But I > digress) > Pippin: Oh my, no. Lupin said, "Of course Snape tried it." The implication was that Snape was spying on the Marauders, just looking for trouble. If we learn that Snape *was* forced in and it was a premeditated attempt to kill him, IMO that will be a big surprise for Harry, whose take on it is "Just because they made a fool of you at school." Personally, I think that Sirius did only mean it as a nasty joke -- it was Lupin who attempted murder by placing Snape under Imperius or otherwise coercing him. > Alla: > Dumbledore does not say I am sorry Severus in responce to his Sirius Black tried to kill me. He just says my memory is as good as ever. I read as you are the one to talk , but I can be wrong. > Pippin: Snape could be the one to talk because he got a second chance and shouldn't grudge it to Sirius. But if Dumbledore counted the prank as Snape's first chance (because Snape was somehow guilty, as you surmise) then Snape would be on his *third* chance, and Sirius was sent to Azkaban without a second one. That makes no sense to me. But if Dumbledore counted the prank as Sirius's first chance, it makes perfect sense that Dumbledore gave up on him when it appeared that he'd blown his second one. Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 10 15:11:33 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:11:33 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Ken: > > Fictional works don't have to be set in > > any specific year and stories that don't span more than a year can't > > have some of these issues. But when an author does take the time to > > mention these details I expect her or him to get them right. > > > > zgirnius: > So Rowling should not have let Nick name the year of his death, in > your view. Ken: Actually no, I rather like having the stories set in a specific time period. It is just that having done that she should have sat down with a calendar while she plotted out each book. It wouldn't have been difficult to make the plots match the calendar. In any event a story that spans seven years cannot have months start on the same day of the week for several years running no matter what the starting year is. And every week does have to have seven days. Even in 1582 when Pope Gregory added 10 *dates* to the calendar to bring the date of the March Equinox back where he wanted it Friday, October 15 followed Thursday, October 4, there were seven days in that fateful week! Rowling is an intelligent and often meticulous woman. Her famous "inability" to do the "maths" is not an inability at all, it is laziness. That is what is so grating to me. Ken > > Ken: > > > > I suppose I should admit that I just hate time travel stories in > > general. It is patently obvious to me that it is impossible. Human > > nature being what it is our "descendents" would be constantly strip > > mining earlier time periods and generally making human life as we > know > > it impossible if time travel really existed. I am confident that it > > will never be invented for this reason alone. > > zgirnius: > Unless you can't really change time. Ken: But then what's the point? You give an example, snipped, of a story in which someone time travels to change the *future*. But the change was effected by removing people from the *past*. So really the past was changed even though the story focuses on what happened upon their arrival in the future. If we, or more importantly Dumbledore, truly believe that time travel changes nothing then Dumbledore should not have sent Harry and Hermione back in time to "save" Sirius, Buckbeak, and Harry. It was totally unnecessary if time travel changes nothing. You might as well rip those pages out of the book if time travel changes nothing. Hermione apparently really can carry that course load and be in several classes at once if time travel changes nothing. I just don't buy it, in real life or in the context of the Potterverse. Ken > > Ken: > > Then there is the problem I have with a Harry Potter who is de- > souled > > in a dementor attack coming back from the future to save himself. > How > > is that possible? > > zgirnius: > It is my opinion that Harry was always saved at the nick of time by > his future self, his soul was not sucked out on the pages of the > book. Hence, no paradox. Ken: No, it really is a paradox. Harry has no future self if he was "killed" by dementors some hours previously. Harry's future self cannot save him from the dementors without creating a paradox. So either Harry did *not* save himself from the dementors (Snape was nearby after all and I don't rule out this possibility) or this time travel episode is whacky. It is the same situation as if Harry were revealed to be his own father, by means of time travel, Oedipus taken to absurdity. It's a hoot when Zaphod Beeblebrox claims to be his own grandfather due to an accident involving a time machine and a condom but I don't buy it in a story which, though fantasy, is meant to be taken seriously. Ken > > Ken: > > This either requires enormous amounts of energy > > > > zgirnius: > You must therefore have an equally great problem with > Transfiguration, Conjuring, Refilling Spells, and a host of other > magic we have seen in the books, which also seem to violate the law > of conservation of energy. But it seems to me you are judging a > fantasy with an SF meterstick. Such impossibilities in SF are > explained with a slew of technobabble and reference to novel > exceptions to the laws of physics invented by future scientists and > the like. > > But not in fantasy. In Tolkien, for example, (my personal gold > standard for fantasy worldbuilding...) there are beings of great > magical power who can conjure flames, cause fordable rivers to turn > into raging floods, and the like, and the only explanation we have of > this is that they are Maiar or High Elves who once lived in the > presence of the Valar in the Uttermost West. This is very nice and > poetic and mythic, but seems to me, from a scientific point of view, > to be logically equivalent to "Harry can Apparate because he is a > wizard". > Ken: You are absolutely right about other feats of magic requiring prodigious amounts of energy. I got somewhat off track I suppose, the energy requirements are a general problem I have with time travel stories but they are not unusual in the Potterverse. I know of *some* time travel authors who address the moving Earth problem with time travel stories but I don't know of *any* who address the energy problem, except I suppose that Rowling actually has since we have to believe that similar amounts of energy are available in order to explain some of the other magical accomplishments that we see. Point conceded. Tolkien does not have this problem either since the Maiar, good or bad, are what we would call angels and are able to tap the power of God. The high elves have been trained to do that by the Valar. > > zgirnius: > That last was not intended as a criticism or defense of Rowling at > all. It was in response to the prediction you made, that someone else > would someday publish a work of fiction about the Potterverse, > because that fictional world's flaws just beg for correction and > someone will be unable to resist. > > I was just stating a personal preference. As a reader (and writer of > fan fiction) I am far more tempted by works about characters in the > Potterverse about whom we have limited information owing to the > constraints of time and point-of-view that Rowling chose for herself. Ken: I didn't realize that this was the point you were trying to make but it is certainly valid for you and many others. I am sure that there are SF writers who are driven by a fascination with the bones that go into the stew as Tolkien put it. If none living take the Potterverse on as a project I am certain that some to come will. Ken From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 10 15:24:50 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:24:50 -0000 Subject: Motorbike? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167284 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "India Jones" wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, I am new to the group, I'm sure you > > have already discussed this many times but where do > > you think Sirius' old motorbike is? > > > > indiasjones > > > > bboyminn: > > Indeed this has been discussed many times, and of course, > the final answer is 'We Don't Know'. We don't know what > happened to Sirius's motorbike. The last person known > to have it was Hagrid. Consequently, I think he still > has it. ...snip... > Personally, I think Hagrid just stashed it somewhere at > or near Hogwarts and forgot about it. Though, I have > been hoping Harry will stumble across it and use it > again. > Ken: In SS/PS Hagrid claims to have "flown" to the sea island, right? He and Harry took the boat back to the mainland. We don't know how the Dursleys got back! But one plausible theory has to be that the bike is still on the island. Ken From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 15:11:47 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:11:47 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse/Character Building/Sarah Monette books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > On this I totally agree. And I think it may be because the books are > winding to a close that this type of weakness (for want of a better > word) is coming to the fore. Ron's quidditch struggles are a perfect > example. It made no sense to revisit the issue, and yet with the > limited time still left, we did. Did Ron develop too fast? Is there > a reason (a plot one I can only assume) that he remain the "goofy" > and "not quite good enough" member of the Trio? > Possibly so his lack of self-confidence can bleed over into a year as Head Boy? Given the ending of HBP, it's hard to see how Harry would be interested in being Head Boy, at least until Voldy is gone. I guess he might if McGonnagall or whoever made an appeal based on "it was what DD wanted," "it will help keep Hogwarts open," etc., but it would certainly seem, well, forced for Harry to be Head Boy and still be carrying on his own private war while Head Boying and getting ready for NEWTS and all the rest. So maybe Ron and Hermione will be Head Boy and Girl to be Harry's "official" backstops? Of course, that gets us into the problem of THEM doing the Head Boy/Girl thing while traipsing around with Harry. On the other hand, who else COULD be head boy and still have it relevant to the plot? Neville just isn't a viable candidate, and none of the other Gryffindors, or males from the other Houses, fit the bill. I GUESS whats-his-face-the-Hufflepuff might be a candidate, but it seems a weak solution to the question. So I'm guessing -- and it is a pure toss-up -- that Hermione and Ron will be Head Boy and Head Girl (giving further significance to the crowns they were wearing in Harry's dream in OOTP) just as Neville will eventually become Herbology teacher (the reason he was dancing with Professor Sprout in the same dream). Since Ron never became Quidditch Captain, that gets us around the problem of the Mirror of Erised telling the future when we have been assured that it does no such thing. Maybe Harry could then be Head Boy in the next year, with Ginny as his Head Girl. That would allow him to almost exactly recapitulate James' Hogwarts career, which is something JKR seems to be big on. Lupinlore From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Apr 10 16:15:11 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:15:11 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) Message-ID: <6196581.1176221712058.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167286 From: jmwcfo >Sometimes this is worse than trying to figure out vanity plates :-P Bart: f u cn rd ths, u cn jn hpfg n hv crptc dscsns. (w aplgs t le's). Bart From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 16:17:58 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:17:58 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse/Character Building/Sarah Monette books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167287 Lupinlore wrote: > Maybe Harry could then be Head Boy in the next year, > with Ginny as his Head Girl. That would allow him to > almost exactly recapitulate James' Hogwarts career, > which is something JKR seems to be big on. JW asks: Are you suggesting that HP takes a year away from school, survives his struggle, then returns to Hogwarts to complete his education? From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Apr 10 16:54:15 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:54:15 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167288 I am curious as to why so many believe almost conclusively that the Shrieking Shack Prank will be further detailed in Book 7. Here's (as far as I know) the only quote indicating we might learn more: < Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course. JKR could mean we'll learn more about why Sirius sent Snape to the Willow, or she could mean we'll learn more about why Sirius loathed Snape. I don't see it as definite that she'll tell us more about the Prank. However, supposing we are to learn more... Here's some thoughts on the Prank. We have really no conclusive evidence that James didn't know about the Prank prior to Sirius carrying it out. What we do know, from Filch's detention records in HBP, is that James and Sirius seemed to consistently work together in their pranks, therefore it is perfectly understandable that Snape would assume James knew. And in fact, it is more probable that James knew, simply because he and Sirius usually did pranks together. Further, we know that Dumbledore did not know the full situation regarding the Marauders, their involvment with Lupin!werewolf, or their familiarity with the Shrieking Shack, the Willow, etc. If he had known how completely comfortable the Marauders were with the entire set-up, going down there monthly; if he had known that James and Sirius were animagi that regularly "ran with" the werewolf and for whom the werewolf held little threat in their animagus forms, he might have been more likely to question whether or not James really knew about the prank or not. After all, why *shouldn't* Sirius have included James in the prank from the beginning? They usually did pranks together, after all. As for any evidence given by Lupin, well, we know that Lupin (for good or ill) has had a history of being deceptive, and oftentimes his deceptions are solely for his own benefit, to maintain the goodwill of others. Therefore we have every reason to assume that if Lupin knew anything about the Prank which was to his own detriment, he would conceal it if possible. I agree that Sirius probably didn't intend Snape to die. But if not die, what *did* he intend? There's no way Snape would only get a good scare if he actually ran upon the werewolf. As regards why Snape went to the Willow, this is interesting. Snape had actually seen Lupin going *with* Pomfrey. So he knew that Lupin's monthly absences were school sanctioned. If he knew they were school sanctioned, why would he expect that following Lupin would lead to the Marauders getting expelled? I have wondered if in fact Snape did overhear the Marauders who, during the pensieve scene of Snapes Worst Memory, were not particularly circumspect in discussing their monthly forays. Perhaps Snape guessed that there was more going on than just whatever school-sanctioned activity was happened when Pomfrey took Lupin away. Perhaps he guessed that somehow, the Marauders got up to something with Lupin later? If that was the case, he would have been entirely correct and also correct that their activities deserved expulsion. The way the Prank incident is related by Lupin, it always sounds like Snape half-deserved it because he was following them around looking for a way to get them expelled. That makes Snape look bad. Bad Snape, trying to get those nice Marauder fellows, who were really sweet boys, expelled. But in fact, the Marauders were engaged in a monthly activity that put the whole countryside in peril -- for which, yes, they probably *did* deserve expulsion. We can speculate a lot about whatever supposedly bad things Snape was up to during school. But canon doesn't actually tell us about *any* of them, with the exception of what we choose to believe out of the extremely biased views of Sirius (who *always* speaks of Snape in biased terms -- complete with some sort of name calling), or Lupin whose deceptive tendencies (for good and ill) are canon. We have canon support for Sirius and James misbehavior, through McGonagall's comments, a pensieve scene memory in which Lily's comments make it seem like their bullying is not a one-time event, and most especially Filch's files in which there are lots of files on the Maruaders, but we have no mention that Harry ever ran across a detention record for Snape. Last, we have an interesting comment by Sirius in POA, when speaking of Peter following Voldemort. Sirius said that Peter had to "be quite sure he [Voldemort] was the biggest bully in the playground" before going to him. But if that was truly Peter's predisposition, then isn't it interesting that he followed James and Sirius for so many years? So was the prank the reason Snape turned to Voldemort? Of course it wasn't the only reason. But could it have been the "straw that broke the camel's back?" Perhaps. It appears so far in canon that the Marauders bullied Snape for years. If that's the case, and no teachers stepped in to stop it, and then the Prank occurred and if James *was* involved, yet was still made Head Boy later, I could see how such events could drive a person to completely despise the established Wizarding World system that would appear (to an adolescent perhaps) to reward a bully and excuse a would-be murderer simply because they were popular and part of the supposedly "good guys" in Gryffindor. I'm not saying it's a valid reason for going over to Voldemort. There are no valid reasons. But suppose you've got a kid who's got alot of abilities and feels completely unappreciated (rightly or wrongly). And then the adolescent feels like the "good guys" will accept any kind of bad behavior, including Snape being bullied and almost murdered, as long as it's one of their own that does it. And then this powerful wizard starts offering a place where the adolescent will be appreciated and will gain power (to a kid who may have felt lacking in power against bullies and a school which accepted and excused the bullies -- in Snape's eyes). I could see such an adolescent being drawn with that kind of persuasion. After all, why do so many terrorist organizations recruit the young? They are impressionable and their insecurities, emotions, and motivations can be manipulated. Snape didn't have to have any interest in the "pureblood ethic" of Voldemort in order to join. All he might have needed is a desire to be accepted, appreciated, and to be a powerful Dark wizard who could no longer be pushed around. Of course, he might have found out quite differently after actually joining up, but with Voldemort, it's too late by then. wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 17:04:36 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:04:36 -0000 Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167289 > Goddlefrood: > From this it seems not unreasonable to conclude that someone > owing a life debt must have been nearer to death than Ginny was > in the Chamber. > Goddlefrood, much later in the same post: > Do feel free to add material in any responses that would shed > light on Snape's formative years, and if there are any pertinent > matters up to the point where Severus sat his OWLs that I may > have missed I would be interested to find out about them. zgirnius: This post appears to assume that Severus Snape did indeed have a life debt to James Potter. The term 'life debt' is of course a term originally coined (or adapted, as the concept is certainly widely accepted in some form or another in a variety of human cultures) by fans, at a time which precedes my own entry into fandom. If anyone knows - was the term used of Snape's debt prior to the publication of PoA? At any rate, the term is not used of either Peter or Severus within the text of the HP series to date. What we do have, in both cases, are statements by Albus Dumbledore, which, in response to your request, I supply below. > Regarding Snape, in PS/SS: > "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself > and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape > could never forgive." > > "What?" > > "He saved his life." > > "What?" > > "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's > minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being > in your father's debt.... I do believe he worked so hard > to protect you this year because he felt that would make > him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating > your father's memory in peace...." > Regarding Pettigrew, in PoA: > "But -- I stopped Sirius and Professor Lupin from killing > Pettigrew! That makes it my fault if Voldemort comes back!" > > "It does not," said Dumbledore quietly. "Hasn't your > experience with the Time-Turner taught you anything, Harry? > The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, > so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult > business indeed.... Professor Trelawney, bless her, is > living proof of that.... You did a very noble thing, in > saving Pettigrew's life." > > "But if he helps Voldemort back to power--" > > "Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort > a deputy who is in your debt.... When one wizard saves > another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between > them... and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his > servant in the debt of Harry Potter." > > "I don't want a connection with Pettigrew!" said Harry. > "He betrayed my parents!" > > "This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, > Harry. But trust me... the time may come when you will > be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." zgirnius: Reading these books as I did, in my own little vacuum, it never even occured to me that someone might take these two bits of text and conclude that the relationships between Snape and James, and Peter and Harry, are the same. I still don't see why they would. The comments about Snape indicate a conscious awareness of his indebtedness, and a desire born out of Snape's own psychology to return the favor. Dumbledore attributes specific actions by Snape to a conscious motivation to discharge this debt. There is no mention of magic playing any sort of role. The comments about Peter, in contrast, mention magic explicitly. And there is a marked lack of personal agency on Peter's part in the final remark, "the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." Unless there is an interview in which Rowling states Snape did owe a debt in exactly the way Peter does, I would conclude he never did. I am not familiar with such an interview, but would appreciate being made aware of it if one exists. > Goddlefrood: > Upon arrival at Hogwarts Severus was sorted into Slytherin > House. He fell in with a group, first with Bella as its leader > and then with Lucius, of Slytherins. Snape was impressed with > their pure blood status and I see no reason why he would ever > have divulged his own half-blood status to them. zgirnius: I offer the following lines as possibly indicating Bella's awareness of Snape's blood status. > HBP, "Spinner's End": > "He lives here?" asked Bella in a voice of contempt. > "*Here?* In this Muggle dunghill? We must be the first > of our kind ever to set foot -" zgirnius: What can Bella mean by 'our kind'? Death Eaters would seem wrong, as Snape lives there. So would 'wizards', again because Snape lives there. What distinction, then, does Bella have in mind? Knowing her, and Snape's background, I would guess she has in mind purebloods. Of course, Bella could have made this discovery at a later date than their schooldays. But I am inclined to think she did not. WHile Bella is a total ideologue, I can see Lucius taking an unusually talented and properly grateful Half-Blood firstie under his wing out of practical considerations. He has had the example of his own Head of House to teach him the use of a network of obligation. AS an adult, he seems to have lots of contacts within the Ministry ) I cannot imagine they are all purebloods. > Goddlefrood: > Had he done so, > and with what we have been shown of Bella and Lucius and indeed > others, he would almost certainly have been friendless within > his own house as well as throughout the rest of the school > during his time at Hogwarts (at least, that is, up to the time > of his OWLs). Severus may be many things, but he is certainly > no fool :| zgirnius: It is not clear to me that he had a choice. As his Muggle parent is his father, either he has an exclusively Muggle surname, or he was the lucky beneficiary of a coincidence that wizarding Snapes exist, somewhere. We certainly have no indication that they do. Bella et. al. seem like they would pick up on this. Further, there is some slight evidence that in later years, he may indeed have been friendless in his own House. We might have expected some Slytherins to intervene in some way in the "Worst Memory" for House pride, if no other reason. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Apr 10 17:34:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:34:39 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape Message-ID: <16941579.1176226479831.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167290 From: Goddlefrood >"So, is Snape good or bad? In our opinion, everything follows >from it. > >JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say is ... right." >From this, I get the idea that, like Dung Fletcher, Snape is an evil person who has his limits, and Voldemort, at one point, became one of them. I have just been re-reading OOP, and saw that if Prof. Snape had just told Harry something like, "When you learned the Patronus, you learned to overcome your sorrow to think of something happy. Now, what I'm asking you to do is overcome your emotions to think of nothing at all." If Harry could have discussed it with Lupin, Lupin might have suggested picturing himself as a stone, or a tree, or something like that (I know of one real-life autistic young man who managed to keep his temper under contol by visualizing himself as a tree). But Snape's technique with students he doesn't like is to put them down until they either give up or get angry enough to succeed just to spite him (you see this technique done with much more artistry by Nigel, who, even as a portait, can push Harry's buttons just hard enough to get Harry just angry enough to do what Nigel wants him to do). Unfortunately, getting someone furious is not a good way to get them to close out their emotions... >(I say this because, as I have said >before, it makes sense that a life debt would only be incurred >in a situation where the person saved is sufficiently proximate >to death to incur such a debt). I have a different take. A life debt is incurred when there's an actual debt. James would have been quite happy to see Snape dead, and Harry would have been happy to see Peter dead, but their senses of right and wrong overcame their personal desires, and that is what created the debt. Ginny does owe her life to Harry, but Harry wanted her to be alive because he cared about her. JKR said, "No, not really" because Ginny DOES owe Harry her life, but that is an informal, Muggle-style life debt rather than a formal, WW-style life debt. >Goddlefrood, with a little date for you once more, this time >1492, the death year of Nearly Headless Nick (and I wonder if >JKR, when putting this date had taken account of the Julian >Calendar?). It was the same year in which, not only was America >"discovered" by Christopher Columbus, but it was also Year 7000 >from the Dating Creation, and one of the many in which an >anticipated Apocalypse failed to happen :) Also, the year of the Spanish Inquisition. Bart From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 17:41:11 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:41:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions for the End In-Reply-To: <1052978932.20070408010600@mindspring.com> References: <2795713f0704072300y7ec164c8vb10f9a34d5977bcb@mail.gmail.com> <1052978932.20070408010600@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704101041g679f6a07u6b261222ae3f0aea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167291 I don't have much to add, but here's a general prediction: There will be questions left unanswered. There will be room for interpretation. We won't know for sure what side Snape will be on. There will be no "where are they now" or even a "happily ever after". From va32h at comcast.net Tue Apr 10 17:52:07 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:52:07 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > I am curious as to why so many believe almost conclusively that the > Shrieking Shack Prank will be further detailed in Book 7. > > Here's (as far as I know) the only quote indicating we might learn > more: > > < < Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the > feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course.JKR could mean we'll learn more about why Sirius sent Snape to the Willow, **or she could mean we'll learn more about why Sirius >loathed Snape.** I don't see it as definite that she'll tell us more about the Prank. va32h here: THANK YOU so much for posting this. It lends credence to a theory that I have been toying with for ages - that Snape befriended Sirius' brother Regulus at school. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 17:57:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:57:51 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167294 > > > > Alla: > > > ? To me more means discovering something that we may > > not yet know. > > Pippin: > It could be that Lupin was actively involved , or that Snape > was forced to enter the willow. Either or both of those would make > Snape more of a victim than he is now. Snape speaks as if > he was expected to treat it as a joke gone wrong, not a serious > attempt to kill him. Alla: Actually, do not see it as I am, I agree that it will answer my questions. Most definitely, Snape being **coerced** entering the Willow will make him look more a victim than he looks now. > Pippin: > Oh my, no. Lupin said, "Of course Snape tried it." The implication > was that Snape was spying on the Marauders, just looking for trouble. > > If we learn that Snape *was* forced in and it was a premeditated > attempt to kill him, IMO that will be a big surprise for Harry, whose > take on it is "Just because they made a fool of you at school." Alla: Would it be a big surprise for the reader though? I mean, Snape is pretty sure that they tried to kill him, is he not? I mean, the possibility is firmly in reader's mind already IMO. So far it looks like one of the two things to me - either a reckless prank or premeditated murder and both possibilities are hinted in the text, no? I will think that the only possibility **not** hinted at the text yet is the third one IMO, that Snape was somehow involved in that too. I hope I do not have to say that to you that I honestly think that dramatically this one will be a bigger surprise since it is not expected IMO. That is I guess to anticipate the usual argument I get when I argue this - not from you, Pippin. Oh, you just do not like Snape. :) Yeah, hate him with passion. Would love nothing more than to see him humiliated and or/dead at the end of book 7, that does not preclude me from thinking that surprise revelation of that night would be a surprise, if we discover that Snape was not only a victim, since he IMO already set up like one. Pippin: > Personally, I think that Sirius did only mean it as a nasty joke -- > it was Lupin who attempted murder by placing Snape under Imperius > or otherwise coercing him. Alla: Okay :) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > I agree that Sirius probably didn't intend Snape to die. But if not > die, what *did* he intend? There's no way Snape would only get a > good scare if he actually ran upon the werewolf. Alla: Sirius run with werewolf every month. I think it is entirely possible that he would not think much that it would be unsafe for somebody else, if it was safe for them. Sort of forgetting about safety? I think it was Eric Oppen who wrote a post about that. Like if somebody deals with something dangerous all the time and that somebody learned to do something to make sure he is safe ( being Animagus), it is sort of possible to forget that for anybody else it would not be safe IMO. Wynnleaf: > As regards why Snape went to the Willow, this is interesting. Snape > had actually seen Lupin going *with* Pomfrey. So he knew that > Lupin's monthly absences were school sanctioned. If he knew they > were school sanctioned, why would he expect that following Lupin > would lead to the Marauders getting expelled? > > I have wondered if in fact Snape did overhear the Marauders who, > during the pensieve scene of Snapes Worst Memory, were not > particularly circumspect in discussing their monthly forays. > Perhaps Snape guessed that there was more going on than just > whatever school-sanctioned activity was happened when Pomfrey took > Lupin away. Perhaps he guessed that somehow, the Marauders got up > to something with Lupin later? If that was the case, he would have > been entirely correct and also correct that their activities > deserved expulsion. > Alla: Yeah, exactly. Lupin's absences were school sanctioned, so what business that was of Snape's? Wynnleaf: > The way the Prank incident is related by Lupin, it always sounds > like Snape half-deserved it because he was following them around > looking for a way to get them expelled. That makes Snape look bad. > Bad Snape, trying to get those nice Marauder fellows, who were > really sweet boys, expelled. But in fact, the Marauders were > engaged in a monthly activity that put the whole countryside in > peril -- for which, yes, they probably *did* deserve expulsion. > Alla: Erm, I completely disagree. The way Lupin tells the story right now, that makes Marauders look very bad. I mean, any walking around trying to get them expelled , really how can it be comparable with trying to **kill** somebody? Now, if we learn that were was something else there, the specific reason why Snape was following them, sure that can make him look bad IMO. Wynnleaf: > We can speculate a lot about whatever supposedly bad things Snape > was up to during school. But canon doesn't actually tell us about > *any* of them, with the exception of what we choose to believe out > of the extremely biased views of Sirius (who *always* speaks of > Snape in biased terms -- complete with some sort of name calling), > or Lupin whose deceptive tendencies (for good and ill) are canon. Alla: It does tell me more and more bad things of what Snape did with every book actually. Wynnleaf: > So was the prank the reason Snape turned to Voldemort? Of course it > wasn't the only reason. But could it have been the "straw that > broke the camel's back?" Perhaps. It appears so far in canon that > the Marauders bullied Snape for years. If that's the case, and no > teachers stepped in to stop it, and then the Prank occurred and if > James *was* involved, yet was still made Head Boy later, I could see > how such events could drive a person to completely despise the > established Wizarding World system that would appear (to an > adolescent perhaps) to reward a bully and excuse a would-be murderer > simply because they were popular and part of the supposedly "good > guys" in Gryffindor. > Alla: Sure, I can buy that. As one of the reasons that drove Snape to Voldemort, not the only reason and I am going to go out on the limb and say that it is not even going to be the main reason, even if Snape's desire to execute revenge played some part. The only thing is - we do not know that yet. We do not know that Marauders bullied Snape for years, we do not know that teachers did nothing to stop it - in fact record of detentions to me speaks to the contrary, that teachers stepped in when needed. We do not know that Dumbledore took Marauders side in the Prank. There is nothing to even suggest that Sirius was not punished for that, we **only** know that he was not expelled. So, if all of that happened as you predict - sure, I will be the first one to say - Marauders played a big part in driving that Snape to Voldemort. JMO, Alla From bgrugin at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 17:39:46 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:39:46 -0000 Subject: OOTP and Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167295 I have been rereading OOTP (seems I'm in good company!), and I discovered some interesting quotes from DD. The first is when Voldy and DD are dueling at the MoM, and Voldy is sending AK's after DD, but DD does not reciprocate with an AK but some other spell. Voldy says, "You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?...Above such brutality, are you?" And DD replies, "We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom....Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit-" And of course, Voldy answers with, "There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!" (OOTP, US Ed., pg. 814) So- o-o, maybe he's talking about how he got rid of Grindelwald, and maybe this is how Harry should "vanquish" Voldy without killing him - somehow Harry must discover in DH what DD means. Another quote I found very telling is when DD and Harry are back at Hogwarts having their little chat, and one of the first things DD says to Harry is, "I know how you are feeling, Harry" (pg. 823). That's a pretty bold thing to say unless he *really* does know how Harry feels. On the next page, DD even tells him how he feels when he states, "You care so much you feel as though you will bleed to death with the pain of it." (pg. 824) Now doesn't that sound like DD has been in a similar situation? I wonder if this has anything to do with what DD was talking about when taking the potion in HBP. It sounds like there is some pretty important event from DD's past that Harry needs to learn about. And finally, there's the prophecy. There has been some discussion on here about whether it will be Harry who destroys Voldy or some other person, but the prophecy is very clear about it - "And either *must die* at the hand of the other..." (pg. 841). In fact, Harry asks DD, "So does that mean that...that one of us has got to kill the other one...in the end?" "Yes," said Dumbledore. (pg. 844). And interestingly, DD does not correct him by saying he can destroy him using other means. To me, this book is really significant in what might happen in DH - I believe this book clearly states that it MUST be Harry who kills Voldy, but how is the big question, and wouldn't we all like to know the answer to that one!! MusicalBetsy, who wishes she had something clever to tag on here, but instead will quietly step back into lurkdom From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 18:06:35 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:06:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704101106x714e68d7he6bbfe3b0cd20069@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167296 > Ken: > Above all you should > not write time travel into your story unless you *have* taken a course in > tensor calculus! Regardless of everything else you said, the perfectly self-consistent recursive causation we see in PoA is worthy of hard SF. What's tensor calculus have to do with anything? --Random832 From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 18:25:33 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:25:33 -0000 Subject: Head Boy (was Re: World Building And The Potterverse...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167297 > Lupinlore wrote: > > Maybe Harry could then be Head Boy in the next year, > > with Ginny as his Head Girl. That would allow him to > > almost exactly recapitulate James' Hogwarts career, > > which is something JKR seems to be big on. > > > JW asks: > > Are you suggesting that HP takes a year away from school, > survives his struggle, then returns to Hogwarts to complete > his education? > Yes, that would be the scenario, although I'm not really predicting it as much as putting it out as a possibility. Harry indicated at the end of HBP that he would not return to Hogwarts the next year. However, if he wants to be an auror (and God only knows why he would want to work at the Ministry, in an office once headed by Scrimgeaur, but there you have it) then he needs to sit his NEWTS, which mean coming back for a seventh year -- unless you can sit NEWTS without completing your seventh year, in which case I guess he could just take the dratted tests and avoid the last year entirely. Of course the Ministry might waive the requirement, I guess, if there is a new regime after Voldy's fall. But, anyway, if he goes through with not returning to Hogwarts Harry won't be Head Boy. Of course, Ron and Hermione indicated that THEY wouldn't go back, either, and Hogwarts might not even be open. But I suspect it will be, and Harry might push Ron and Hermione to go back as a way of getting them out of the "firing line," so to speak. The thing is we have two plot trends running into one another. The first is the development of Ron's character, which many people see as foreshadowed by his vision in the Mirror of Erised. Well, the development has been weak, spotty, and filled with reverses (he's a Quidditch hero in OOTP but back to his hapless self in HBP) and we've been told that the Mirror does NOT predict the future, but the foreshadowing is there/may be there/is hoped by some to be there. Having Ron as Head Boy would continue his character development. But then HBP and OOTP are notoriously stuffed with filler, and the Quidditch!Ron arcs may simply have been part of that. The much stronger plot trend is for Harry to recapitulate James' Hogwarts career. He has been a Quidditch hero, Quidditch Captain, nemesis of Snape, popular with the ladies, not very fond of the rules, doted on by Dumbledore, surrounded by an adoring entourage, and not a prefect despite his popularity (the prefect badge going to a low-key sidekick). We know that James was Head Boy and married his Head Girl. That gave heart, once upon a time, to Harry/Hermione shippers, but since we know that isn't going to happen, and since JKR seems quite firmly Harry/Ginny, the only way for Harry to recapitulate that is for him to return in Ginny's seventh year and be Head Boy with her as Head Girl. JKR may very well not press things that far, but Harry as the mirror of James is a VERY definite and clear theme, much clearer than any trends in Ron's development. Lupinlore, who also points out that the covers are inconsistent, as Harry is not wearing a robe in the British children's cover (whereas Ron and Hermione seem to be in dress robes) but is wearing a robe in the American cover From ameritrainscott at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 18:47:18 2007 From: ameritrainscott at yahoo.com (Scott) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:47:18 -0000 Subject: Bill Weasley Treasure Hunter and Gringots Employee Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167298 I was listening to GOF again on a long car ride this weekend and re- heard Bill's introduction. It struck me that as a professional treasure hunter and employee of Gringots, Bill could come in handy both looking for Horcruxes and getting onto Gringot's vaults. Harry thinks he is "cool", maybe they will team up. Any thoughts? -Scott From dougsamu at golden.net Tue Apr 10 18:57:35 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:57:35 -0400 Subject: Death, where is thy...? -More Portraits Message-ID: <69FDD9D4-5587-4F4C-9D49-4381B8F8F8C8@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167299 Steve bbboymin on Portraits: > They do have an 'essence' to draw on, but it is not > mind, spirit, or soul. It is a script of sorts > that is drawn from the living tissue added to the > portrait by the living subject, and brought to life > by the special unique magic that is used to animate > Living Portraits. Of course, I like this too. I come from the Body/Mind/Soul arguments. Ghosts are imprints of Mind. Peeves is an elemental force "embodied" - not really a ghost. And it fits in with my idea of Magic as Projection. Mind is projected onto the world, Thoughts are manifest as Patronus. Ford Anglias are repositories of magically projected thoughts. Potions also are a result of projections of the magic of their ingredients. The wizard can 'embody' thought into the formula. Portraits as a kind of non-liquid potion magic but made with paint. ___ __ From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 20:07:53 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:07:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Motorbike? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704101307v76112f11rbf4ffefaa1c01b65@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167301 > Ken: > > In SS/PS Hagrid claims to have "flown" to the sea island, > right? He and Harry took the boat back to the mainland. > We don't know how the Dursleys got back! But one plausible > theory has to be that the bike is still on the island. Well, we do know how the Dursleys got back - after the shopping trip, they go back to "the Dursleys" - which based on an analysis at hp-lexicon mainly aimed at guessing where little whinging is, has to be back to the island where they left them, not to their house in surrey. So, presumably the boat was returned to the island and they all (incl. Harry) made their way back to surrey by muggle means. From penhaligon at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 20:11:47 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Suzanne Chiles aka Panhandle) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:11:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bill Weasley Treasure Hunter and Gringots Employee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461BEF83.2090207@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167302 Scott wrote: > I was listening to GOF again on a long car ride this weekend and re- > heard Bill's introduction. It struck me that as a professional > treasure hunter and employee of Gringots, Bill could come in handy > both looking for Horcruxes and getting onto Gringot's vaults. Harry > thinks he is "cool", maybe they will team up. Any thoughts? > > -Scott I agree completely ... in fact, I posted the same thing a few weeks ago. While Harry knows quite a lot, I don't think he knows much about breaking curses, and since Bill is a professional cursebreaker, I think he's going be an important ally to Harry in Book 7. panhandle -- Suzanne Chiles aka Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com homescribe.wordpress.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 10 20:16:47 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:16:47 -0000 Subject: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167303 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: India Jones: > > > I noticed that on the inside jacket of DH there's an image of a > > > stag, I don't remember seeing it on the other books (so I'm guessing > > > it's not a company logo). Do you think it means that somehow Harry will be > > > helped by his dad? I know James isn't coming back but do you think > > > something he may have left behind will help Harry in his search? > > Geoff: > > It doesn't necessarily indicate anything to do with James. > > Remember that Harry's own Patronus is a stag. JKR hammered this > > home to us in a number of sources in canon: > Dana: > I do not totally agree because we are also told that his Patronus = > Prongs not just any stag. > This is what DD told Harry in PoA. > Pg312 UK ed paperback: > `Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly > when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular > Patronus? Prongs rode again last night' > `So you did see your father last night Harry you found him inside > yourself.' > End quote from canon. > For what it is worth I do think Harry's father and mother (and the > once we love that never truly leave us, like Sirius and DD)will play > a significant role in DH. Geoff: I believe that Dumbledore was speaking figuratively at this point. Look at what he says in Goblet of Fire: '"One of the wands will force the other to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse. The most recent first... and then those which preceded it..." He looked interrogatively at Harry and Harry nodded. "Which means," said Dumbledore slowly, his eyes upon Harry's face, "that some form of Cedric must have re-appeared." Harry nodded again. "Diggory came back to life?" said Sirius sharply. "No spell can reawaken the dead," said Dumbledore heavily. "All that would have happened is a kind of reverse echo. A shadow of the living Cedric would have emerged from the wand... am I correct, Harry?" "He spoke to me," Harry said. He was suddenly shaking again. "The.. the ghost Cedric, or whatever he was, spoke." "An echo," said Dumbledore, "which retained Cedric's appearance and character. I am guessing other such forms appeared ... less recent victims of Voldemort's wand..." "An old man," Harry said, his throat still constricted. "Bertha Jorkins. And..." "Your parents?" said Dumbledore quietly. "Yes," said Harry.' (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" pp.605-6 UK edition) Interestingly, I have never previously put a lot of thought to what these beings are which the wand produces - until now. The fact is that, whatever Dumbledore may have said to Harry in POA, he makes it uncompromisingly clear here that Harry will not see his parents as living people as such. What does he mean by saying that the ones we love never truly leave us? They are not going to be present in a corporeal form - although maybe perhaps in the intangible form of as ghost or as a portrait or, as I consider later, as an 'echo'. There are a lot of intriguing questions arising from canon. Is it a coincidence that James' Animagus and Harry's Patronus are the same animal? Has a person got any control over what form their Patronus takes or is there some sort of family connection? Interestingly, we do not know for sure that Harry's Patronus is a stag until after he learns that James transformed into one. The description of the Patronus conjured by Harry during the Quidditch match is only described by Lupin as "quite some Patronus" so was there some sort of change later? Returning to your suggestion that Harry may be helped by his father raises the question of what exactly are the 'echoes' produced by the forced Priori Incantatum spell. Unlike the ghosts they appear to be able to influence events physically; those present in the graveyard were able to hinder Voldemort and block him while Harry escaped. Also, they are certainly aware of their surroundings and are able to hold a conversation like the ghosts and the portraits. I have have taken the view in the recent past that the Deathly Hallows is an actual place rather than people. Perhaps it is a gathering place for these beings who may be able to assist Harry again in a confrontation with Voldemort. I fear I have probably created more questions than answers; I wait in the hope that JKR will pull all these threads together and tie all these contacts with the deceased together satisfactorally. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 20:19:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:19:17 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167304 Alla earlier: > > > > I will most definitely blame Snape for Sirius death, but that is more connected to that he himself claimed to take part in it. I interpret it as Snape supplying Voldemort with extra information about him - be it the same info that Kreacher provided or anything else. > > Julie responded: > > There's no logic to that argument IMO, because Sirius's death was completely *unplanned.* Voldemort had no way to know Sirius would be at the DoM, no way to know he'd duel with Bellatrix, no way to know she'd get the upper hand on him, etc, etc. (Apparently at Spinner's End Bellatrix is too insane and Narcissa to distraught to > > notice the illogic of Snape's claim.) Alla again: > > Sorry for being unclear. I was trying to say that I blame Snape for Sirius death if he **correctly** took such credit. We may not know what he did, but whatever it was, if he is telling the truth to Bella ( and who am I to not believe him ;)), he is to blame in my mind together with Voldemort, period. > > It does not look planned now, but we may learn what Snape did and picture may change. > > I was trying to say that in that instance Snape should be blamed and should pay with horrible death ;) NOT because he goated Sirius. Carol now: I'm glad that you don't blame Sirius Black's death on Snape's goading, but that may be all that Snape is claiming credit for in stating that he had a share in Sirius Black's death. He would know, however, as Bellatrix doesn't, that he (Snape) checked to be sure that Black was safely at Order HQ. He must have explained to him at that time that Voldemort had implanted a vision in Harry's mind ("He's got Padfoot at the place where it's hidden") or Black would have wondered why Snape was checking on him. And then, of course, after he found out that Harry and Hermione had gone into the forest with Umbridge and hadn't returned, he again contacted Order HQ and specifically told Black to wait for Dumbledore. It was Black's decision, not Snape's, to go to the DoM. And Julie's post describes what happened from there. Of course, Bellatrix knew what happened after the Order arrived, and Snape was not about to tell her the preliminaries. As for what else Snape might have done that he might have taken credit for--his job as a double agent loyal to Dumbledore would be to spy on LV and the Death Eaters, at the same time supplying Voldemort with just enough information that Voldemort would consider him useful and want to keep him alive. (I'd say "trust him," but LV doesn't trust anyone.) So, what information could Snape have given Voldemort regarding Sirius Black? LV would already know from Wormtail, as Black says himself, that Black is an Animagus, and Wormtail could describe that Animagus form in great and accurate detail, having seen it many times from his Hogwarts years onward. And he would have told LV long before that Black was James Potter's best friend and Harry's godfather, that he was the intended SK before the switch, and that he was a member of the original Order of the Phoenix. He would have told him the entire story of what happened in the Shrieking Shack. (Snape's role may have contributed to Voldemort's doubts about him as "one who, I believe, has left me forever.") And LV would know from the Daily Prophet that Black had escaped from Hogwarts, still viewed as a murderer by the Aurors and the WW at large. Snape would have had no opportunity to tell Voldemort anything about Black until his return, on Dumbledore's orders, at the end of GoF. At that point, he could have told Voldemort (as part of the information that he had to provide in order to stay alive and continue working for Dumbledore) that Black was in England and that he had seen him at Hogwarts in dog form. He would not have known where Black was staying as that had not yet been decided, and when he did know, he could not have revealed it because of the Fidelius Charm. ("I cannot say the name of the place," etc.). Voldemort would have passed on the information about Black to the Death Eaters. Lucius Malfoy tells Snape that he has seen Black in dog form on Platform 9 3/4--and Snape, in turn, passes on this information to Black. Although he's taunting Black (who is doing the same to Snape with his "Snivellus" and "Malfoy's lap dog" digs), he's also warning him--you've been seen by a Death Eater. They know about your disguise. It is not safe to leave Order HQ. It is canonically not Snape but Kreacher, escaping to Narcissa, who tells the Malfoys about Harry's affection for Sirius Black, and this information is not used to trap or kidnap Black--it's used to entice *Harry* to the DoM to get the Prophecy orb (and be killed afterwards). Black and the Order are not supposed to be there at all, according to Voldemort's plan, and when Snape alerts them that Harry and friends have been tricked into going there, he specifically tells Black to stay behind. IMO, Snape is trying to convince Bellatrix (and through her, the other DEs who are talking behind his back) that he is both loyal to and useful to Voldemort, and he knows that she can't dispute his claim to providing information that led to Black's death because she's no longer close to Voldemort. But, as far as I can see, the only information he could have provided is that Black had returned to England as a member of the reconstituted Order. He could not reveal his whereabouts, and LV already knew the Animagus secret. If Black had stayed at headquarters as Snape told him to do, or if Harry had not believed the implanted vision to be real, Black would still be alive, regardless of whatever information Snape revealed about him. It was his own decision that led him to go there, his own recklessness that led him to fight Bellatrix on the dais in front of the Veil, her spell that sent him through it, Voldemort's plot to send her and the DEs to the MoM to get the Prophecy orb (and kill or kidna Harry), and Kreacher's treachery that led to the use of a vision of Black to lure Harry to the MoM. Snape had nothing to do with it and no share in the guilt, or so small a share that it isn't worth mentioning. He is only acting in his DE role to persuade Bellatrix of his loyalty and usefulness to LV, and he claims to have provided unspecified information that she can't disprove. If a double agent should die a horrible death for stating that a known enemy of the person he's reporting to (LV) is in England, then good heavens, let's tear him to pieces and let the Inferi eat him. But if providing such seemingly useful information is part of the unavoidable risk of being a double agent and cannot in fact be used by the Death Eaters or Voldemort as long as Black follows DD's orders and remains at Order HQ, perhaps we should be a bit more lenient. Carol, who thinks we should consider Snape's skills as actor and liar when we read "Spinner's End" From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 10 20:43:46 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:43:46 -0000 Subject: Motorbike? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704101307v76112f11rbf4ffefaa1c01b65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167305 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Ken: > > > > In SS/PS Hagrid claims to have "flown" to the sea island, > > right? He and Harry took the boat back to the mainland. > > We don't know how the Dursleys got back! But one plausible > > theory has to be that the bike is still on the island. Jordan: > Well, we do know how the Dursleys got back - after the shopping trip, > they go back to "the Dursleys" - which based on an analysis at > hp-lexicon mainly aimed at guessing where little whinging is, has to > be back to the island where they left them, not to their house in > surrey. So, presumably the boat was returned to the island and they > all (incl. Harry) made their way back to surrey by muggle means. Geoff: I can't locate the Lexicon item but canon seems to be very specific about what happened at the end of that day. Hagrid takes Harry to Paddington railway station and he gets on a train on his own, leaving Hagrid behind. Trains out of Paddington don't get near the coast until way, way down the line. Now I agree that Hagrid and Harry came ashore in the morning of that day and walked to the railway station to go to London. But although Hagrid is quite gormless sometimes, I don't see him dumping Harry on a train to go back and save the Dursleys on his own, if I interpret what you are saying correctly. I think it is more feasible that the boat owner was involved in some way in rescuing them. This is possibly a bit of the story which it wasn't thought important enough to include since HPFGU and its army of sleuths didn't exist at that point in time. :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 20:54:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:54:42 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167306 > zgirnius: > Based on my participation in this and other forums for online fan > discussion, it seems to me few fans believed that James Potter was > ever an arrogant so-and-so (I know I had no suspicions about it as a > reader). "Snape's Worst Memory" in OotP came as a shock to them, and > me, as it did to Harry. To the extent that some still have trouble > seeing the scene in this way. But the scene was well-telegraphed by > Snape's comments since PoA. Snape is just not trusted by most readers > as a reliable source on the Marauders (quite reasonably, I know *I* > would not trust his interpretations of their actions). I do not > believe that his having been proved correct in one aspect has made > Snape that much more reliable in the eyes of the readers. Alla: But this is a different though to me. Sure, I was surprised by that scene. As I said previously though I was not and will not be surprised if the prank will turn out to be a premeditated murder. I mean, disappointed? Yes, I probably will be. Surprised? No way. At the very least it is quite clear to me that Snape sincerely believes that Marauders tried to kill him. Unless he lies through his teeth obviously, but as I said even if the more sinister interpretation will come true, the most I am thinking of is that Snape played his part, not that Sirius did not play his part, whatever that was. So, no, I will not be surprised. And Snape is unreliable source of information? Um, I had read the arguments convicting Sirius of murder based on Snape's word and Snape's word alone many many times. Which is surely valid interpretation IMO, but to me we have SO many questions about that night and almost no answers that any conclusive judgment is premature. Dumbledore's supposed taking Marauders side in prank is the one I find especially amusing. I mean, really, where in canon it says so? The fact that Dumbledore did not expel Sirius? Isn't it possible that he did not deserve expulsion not only per Dumbledore's opinion but per what **really** happened that night? Hogwarts has so many nasty punishments besides expulsion, who says that Sirius was not given one of them? So, I would say that I have not seen Snape judged as unreliable information source much. I mean, no, I did, but by the fans who are not fond of him. And vice versa is true of course. Zgirnius: > The Marauders tend to be (quite unreasonably, in my view) considered > as reliable sources on their own activities, and even Snape's, though > the latter observation is not relevant to my argument. Alla: Quite unreasonably? I guess we have to agree to disagree right away if we are going into Marauders are liars argument. Sorry. Personally I am still yet to see Sirius to be proven a liar once in cannon. Remus hides information, yes. But does he lie? So, are you talking about both of them or just Remus? Zgirnius: > The revelation that Sirius (and *especially* James) planned to murder > Snape by werewolf in a premeditated set-up would be absolutely > shocking to me; far more that the Worst Memory was. I can only > imagine that fans less fond of Snape than I, and more fond on the > Marauders, would find it even more shocking. > Alla: Right, see above. It could have been shocking to me earlier in the series. Right now for me it definitely will not be. Disappointing, yes? Shocking, no. Carol: If a double agent should die a horrible death for stating that a known enemy of the person he's reporting to (LV) is in England, then good heavens, let's tear him to pieces and let the Inferi eat him. Alla: Now that is a great idea. Snape as a snack for Inferi. Sure I am all for that, lol. But no, I will much prefer Snape suffering inside forever than seeing his bloody death, not a fan of horror movies or books ( although that will do as well, worse comes to worse) Carol: But if providing such seemingly useful information is part of the > unavoidable risk of being a double agent and cannot in fact be used by > the Death Eaters or Voldemort as long as Black follows DD's orders and > remains at Order HQ, perhaps we should be a bit more lenient. > Alla: No. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 21:09:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:09:39 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167307 > Alla: > > Would it be a big surprise for the reader though? I mean, Snape is > pretty sure that they tried to kill him, is he not? > > I mean, the possibility is firmly in reader's mind already IMO. So > far it looks like one of the two things to me - either a reckless > prank or premeditated murder and both possibilities are hinted in the > text, no? zgirnius: Based on my participation in this and other forums for online fan discussion, it seems to me few fans believed that James Potter was ever an arrogant so-and-so (I know I had no suspicions about it as a reader). "Snape's Worst Memory" in OotP came as a shock to them, and me, as it did to Harry. To the extent that some still have trouble seeing the scene in this way. But the scene was well-telegraphed by Snape's comments since PoA. Snape is just not trusted by most readers as a reliable source on the Marauders (quite reasonably, I know *I* would not trust his interpreations of their actions). I do not believe that his having been proved correct in one aspect has made Snape that much more reliable in the eyes of the readers. The Marauders tend to be (quite unreasonably, in my view) considered as reliable sources on their own activities, and even Snape's, though the latter observation is not relevant to my argument. The Marauders (mostly through Lupin's exposition in PoA) have weighed in regarding the Prank: - Sirius had no intention to kill Snape, 'Sirius thought it would be - er -- amusing' to tell Snape, it was meant as a joke - Lupin had no idea what was going on (or why would he blame Sirius alone?) - and James did not either (since he 'heard what Sirius had done'). It is therefore my opinion that this is the most common fan belief about the Prank. It also happens to be mine, though not, as it happens, because Lupin said so. The revelation that Sirius (and *especially* James) planned to murder Snape by werewolf in a premeditated set-up would be absolutely shocking to me; far more that the Worst Memory was. I can only imagine that fans less fond of Snape than I, and more fond on the Marauders, would find it even more shocking. From mandyallen286 at fsmail.net Tue Apr 10 20:23:21 2007 From: mandyallen286 at fsmail.net (wapp13) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:23:21 -0000 Subject: Image on Deathly Hallows book cover Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167308 I believe the image shows a vault at Gringotts. It would make more sense than it being the room of requirement. wapp13 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 21:11:45 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:11:45 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rains In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167309 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- "Zara" wrote: > > > >> Ken: > >> Fictional works don't have to be set in any specific > >> year and stories that don't span more than a year > >> can't have some of these issues. But when an author > >> does take the time to mention these details I expect > >> her or him to get them right. > >> > > > > zgirnius: > > So Rowling should not have let Nick name the year of > > his death, in your view. > > Ken: > > Actually no, I rather like having the stories set in a > specific time period. It is just that having done that > she should have sat down with a calendar while she > plotted out each book. It wouldn't have been difficult > to make the plots match the calendar. In any event a > story that spans seven years cannot have months start > on the same day of the week for several years running > no matter what the starting year is. > ...edited... bboyminn: Just a few general comments that I've been meaning to make. The first and most important point is 'Artistic License'. Artistic License says an author can play fast and loose with the truth, as long as it is not glaringly obvious. No fiction, especially fantasy, author can reasonably expect that anyone other than a hyper-overly-obsessed fans or a genius savants are going to know or spend the time to find out /if/ specific details are actually true. For example, if an author needs it to rain, then it rains. What author can reasonably expect readers to stop reading and go check with the weather service to see if it actually rain on the night of 'the Hut on the Rock', and what does it matter? She needed to set the mood of a 'dark and stormy night', and so she did, as would any other author. If an author needs a full moon for a particular story, then there is a full moon, and that is that. If an author needs Mars to be 'bright tonight' then it is bright tonight. The key to 'world building' isn't precision in every little detail, it is merely believability in the flow of the story. I believed it was raining on the night of 'The Hut on the Rock', regardless of whether or not it rained in the real world, and that is what counts. As a tangential example, in 'Enders Game' we have near lightspeed travel with no explanation of how. As you probably know the energy consumption as you approach the speed of light becomes astronomical, it increases in the exponential extreme for every increment of new speed that brings you that much closer to the speed of light. Yet, where did they get all this impossible energy. Later in the books, they have faster near-lightspeed travel, with no explanation of the mammoth source of energy to provide such speed. No explanation either for the source of all the food necessary to sustain years of space flight. Yet, I don't care; I don't care because the story was not about the dynamics of lightspeed travel, it was about a character in a world. The author needed near lightspeed travel, and so he had it, no explanation needed. When true faster than lightspeed travel enters the story, in the context of the story, it is believable, even though it is scientifically EXTREMELY unlikely. JKR needed school to begin on an assumed Monday and so it does. When I read about the first day of school, trust me I am not rushing to the calender to see if it really is a Monday. True, I might do that later in group discussion, but /as I read/ the day of the week is irrelevant. In every work of fiction there is always compromise toward artistic license. Like I said, if an author needs it to rain, then it rains; simple as that. In a sense, because all things occur in a /fictional/ world, they are in an alternate universe. In our 'universe' magical spells, hypogryphs, unicorns, giants, and dragons are not real, they are a 'not real' and school alway starting on a Monday. Yet, still I don't care. I'm not interested, as I read, in picking at the details; I am interested in the flow of the story and how captivating it is. OK, later, after I've read, the hyper-overly-obsessed fan in me comes out and checks into those details. But that is all for fun and curiosity, it has nothing to do with whether I enjoy the book in the moment. And, enjoy and believing the book in the moment is the true test of 'world building'. A flaw in 'world building' is only a flaw if it is so glaringly obvious and jarring that you are drawn out of the story by it. As long as you are compelled to keep reading, it doesn't really matter if Mars was /really/ bright that night, or if the moon was /really/ full that night, or if Dragon /really/ exist. Thanks, I feel better now. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Apr 10 21:18:51 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:18:51 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167310 > Zgirnius: > > The Marauders tend to be (quite unreasonably, in my view) > considered > > as reliable sources on their own activities, and even Snape's, > though > > the latter observation is not relevant to my argument. > > > Alla: > > Quite unreasonably? I guess we have to agree to disagree right away > if we are going into Marauders are liars argument. Sorry. Personally > I am still yet to see Sirius to be proven a liar once in cannon. > > Remus hides information, yes. But does he lie? So, are you talking > about both of them or just Remus? Magpie: I don't think Zara's talking about lying here. JKR seems fascinated with people being honest about a situation but *still* not being a reliable source of their own activities. Just like people in real life, they're sometimes just too baised to give you a good view--that is, to give you the view you consider the right one. That, I think, is what we see with the Marauders. They've never lied to Harry about Snape, nor has Snape seemingly lied about them. And yet they still clearly have very different views about what was going on. Even when Harry goes to Remus and Sirius and asks for an explanation for what he's seen, Sirius and Remus don't lie, but clearly they're not describing the same scene that Harry thinks he saw. That's why, imo, it's good to not consider the Marauders reliable sources on their own activities. Not because they lie--they don't, and we'd be foolish to think that they are. You should consider them reliable in terms of the basic actions that happened (including stuff like Snape being Lucius lapdog and being part of a gang of Slytherins), you just can't assume they're interpreting them correctly for you (Snape's relationship with Lucius and the gang may not be any like what one would imagine from what Sirius said). They're not necessarily giving you the whole story as you yourself would see it, because they're giving their side to it. And of course, sometimes they might do something as good as lying, lying by ommission or whatever, for whatever reason--all characters might do that. Remus never lies to Harry that I remember, but it's understandable for Harry to feel that he's been dishonest at the end of PoA simply by not telling him all he knew. When it comes to the Prank...I'm trying to think of what I think about it. I don't think it was murder. I don't think Sirius is lying about it. He's too angrily dismissive, and Lupin is too wearily dismissive-- of the whole thing for me to believe there was really some evil plot. To me Snape reads more as someone whose story is known (as Dumbledore reminds him it is) and it just isn't seen the way he sees it. JKR seems to know how angry that can make people--perhaps even angrier than if the real story just isn't known. I do think there could be very important information about the Prank we don't know about, but my instinct doesn't lead me to think that information is about making somebody any more or less guilty. I would more guess the more information might be about why it makes Snape so angry or why it's such a painful memory for him in general, which may show the actions of a lot of people in a different light. I suspect that's what makes the Prank so important and not whether or not it was murder. To use something that's maybe not the best analogy, think of Ron's anger at Harry in GoF. Saying that Ron was angry at Harry because he thought he put his name in the Goblet doesn't really get to the heart of *why* Ron was angry, what buttons that hit for Ron, why it felt like a betrayal to him. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 21:24:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:24:48 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167311 > Alla: > And Snape is unreliable source of information? Um, I had read the > arguments convicting Sirius of murder based on Snape's word and > Snape's word alone many many times. zgirnius: Sure, people have posted that opinion. My own experience suggests it is a minority who believe this, however. I could be wrong. Alla: > So, I would say that I have not seen Snape judged as unreliable > information source much. I mean, no, I did, but by the fans who are > not fond of him. And vice versa is true of course. > Zgirnius, previously: > > The Marauders tend to be (quite unreasonably, in my view) > considered > > as reliable sources on their own activities, and even Snape's, > though > > the latter observation is not relevant to my argument. > > Alla: > > Quite unreasonably? I guess we have to agree to disagree right away > if we are going into Marauders are liars argument. Sorry. Personally > I am still yet to see Sirius to be proven a liar once in cannon. > zgirnius: Snape and Sirius do not lie much, if at all. This is not what makes them unreliable. When Snape says Sirius tried to murder him, he is not stating a fact of which he has certain knowledge. He is stating his own personal opinion, honestly held, of what Sirius did. To *know* Sirius tried to murder him, he would need to know things about Sirius's state of mind that I do not believe he could possibly know. Likewise, when Sirius claims Snape always loved the Dark Arts, Sirius is speaking of something about which *he* cannot have certain knowledge. He can know Snape used them (though if he did, I note he does not say so). He can know Snape exhibited a great depth and breadth of knowledge about them. But love? That is an emotion hidden inside Snape's heart, to which Sirius surely has no more access than Snape has to his. There are other reasons other than sheer love for Dark Arts why Snape might know them. Including, among other possible motivations, a interest in his favorite school subject, DADA. Both characters are so certain they understand the evil that lies in the heart of the other so utterly that they jump to conclusions based on equivocal evidence, and we would be foolish to trust either of them blindly. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 10 21:25:07 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:25:07 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704101106x714e68d7he6bbfe3b0cd20069@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167312 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Ken: > > Above all you should > > not write time travel into your story unless you *have* taken a course in > > tensor calculus! > > Regardless of everything else you said, the perfectly self-consistent > recursive causation we see in PoA is worthy of hard SF. What's tensor > calculus have to do with anything? > > --Random832 > Ken: I don't know if you are being serious or not so I don't know whether to respond seriously or not. Perhaps this time travel sidetrack has gone on long enough so rather than post a detailed discussion, let me just say this: "perfectly self-consistent recursive causation"? I LOVE it, it has me rolling on the floor in fits of laughter! I don't know if that is the response you expected or not. I cannot take this seriously as a plausible element in a "serious" work of fantasy or SF, there are way too many problems with it. If you were being serious and it works for you, so be it, I am sure you are not the only one who enjoys stories written around the notion. It's just a big, ugly wart on the HP series to me. I can ignore it well enough to truly enjoy the rest of the story, I can never accept it. I've been running all this over in my mind and come to think of it I do not believe that the authors I enjoy most make much use of time travel. Isaac Asimov's Spacer/Robot/Empire/Foundation universe started out with a time travel culture but then a character in the time travel ministry realized that the technology was ruining the human race and managed to kill off time travel entirely. As I recall only one other character after that time traveled and he was blown forward in time. Mostly the authors I like avoid the notion like the plague and I don't pick authors based on their stance on time travel so I guess the kind of mind that dislikes time travel just naturally seeks out its own kind. Sigh, I've said it before but in my best Foghorn Leghorn impersonation: "Tensor calculus? That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son". Come on people, is my sense of humor all *that* dry??? Ken From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 21:26:16 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:26:16 -0000 Subject: Image on Deathly Hallows book cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167313 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wapp13" wrote: > > I believe the image shows a vault at Gringotts. It would make more > sense than it being the room of requirement. > > wapp13 > Ryan: You didn't specify but I'm assuming you're referring to the UK children's edition cover. Why would it make more sense that it's vault at Gringotts than the RoR? From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Apr 10 20:37:10 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:37:10 -0700 Subject: Snape's Alternate Dementor Strategy (was: Predictions for the End) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1585818775.20070410133710@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167314 Quick_Silver: q> Sorry about the spelling error (my bad). I disagree with main thrust q> of your counterargument...that Patronus is too difficult. Snape's q> method is, as far as I can tell, being taught to 6th year students so q> I'd say it probably has the same difficulty level of Patronus. Dave: My guess would be that Snape's method involves Occlumency -- Maybe when your emotions are closed off, the dementors can't consume them... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 21:37:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:37:51 -0000 Subject: Motorbike? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167315 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > ... We don't know what happened to Sirius's > > motorbike. The last person known to have it was > > Hagrid. Consequently, I think he still has it. > > ...snip... > > > Personally, I think Hagrid just stashed it somewhere at > > or near Hogwarts and forgot about it. Though, I have > > been hoping Harry will stumble across it and use it > > again. > > > > Ken: > > In SS/PS Hagrid claims to have "flown" to the sea island, > right? He and Harry took the boat back to the mainland. > We don't know how the Dursleys got back! But one plausible > theory has to be that the bike is still on the island. > > Ken > bboyminn: Yes, Hagrid's comment of having 'flown' is one of the many mysteries of the series. One that we will probably never know the answer to. I suspect, if you just Apparated or Portkeyed to a location and met someone who knew nothing about magic, a quick and easy explanation to inquiries as to how you got there, would be 'I flew'. Hargid was simply saving himself a long and complex explanation. I doubt that Hagrid flew the Motorbike, because that would involve leaving behind a magically enchanted and therefore illegal object for muggles to find; seems unlikely. Regarding how the Dursleys got off the island, I suspect either the boat magically returned to the island, or the owner came out to check on them and gave them a ride back to the mainland. I think it is an inconsequential detail, which is why it was never explained. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Apr 10 21:42:59 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:42:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bill Weasley Treasure Hunter and Gringots Employee Message-ID: <21596021.1176241379641.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167316 From: Scott >I was listening to GOF again on a long car ride this weekend and re- >heard Bill's introduction. It struck me that as a professional >treasure hunter and employee of Gringots, Bill could come in handy >both looking for Horcruxes and getting onto Gringot's vaults. Harry >thinks he is "cool", maybe they will team up. Any thoughts? Bart: I think that if JKR doesn't kill off Bill, there's a definite series possibility. And, since she has said that there is NO possibility of continuations. This is why I believe that the end will contain something on the order of the ending of the WW; not everybody suddenly losing their magic, but something more poignant, more like the end of LORD OF THE RINGS, where the end is in sight, but not quite there yet. Something like all children born of magical families will be Squibs. Bart From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Apr 10 22:00:44 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:00:44 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > zgirnius: > > Based on my participation in this and other forums for online fan > > discussion, it seems to me few fans believed that James Potter was > > ever an arrogant so-and-so (I know I had no suspicions about it as > a > > reader). "Snape's Worst Memory" in OotP came as a shock to them, > and > > me, as it did to Harry. To the extent that some still have trouble > > seeing the scene in this way. But the scene was well-telegraphed by > > Snape's comments since PoA. Snape is just not trusted by most > readers > > as a reliable source on the Marauders (quite reasonably, I know *I* > > would not trust his interpretations of their actions). I do not > > believe that his having been proved correct in one aspect has made > > Snape that much more reliable in the eyes of the readers. wynnleaf Actually, Snape's comments about the Marauder's have been collaborated by several pieces of evidence. He said that James was arrogant and the Pensieve scene appeared to collaborate that. He said that James used his own spells against him, and that was collaborated in the Pensieve scene. He said that the Marauders thought they were above the rules. While we don't know what they actually *thought*, we do know that they broke the rules a great deal and had lots of detentions -- apparently far more than Snape since Harry never seems to run across a detention for Snape in the files. Snape says they only attacked 4-1. That doesn't exactly happen in the pensieve scene. It's more like 2-1, with 2 others watching. We could include Lupin as culpable in that in the sense that he actively decided not to use his position as prefect to intervene. We also see from the detention files that James and Sirius tended to hex and jinx others as at least a duo -- not so much by themselves. Snape said that James arrogantly trusted his friends, one of which was a spy, and got himself killed. We may not call that "arrogant," but otherwise, it's true that he trusted where he shouldn't. Snape said Lupin was not to be trusted in POA, and he was right. He was wrong about exactly what Lupin was doing, but he was right that Lupin was being extremely untrustworthy in a way that risked student's lives and hindered attempts to capture Sirius and protect the students (including Harry). Hm, is there anything else Snape accused the Marauder's of that we don't have any outside info about? So on the whole, even though I definitely think Snape is a biased "witness," I think that he has a fairly good track record of collaborated statements about the Marauders. Not perfect, but pretty good. > Alla: > > But this is a different though to me. Sure, I was surprised by that > scene. As I said previously though I was not and will not be > surprised if the prank will turn out to be a premeditated murder. I > mean, disappointed? Yes, I probably will be. Surprised? No way. wynnleaf Yes, but those of us who pick apart the stories like this will hardly be shocked if *any* of the various theories occurs (except the most outlandish). Most readers would probably be amazed. Alla > And Snape is unreliable source of information? Um, I had read the > arguments convicting Sirius of murder based on Snape's word and > Snape's word alone many many times. wynnleaf I'm not sure what you mean. What arguments could possibly "convict" Sirius of murder? Who exactly did he kill?? Do you mean attempted murder? Hm. Well, Snape has no proof. On the other hand, in the Real World, a 16 year old setting up someone for a prank that anyone should reasonably know is life threatening, would probably be considered a murderer if the person actually died. It may not be premeditated, but it would still be considered murder. Alla Which is surely valid > interpretation IMO, but to me we have SO many questions about that > night and almost no answers that any conclusive judgment is > premature. Dumbledore's supposed taking Marauders side in prank is > the one I find especially amusing. I mean, really, where in canon it > says so? The fact that Dumbledore did not expel Sirius? wynnleaf Here I agree. Many pro-Snape fans (especially over in the fan fic world), seem to assume that the Marauders got off almost without punishment. The only thing we really know is that they didn't get expelled. Harry, when using Sectumsempra on Draco, didn't get expelled either, even though McGonagall did say he could have deserved it. So it's not that surprising that Sirius didn't get expelled. For all we know, he was in detention for the rest of the year. >Alla > So, I would say that I have not seen Snape judged as unreliable > information source much. wynnleaf Thing is, much of what Snape says actually has outside collaboration. What the Marauders say about Snape has very little to no outside collaboration. And some of what Lupin or Sirius say about him actually has a little bit of evidence against it. > > Zgirnius: > > The Marauders tend to be (quite unreasonably, in my view) > considered > > as reliable sources on their own activities, and even Snape's, > though > > the latter observation is not relevant to my argument. > > > Alla: > > Quite unreasonably? I guess we have to agree to disagree right away > if we are going into Marauders are liars argument. wynnleaf I suppose it depends on whether you consider anyone giving biased info a "liar." Sirius *always* speaks of Snape with insults, name calling, etc. even in the GOF scene where he gives some info about Snape to the Trio. In my opinion, when the speaker is including name-calling in with their comments, you have to assume what they say is at least partially biased. Not necessarily a lie, unless the intent is to mislead. As regards Lupin, for good or bad, he has quite a history of lying. And practically all of his lies are to prevent people from thinking ill of him. Some readers assume that in spite of 9 months of lying and lying and lying simply to keep the good will of others, we should assume that Lupin saying he's oh, so sorry is supposed to mean he'll never lie again and therefore everything else he says in canon must be true. While Lupin may *certainly* be sorry about his previous lies, he has shown himself far too willing to lie to keep the goodwill of others in order to believe everything he says to Harry about Snape. My rule of thumb with Lupin, regarding Snape is -- if there's any reason to think telling something different that is somewhat negative about the Maruaders or Lupin might make Lupin or the Marauders look bad, Lupin has a high likelihood of lying in order to keep the goodwill of others. Just remember, at the end of POA, it was not Lupin who confessed *anything* to Dumbledore. Sirius told Dumbledore about being animagi, and Lupin did *not* tell Dumbledore about the Marauders Map (Dumbledore first learns of it in GOF). Lupin did not appear to volunteer to Dumbledore any additional info other than what Sirius had already told Dumbledore. Alla Sorry. Personally > I am still yet to see Sirius to be proven a liar once in cannon. wynnleaf I consider a liar someone who deviates from the truth *intentionally.* In my opinion, Sirius is a *biased* witness, not necessarily a liar, and therefore all of his comments about Snape have a high probability of being skewed negatively, even if unintentionally. Alla > Remus hides information, yes. But does he lie? So, are you talking > about both of them or just Remus? wynnleaf Once again, what do you call lying? If you make someone believe one thing, when in fact another completely different thing is true, are you lying? Or is it only when you specifically make a false statement? As a parent, my children know that I consider a lie anything that intentionally causes another person to believe a falsehood. So yes, Lupin lies. > > Zgirnius: > > The revelation that Sirius (and *especially* James) planned to > murder > > Snape by werewolf in a premeditated set-up would be absolutely > > shocking to me; far more that the Worst Memory was. wynnleaf I doubt we'll find out it was premeditated attempted murder. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to find that James was involved. Alla: Yeah, exactly. Lupin's absences were school sanctioned, so what business that was of Snape's? wynnleaf If Snape had overheard the Marauders comments during the pensieve scene (or similar comments at another time), it would be understandable if he assumed that not only was Lupin doing something that was school sanctioned, he and the Marauders were *also* doing something that was completely wrong -- which, of course, they were. And what business was it of Snape's? Well, if he thought they were the sort of bullying, care-for-nothing students willing to cavalierly hurt others just because they exist (why would he ever think that??), he might think that the only way to stop that behavior was to discover something that would get them expelled. After all, Filch's detention files make it crystal clear that the usual school punishments didn't put a dent in stopping the Marauders. Alla: Erm, I completely disagree. The way Lupin tells the story right now, that makes Marauders look very bad. I mean, any walking around trying to get them expelled , really how can it be comparable with trying to **kill** somebody? wynnleaf The reason I said Lupin's story makes it look like Snape sort of deserved it, is because that's the way so many readers take it. I've read numerous comments that Snape shouldn't have been following the Marauders around to try and get them expelled and that if he hadn't been doing that, it wouldn't have happened. While technically that's true, it seems to me to indicate that many readers think Snape brought it on himself. How dare he try to get those nice Marauder boys expelled! However, perhaps you don't feel that way. >Wynnleaf: > We can speculate a lot about whatever supposedly bad things Snape > was up to during school. Alla: It does tell me more and more bad things of what Snape did with every book actually. wynnleaf What "more bad things" have we learned about what Snape did in school? Can't think of anything other than the mudblood comment and inventing Sectumsempra which we don't know if he ever used. So he called someone a bad word in a stressful moment. Not at all nice, but it doesn't come close to collaborating all the stuff Lupin and Sirius say. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 10 22:15:05 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:15:05 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167318 > Alla: > > But this is a different though to me. Sure, I was surprised by that > scene. As I said previously though I was not and will not be > surprised if the prank will turn out to be a premeditated murder. I > mean, disappointed? Yes, I probably will be. Surprised? No way. Pippin: You won't be surprised if Remus turns out to have tried to murder Snape? You are expecting that to happen? Harry's favorite teacher and JKR's favorite adult character? Or you don't think it will be shocking if Harry finds out his beloved godfather tried to commit murder as a teenager? > > Carol: > > But if providing such seemingly useful information is part of the > > unavoidable risk of being a double agent and cannot in fact be used > by the Death Eaters or Voldemort as long as Black follows DD's orders > andremains at Order HQ, perhaps we should be a bit more lenient. > > > > > Alla: > > No. Pippin: Why no? Providing true but useless information to the enemy is part of what a double agent does. If the information inadvertantly turned out to be useful, that's not necessarily Snape's fault. But did it? Snape makes contradictory claims in the same sentence, first that his information helped dispose of Sirius, second that he gives Bella full credit for finishing him off. We don't know which is true. But AFAWK, the only information that we know helped to destroy Sirius came from Kreacher not Snape, so if that's what Snape is talking about, he has to be lying. If Narcissa suspects this, she dare not mention it -- she's there to beg a favor she can only afford to ask of someone whose loyalty to the Dark Lord cannot be questioned. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 22:28:18 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:28:18 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167319 > >>JW: > That's why they call it MAGIC. If it made any sense, they would > call it LOGIC. ;D > > When in doubt, blame it on Shesezso. Why do some broken wands work, > and not others? Why is there so much sheepskin, and so few sheep? > Because ... Shesezso! ;D > > JW, who as a businessman knows the Real World is often irrational, > and so thinks it is foolish to demand a whole lot of logical > consistency from a fantasy world in which there is no viable > economic or political system. Betsy Hp: Yeah, and that's *exactly* what bugs me. Where does the WW get their stuff? How do they manufacture it, what is their means for paying for it, how do they interact with Muggles if that's what needed and where exactly do the goblins figure in? I agree, JKR probably relies on the easy and sloppy "shesezso". Which is the cheap way out, IMO. The more magical and fantastical your premise, the more rooted in logic you need to be if you've a hope of creating a viable, believable world for me. JKR wants us to believe that the WW is a real place. I don't. And yes, it kills some of the magic for me. I don't really care about Voldemort's effect on the WW because I don't buy that the WW exists. I do understand that mileage may vary on this point. But it's something that's important to me, it's something that other authors seem to manage quite nicely (a good example is Naomi Novik's Temeraire series that reimagines the Napolionic wars with dragons), and so therefore it's a flaw on JKR's part, in my view. I used to think that these issues would clear up as Harry got older and took more notice of things. It hasn't. It's not a series killer (the characters are still important), but it is a series dampener, IMO. That the WW is a magical world only makes the lack of logic worse, IMO. Betsy Hp (doesn't believe in Diagon Alley; does believe in Snape ) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 22:37:10 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:37:10 -0000 Subject: Snape smacks down Sirius (was:The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167320 > >>Alla: > > Snape's goating made no influence on Sirius death as far as I am > concerned. I find it disgusting, but certainly do not think that > it is translates in Sirius death. > Betsy Hp: I'm snagging this one tiny little comment and dragging it into an entirely different conversation. Mwhaha I *loved* the scene where Snape goads Sirius and Sirius completely looses his cool. *Loved* it. I grin everytime I read it. Snape plays Sirius so beautifully, every comeback Sirius thinks of, Snape easily turns it right back on him. I mean, sure Snape is doing this to a man who's just this side of crazy (and possibly a bit drunk as well) but think of the history! I'm betting (going by Young!Snape's furious cursing, and Young! Sirius's smooth and witty remarks during the pensieve scene) that usually it was Sirius using words to turn Snape into an emotional mess. But now, the shoe is on the other foot, and it's *Professor* Snape, Head of Slytherin House, Potions Master of Hogwarts, with the upper hand. Revenge can be sweet. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 22:57:00 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:57:00 -0000 Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167321 > >>zgirnius: > > Unless there is an interview in which Rowling states > Snape did owe a debt in exactly the way Peter does, > I would conclude he never did. I am not familiar with > such an interview, but would appreciate being made > aware of it if one exists. Betsy Hp: I agree. Any structure built upon a foundation of Snape bound by a "magical life-debt" is shaky indeed. There just isn't much canonical support. (IMO, of course!) > >>Goddlefrood: > > Upon arrival at Hogwarts Severus was sorted into Slytherin > > House. He fell in with a group, first with Bella as its leader > > and then with Lucius, of Slytherins. Snape was impressed with > > their pure blood status and I see no reason why he would ever > > have divulged his own half-blood status to them. > >>zgirnius: > I offer the following lines as possibly indicating > Bella's awareness of Snape's blood status. > Betsy Hp: We also have to figure in Horace "I believe I know your mother" Slughorn. One of the first things Slughorn did with any student that caught his eye was try and figure out their bloodlines. It seems quite a stretch to think Snape was never questioned. Though I also agree with zgirnius (in the part I snipped) that with the pure-blood world being so small it'd be hard for Severus to slip his muggle father past those interested. I also wonder why you've concluded that Snape was in a group first lead by Bella and then Lucius? Is this based on age, I guess? For some reason I had it that Snape hung with Lucius (or more properly, Lucius allowed Snape to hang around him) and Lucius brushed up with Bella a time or two. I believe the numbers are a hopeless mess (surprise!) and as near as can be figured, Bella was never at school with Snape or was only there for his first year. But I get the impression that there were a few different groups of friends (or gangs, if you want to look at it that way ) and Lucius was in one and Bella in another. (I'm not sure *where* I get this impression, but it's one I have. ) Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Apr 10 22:56:37 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:56:37 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167322 zgirnius: > > Snape is just not trusted by most readers as a reliable source on the Marauders (quite reasonably, I know *I* would not trust his interpretations of their actions). Alla: > At the very least it is quite clear to me that Snape sincerely believes that Marauders tried to kill him. Unless he lies through his teeth obviously... *(snip)* So, I would say that I have not seen Snape judged as unreliable information source much. I mean, no, I did, but by the fans who are not fond of him. And vice versa is true of course. zgirnius: > > The Marauders tend to be (quite unreasonably, in my view) considered as reliable sources on their own activities, and even Snape's, though the latter observation is not relevant to my argument. Alla: > Quite unreasonably? I guess we have to agree to disagree right away if we are going into Marauders are liars argument. Ceridwen: I can't speak for zgirnius, but I think that what people mean by either of these statements is that Snape and the Marauders are seeing the Prank subjectively. We can believe that the Prank could have had tragic consequences if James had not intervened (Snape's view), but we can also believe that perhaps Sirius didn't mean for it to be anything more than a really funny joke against a school rival (Marauder's view). Of course we take sides if we like one character above another. But I expect that, if the Prank will be important in DH, we'll find that it's somewhere between the two views. We heard about Snape's dislike of James very early in the series. It's mentioned in PS/SS. Since we see Snape's unfair treatment of Harry in the story's real time, we are led to believe that Snape is a petit villain, the adversarial teacher who doesn't like Our Hero, as well as a vengeful, duplicitous person who would lie about something, or blow it up out of all proportion, in order to make himself seem wounded and deserving of sympathy. We see scenes between Sirius and Snape which reinforce that view. When the big revelation of the Pensieve incident is unveiled, we are caught off-guard because of everything we thought JKR was telling us about Snape, and about the Marauders. Sirius and Remus aren't lying about the Prank, or about the Pensieve incident, either, but their recollection is different from Snape's. While the Pensieve shows an objective record of events (per JKR), we don't get to see inside people's heads, and we don't get to see the history of a relationship. And for Remus, given DDM!Remus, his low-key words on the subject are from hindsight: nothing happened, no one was hurt or killed, there is no blood on his fangs, and he and his friends were not expelled. All's well that ends well, Remus's view. Which doesn't take into account Snape's feelings, but is a true representation of Remus's view. I think the only way we're going to get an objective reading of the Prank is if we see it narrated objectively, in its own time, as if it was real-time. That's what I would really like to see in DH, if the Prank is going to play more than a background role in the dynamics between Snape and the Marauders. All in my opinion, of course. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 23:05:30 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:05:30 -0000 Subject: Image on Deathly Hallows book cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167323 --- "rlace2003" wrote: > > --- "wapp13" > wrote: > > > > I believe the image shows a vault at Gringotts. It > > would make more sense than it being the room of > > requirement. > > > > wapp13 > > > > Ryan: > > You didn't specify but I'm assuming you're referring > to the UK children's edition cover. > > Why would it make more sense that it's vault at > Gringotts than the RoR? > bboyminn: Here is what we need to ask ourselves, where in the world is there likely to be a treasure like this? Well, certainly vaults at Gringotts are full of treasure. If not the personal treasure of individuals, then the very massive treasure accumulated by Gringott's Treasure Hunters. So, Gringotts is likely, but we must then ask, why in the world would the Trio ever end up in Gringotts vaults? What, in the reasonable course of the story, could bring them to the deep underground where Gringotts Vaults are, and then why would the rush head-long into a vault as they appear to be doing? The 'why' seems far more likely to occur at Hogwarts, so we speculate as to the likelihood of a treasure being located at Hogwarts. I speculate the Hogwarts is financed primarily off of a Founder's Endowment, which is supplemented with Alumni Endowments, very much the way most colleges are initially funded. So, the next question is, is Hogwarts likely to keep their own treasure, or are they likely to turn it all over to the care of Gringotts. I suspect, Hogwarts is probably older than Gringotts, though I don't know that for a fact. So, if Hogwarts has a treasure, where is it likely to be? Well, some variation of the Room of Requirements is one possibility. Another is a standard Vault in a little used and closely guarded area of Hogwarts. Perhaps, the three remaining Founders left their possession and fortunes to Hogwarts, but since Slytherin left the school, his treasure was never turned over. So maybe we are seeing the secret vault of Slytherin within the bounds of the school. Then again, maybe not. Maybe we are seeing Slytherin's treasure at some other location. It could be any one of these or many other possibilities, but the mere fact that we have treasure doesn't automatically mean we are in Gringotts. Lastly, it could be the Treasury of the Ministry of Magic. I highly suspect some type of battle taking place there, so the Trio could reasonably be there, their could reasonably be trouble, and the Trio could reasonably burst into a vault to escape that trouble. Also, I think they are bursting into the room at high speed. Harry has tripped on the treasure and fallen flat. Hermione is falling close behind. Ron is desperately trying to step over the treasure, and likely failing. I don't think the are being 'dropped in' or 'sucked out'. They just burst into the room and were already tripping over the treasure before they even realized it was there. Now the question is, why are they rushing into a chamber when they don't know what it contains? Who or what is chasing them? Conceivably, they simply went to the bank to get money, and ran afoul of a guard dragon, and are rushing to escape it. Could simply be a bit of comic relief. Then again, maybe not. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 10 23:43:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:43:26 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167324 Alla wrote: > we have SO many questions about that night and almost no answers that any conclusive judgment is premature. Dumbledore's supposed taking Marauders side in prank is the one I find especially amusing. I mean, really, where in canon it says so? The fact that Dumbledore did not expel Sirius? > wynnleaf responded: > Here I agree. Many pro-Snape fans (especially over in the fan fic world), seem to assume that the Marauders got off almost without punishment. The only thing we really know is that they didn't get expelled. Harry, when using Sectumsempra on Draco, didn't get expelled either, even though McGonagall did say he could have deserved it. So it's not that surprising that Sirius didn't get expelled. For all we know, he was in detention for the rest of the year. > Carol chimes in: We also know that James was later made Head Boy, a decision in which Dumbledore must have had some say, and it could not have made Severus happy. We also know that Severus remained silent regarding Remus Lupin's being a werewolf for about twenty years after the so-called Prank? Why? Was his ability to keep that secret one of the reasons why DD trusted him? (I can understand his not wanting it to be generally known that his worst enemy had saved his life and that he would regard that debt, "life debt" or not, as humiliating and want to repay it. And that nagging sense of obligation to someone he hated probably played a role in his later trying to protect the Potters.) But it does seem as if the Marauders, or at least Sirius, the only one we know for sure to have planned the so-called Prank, got off lightly, especially in the view of Severus Snape, who thinks him capable of murder at sixteen and continues to hold that view (with seemingly strong supporting evidence) through the end of PoA and possibly beyond. Someone mentioned that Dumbledore is giving Sirius a second chance by not expelling him. I think that's the case, and the adult Snape, even though he, too, has been given a second chance, either fails to see the same principle being applied or views it (ironically) as mistaken leniency on Dumbledore's part. In any case, we need to know how much James knew, what exactly he did to save Severus's life, what punishment(s) he and the others received, why Severus kept quiet all those years. I suppose we also need to know what motivated Sirius to trick Severus (though I don't think any motive excuses such reckless endangerment to a fellow student, not to mention the consequences to himself and his friend Remus if Severus had been killed or bitten). We need to know to what extent, if any, Remus and Peter were involved. We need to know why Severus fell for the trick after recently having been tested on werewolves, though to be fair, listing five traits that distinguish a werewolf from a true wolf is hardly comparable to the essay that Snape later assigned to Lupin's DADA students. We need to know to what extent the Prank pushed Severus in the direction of the Death Eaters. (Did it prompt him, for example, to adapt a simple cutting or slashing spell into the much Darker Sectumsempra?) I doubt that JKR will give us all the answers we're looking for, and I doubt that they'll have much effect on the way we as readers feel about MWPPS. But if we're really going to understand Snape (and, IMO, it's Snape who matters now), we need as many answers as JKR is willing to give. (I could use an explanation of those memories from Harry's Protego while we're at it.) Alla: > > > > Quite unreasonably? I guess we have to agree to disagree right away if we are going into Marauders are liars argument. > wynnleaf: > I suppose it depends on whether you consider anyone giving biased info a "liar." Sirius *always* speaks of Snape with insults, name calling, etc. even in the GOF scene where he gives some info about Snape to the Trio. In my opinion, when the speaker is including name-calling in with their comments, you have to assume what they say is at least partially biased. Not necessarily a lie, unless the intent is to mislead. Carol: I agree with wynnleaf that we can't exactly trust Sirius Black's information on Snape, not only because of the mutual hostility but because he believes as of OoP that Snape's loyalties have not changed. His learning that Snape was once a DE is like Snape's learning after GH that Black had (supposedly) betrayed the Potters and killed twelve Muggles plus poor little Peter Pettigrew. Each willingly and eagerly believes the worst of the other. As JKR says of Black: "Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. For instance, he says in "Goblet of Fire" that if you want to know what a man is really like, 'look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.' But Sirius loathes Kreacher, the house-elf he has inherited, and treats him with nothing but contempt. Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there. Of course, these double standards exist in most of us; we might know how we ought to behave, but actually doing it is a different matter!" http://www.half-bloodprince.org/snape_jkr.php By the same token, finding out that Black didn't betray the Potters or kill all those Muggles may well have been one of the greatest disappointments of Snape's life. (How disappointing for the traitor to be the paltry Pettigrew!) At any rate, SB is not a reliable witness when he's talking about Snape any more than when he's talking about his "idiot brother." What does he mean when he says that the eleven-year-old Severus came to school knowing more curses than most seventh-years? Surely, he's using "curses" loosely to mean "hexes" and "jinxes." Note that JKR uses the terms almost interchangeably and spells identified in canon as curses include Impedimenta (Impediment Curse), Reducto (Reductor Curse), and Petrificus Totalus (Body-Bind Curse). There's also the Leg-locker Curse and the Babbling Curse.) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_c.html Nor is there any canon evidence to support Black's assertion that the young Snape was "up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts." The HBP's Potions hints are brilliant and useful; his spells are either useful charms like Muffliato or "imaginative little jinxes and hexes" like Lang-Lock, the toenail hex, or Levicorpus, the last of which comes complete with its own countercurse. Sectumsempra is the sole example of Dark magic, and I very much doubt that Teen!Severus used it or he would have been expelled. (the little cut that he gave James appears to be something entirely different. James isn't bleeding to death, nor did he apparently require a complex countercurse to be healed or dittany to prevent scarring.) Based on the HBP's notes and that detailed DADA exam, what young Severus was "up to his eyeballs in" was DADA and Potions. So not lies, exactly, on Black's part, but possiblly serious misinterpretation of a skinny, nerdy, greasy-haired little oddball whose fellow Slytherins became Death Eaters in fairly large numbers. And finding out at the end of GoF that Snape had himself been a DE would have confirmed Black's worst suspicions and further colored his interpretation of his own actions and Severus's when they were teenagers, just as his fondness for James and James's heroic death colors his interpretation of James in the opposite direction. > wynnleaf: > As regards Lupin, for good or bad, he has quite a history of lying. And practically all of his lies are to prevent people from thinking ill of him. Some readers assume that in spite of 9 months of lying and lying and lying simply to keep the good will of others, we should assume that Lupin saying he's oh, so sorry is supposed to mean he'll never lie again and therefore everything else he says in canon must be true. While Lupin may *certainly* be sorry about his previous lies, he has shown himself far too willing to lie to keep the goodwill of others in order to believe everything he says to Harry about Snape. > Just remember, at the end of POA, it was not Lupin who confessed *anything* to Dumbledore. Sirius told Dumbledore about being animagi, and Lupin did *not* tell Dumbledore about the Marauders Map (Dumbledore first learns of it in GOF). Lupin did not appear to volunteer to Dumbledore any additional info other than what Sirius had already told Dumbledore. > Alla > > Remus hides information, yes. But does he lie? Carol: We can believe at least two things that Lupin says of Snape. One is that he's "a superb Occlumens"; the other is that he made the Wolfsbane Potion "and made it perfectly." Those statements relate to Snape's abilities and are confirmed by canon evidence. But when Lupin starts talking about Snape's motives or aspirations, I think we should take him with a grain of salt. He may or may not be a Legilimens Snape is both a Legilimens and an Occlumens and he would be on his guard against Lupin. And the mind is not a book; not even a better Legilimens than Lupin could be privy to Snape's inmost thoughts, and Lupin is certainly not his confidante. I am quite frankly not sure what to make of Lupin, who does more than lie by omission throughout PoA. He lies by commission to Snape in front of Harry about the Marauder's Map he helped to create: "Full of Dark magic? Do you really think so, Severus? it looks to me as though it is merely a piece of parchment that insults anyone who reads it. Childish, but surely not dangerous? I imagine Harry got it from a joke shop--" (PoA Am. ed. 288). Later, he repeats that Harry must have gotten it from Zonko's (288). Now, granted, the map is probably not "full of Dark magic," but Lupin knows full well that it isn't just a piece of parchment that insults the reader and he knows equally well that Harry could not have bought it at Zonko's since it was confiscated by Filch. I doubt that Lupin expects Snape to believe him (and it's interesting that when he says, "I'll take this *back*, shall I?" (289) that Snape doesn't protest). Lupin almost immediately reveals to Harry and Ron that he knows it's a map, knows how to work it, and knows the manufacturers (he doesn't, of course, reveal who the manufacturers are), and Harry, relieved not to be in trouble for sneaking out to Hogsmeade, doesn't even question the fact that Lupin has lied to Snape right in front of him--just as he later doesn't question Fake!Moody when he wants to borrow the Marauder's Map. They've both saved him from detentions with Snape. They must both be good guys. Lupin not only conceals information, he actually lies when his own past indiscretions are likely to be revealed. He makes assumptions about Snape (for example, his wanting the DADA position) that may or may not be valid. And he makes excuses for James ("he was only fifteen"). I want to like and trust Lupin, but I can't. He still acts, as he did in PoA, as if he's hiding something. And his statements regarding Snape seem off, somehow, but I can't tell whether he's misleading Harry or merely mistaken. Carol, wondering tangentially whether Black's reference to the Prophecy orb as a "weapon" should count as lying to Harry (though not about Snape) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 00:10:55 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:10:55 -0000 Subject: Life Debts and Some Other Small Points (Was Re: The Good etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167325 > zgirnius: > This post appears to assume that Severus Snape did indeed have a life debt to James Potter. The term 'life debt' is of course a term originally coined (or adapted, as the concept is certainly widely accepted in some form or another in a variety of human cultures) by fans, at a time which precedes my own entry into fandom. If anyone knows - was the term used of Snape's debt prior to the publication of PoA? At any rate, the term is not used of either Peter or Severus within the text of the HP series to date. Goddlefrood: I could certainly not fault this logic, it happens to conflict with mine, but then, as Cornelius might say "No matter". "When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter." "I don't want a bond with Pettigrew!" said Harry. "He betrayed my parents!" "This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." >From PoA, and as also kindly inserted by zgirnius. This portion, in my view, gives one a reasonable conclusion to draw that Peter owes Harry a debt that he will repay. I have stated elsewhere that I believe Peter will be granted his moment of Gryffindor splendour while repaying the debt (not using "life debt", but it surely equates to the same thing ;)). My opinion, and it is just that, is that Snape's life debt to James will not ber a further issue, but the mechanics of it appear to me toi be the same, or at least very similar to Peter / Harry. > zgirnius: > Unless there is an interview in which Rowling states Snape did owe a debt in exactly the way Peter does, I would conclude he never did. I am not familiar with such an interview, but would appreciate being made aware of it if one exists. Goddlefrood: No, no reference to Severus in terms of a life debt in any I am privy to. The only reference in interviews to a life debt of any kind is the one I inserted in the thread starter relative to Ginny. JKR did not correct the questioner who used the term, but that means little ;) > zgirnius: > Of course, Bella could have made this discovery at a later date than their schooldays. But I am inclined to think she did not. Goddlefrood: Then we can agree to disagree on this, She does not seem the type, unlike Lucius, to take kindly to any wizard or witch, other than a pure-blood at school, no matter how taleneted. Lucius as you go on to say could be a little different. > zgirnius: > Bella et. al. seem like they would pick up on this. Further, there is some slight evidence that in later years, he may indeed have been friendless in his own House. We might have expected some Slytherins to intervene in some way in the "Worst Memory" for House pride, if no other reason. Goddlefrood: They do all tend to stick together, which is one reason I concluded Severus was friendless after the older Slytherins had left. Bella is many things, but she has never struck me as particularly logical, intelligent perhaps, but never logical. > Bart (in relation to 1492) > Also, the year of the Spanish Inquisition. Goddlefrood: One year in which said Inquisition continued indeed. I never expected it myself ... > Betsy Hp > I believe the numbers are a hopeless mess (surprise!) and as near as can be figured, Bella was never at school with Snape or was only there for his first year. But I get the impression that there were a few different groups of friends (or gangs, if you want to look at it that way ) and Lucius was in one and Bella in another. (I'm not sure *where* I get this impression, but it's one I have. ) Goddlefrood: Yes, I've seen that theory somewhere too :-? Uncle Horace is hardly the soul of discretion, however, I can see him not blabbing too freely about someone's blood status given his own prejudices, which are easily enough divined :> No further dates this time. From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Apr 11 00:44:21 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:44:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167326 wynnleaf Actually, Snape's comments about the Marauder's have been collaborated by several pieces of evidence. He said that James was arrogant and the Pensieve scene appeared to collaborate that. He said that James used his own spells against him, and that was collaborated in the Pensieve scene. He said that the Marauders thought they were above the rules. While we don't know what they actually *thought*, we do know that they broke the rules a great deal and had lots of detentions -- apparently far more than Snape since Harry never seems to run across a detention for Snape in the files. Sherry now: And are we supposed to believe that Snape let Harry see just random detentions? I'm confident that he purposely made sure Harry saw as many with his father- as possible-an extremely cruel, childish and vindictive punishment by the way, in my opinion--and I'm just as sure he made sure there were no detentions for his precious self in the things he had Harry go through. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 11 00:45:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:45:49 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167327 > Betsy Hp: > The more magical and fantastical your premise, the more rooted in > logic you need to be if you've a hope of creating a viable, > believable world for me. JKR wants us to believe that the WW is a > real place. I don't. And yes, it kills some of the magic for me. I > don't really care about Voldemort's effect on the WW because I don't > buy that the WW exists. Pippin: I'm not sure she does want us (ie adult readers) to believe the WW is a real place. I think she honestly feels that if you're old enough that it matters to you whether the numbers add up or the economy works, you're old enough not need to believe in magical wonderlands in order to appreciate their uses. As Harry slowly comes to realize that the WW isn't any refuge from the problems of the Muggle world, the reader realizes that JKR is using her fantasy landscape to explore some ethical thought problems, and to create a fable about adolescence, both of which entail a certain lack of realism. In real life, if a runaway train were heading towards a platform with twenty people on it, and you could save them by throwing a switch which sent the train towards a platform with one person, the pressing question for society at large would not be whether it's moral to throw the switch but how such a horrible situation came to pass in the first place. Studies would be commissioned on the safety of railroads and the protection of passengers, not the ethics of throwing that switch. It'd all be a question of math and physics, and in a fictionalization of that scenario, we'd want the math and the physics to work. But in the Potterverse, we're expected to accept JKR's limited alternatives as given. Harry can be safe and miserable at the Dursleys or happy and short-lived anywhere else, because JKR wants to explore that dilemma. That in the real world people would want to know why Child Protection Services wasn't doing their job is irrelevant. Harry has to compete in the tournament and nevermind what the 'or else' is, because that's the situation JKR wants him in -- if we're old enough to be bothered by the fact that she never quite explains why it's so, we're also old enough to realize that the emotions Harry experiences as he's caught in the cogs are real even if the situation is fanciful. I'm sure in JKR's mind the logistics of Charley Weasley's Quidditch career have no effect on the danger Harry is in from Voldemort. Voldemort is hard to take seriously -- but he's underestimated within the wizarding world as well. Lots of real life maniacs have succeeded because no one took their grandiose plans seriously until they were put into effect. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 00:56:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:56:52 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (LONG ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167328 > Magpie: > I don't think Zara's talking about lying here. JKR seems fascinated > with people being honest about a situation but *still* not being a > reliable source of their own activities. That's why, imo, it's good to not consider the Marauders reliable > sources on their own activities. Not because they lie--they don't, and > we'd be foolish to think that they are. You should consider them > reliable in terms of the basic actions that happened (including stuff > like Snape being Lucius lapdog and being part of a gang of > Slytherins), you just can't assume they're interpreting them correctly > for you (Snape's relationship with Lucius and the gang may not be any > like what one would imagine from what Sirius said). They're not > necessarily giving you the whole story as you yourself would see it, > because they're giving their side to it. Alla: Oh, well in that sense I agree, sort of, maybe. And this is also a reply to Zara and Ceridwen, I think, since they brought similar points. What threw me off though in Zara's statement was the "of their own activities". I thought she was talking about factual information, sorry Zara. If we are talking about emotional coloring of that information, then sure I will take Sirius statements about Snape with the grain of salt. Like - Malfoy lapdog, for example. I will definitely say that it hints to me of the very close relationship between them. But still, aren't all statements of Sirius about Snape factually looking more and more correct? Dark Arts, etc. So, I will take into consideration them being enemies, but still take statements Sirius makes as factual truth. So, what Zara said is probably true ? Sirius probably does not know whether Snape loved DA, but I certainly take it as truth that he was up to his ears in DA. Although who knows maybe he heard him confessing that he indeed loves those. But when Sirius says that James hated DA, I definitely believe him, period. I think Sirius is in a very good position to know the mindset of the man with whom he was as close as brother. Magpie: > When it comes to the Prank...I'm trying to think of what I think about > it. I don't think it was murder. I don't think Sirius is lying about > it. He's too angrily dismissive, and Lupin is too wearily dismissive-- > of the whole thing for me to believe there was really some evil plot. Alla: Good :) Magpie: > To me Snape reads more as someone whose story is known (as Dumbledore > reminds him it is) and it just isn't seen the way he sees it. JKR > seems to know how angry that can make people--perhaps even angrier > than if the real story just isn't known. Alla: See, I understand what you are saying, but I also believe that " my memory is as good as ever" can be read as Dumbledore stopping Snape in his track, meaning that Dumbledore has entirely different recollection of that, other than "Sirius Black tried to kill me". Magpie: > I do think there could be very important information about the Prank > we don't know about, but my instinct doesn't lead me to think that > information is about making somebody any more or less guilty. I would > more guess the more information might be about why it makes Snape so > angry or why it's such a painful memory for him in general, which may > show the actions of a lot of people in a different light. Alla: Oh man it is soooo hard to disagree with you Magpie :) But see here I do not know. I mean story wise to me Prank makes total sense as idiotic reckless event of fifteen year old, etc, no further information needed, yes, my instincts will probably tell me the same thing, except she said we learn more and that makes me to believe that it **may** make somebody look more or less guilty, because why would we need to learn just why it makes Snape so angry? I mean, he was sent to werewolf, was he not? ( Grrrrr, why did he listen? Why? Why?) It would make me angry enough, no additional info needed IMO. Magpie: I suspect > that's what makes the Prank so important and not whether or not it was > murder. To use something that's maybe not the best analogy, think of > Ron's anger at Harry in GoF. Saying that Ron was angry at Harry > because he thought he put his name in the Goblet doesn't really get to > the heart of *why* Ron was angry, what buttons that hit for Ron, why > it felt like a betrayal to him. Alla: Well, but Ron's anger was not at something supposedly life threatening for him, no? I mean, isn't Snape anger as it stands right now sort of self explanatory? I speculate that there was definitely something else, lol ( haha, Alla as great Trelawney) or somebody else involved. Boy do I need this book now :) > Pippin: > You won't be surprised if Remus turns out to have tried to murder > Snape? You are expecting that to happen? Harry's favorite teacher > and JKR's favorite adult character? Alla: Oh, no, no Pippin. Sorry. I just dismissed that from my mind early enough when I wrote my previous post. You are right. If we learn that Lupin was the mastermind behind the Prank that would be surprising for sure. I do not buy it, but this will be enough drama for me. Pippin: > Or you don't think it will be shocking if Harry finds out his beloved > godfather tried to commit murder as a teenager? Alla: I do not think this would be shocking for this reader, no. Or I should probably say that it would not be news for the reader, since the possibility of that is in the text > wynnleaf > I'm not sure what you mean. What arguments could possibly "convict" > Sirius of murder? Who exactly did he kill?? Do you mean attempted > murder? Hm. Well, Snape has no proof. On the other hand, in the > Real World, a 16 year old setting up someone for a prank that anyone > should reasonably know is life threatening, would probably be > considered a murderer if the person actually died. It may not be > premeditated, but it would still be considered murder. Alla: I am going to only address couple of your points, because most of it is just very different interpretation of the same canon. Yes, when we have all the information about Sirius **setting Snape up**. That is my problem - that we do not know how Sirius set him up and whether he set him up at all. Because yes, as I said if Sirius put Snape under Imperius and told him to go in the Shack, sure that can be considered attempted murder. But if said sixteen year old had no idea, or I should say forgot that werewolves can be dangerous for those who are not Animagi, I think prosecution would have real trouble convicting. I do not do criminal law though. Somebody brought a very good example some time ago - do you think Hagrid sending boys to follow the spiders was attempted murder as well? >> > wynnleaf > The reason I said Lupin's story makes it look like Snape sort of > deserved it, is because that's the way so many readers take it. > I've read numerous comments that Snape shouldn't have been following > the Marauders around to try and get them expelled and that if he > hadn't been doing that, it wouldn't have happened. While > technically that's true, it seems to me to indicate that many > readers think Snape brought it on himself. How dare he try to get > those nice Marauder boys expelled! However, perhaps you don't feel > that way. Alla: If there is nothing more besides that story, that Snape was only going around spying after Marauders, no desire to kill Remus, no specific desire to harm them with Dark Arts, no desire to harm Lily because she is a muggleborn or anything like that, then no I do not think he brought it upon himself, of course not. But that is the thing - a great deal of story, including those eclipses after going around, trying to have us expelled, leads me to believe that there is more about the story and if Snape had any more sinister motives in mind, which will be revealed, then I will absolutely think that he did bring it upon himself. I will especially think that he brought it upon himself, if he was indeed planning to kill "Dark creature" when he went to the Shack, but as it stands now, no I do not. I do not like him spying after Marauders one bit, but I do not think that justifies the Prank at all. > wynnleaf > What "more bad things" have we learned about what Snape did in > school? Can't think of anything other than the mud blood comment and > inventing Sectumsempra which we don't know if he ever used. So he > called someone a bad word in a stressful moment. Not at all nice, > but it doesn't come close to collaborating all the stuff Lupin and > Sirius say. Alla: Oh well, here we are having difference of opinion. What to you is the bad word in the stressful moment, to me is the hint ( not necessarily evidence, but a hint) that Snape shared Voldemort's philosophy, full stop. Sectusemptra to me is the hint that Sirius words about Snape knowing dark curses, etc is perfectly true. I remember reading a lot of arguments that this just cannot be true, Snape knowing dark curses, etc, because it is Sirius talking. Well, I think that Sectusemptra can serve as a support for that. What I am trying to say that of course these two things can be read in isolation or they could be hints at much broader badness of Snape while in school. And of course it can also be hint for something even worse than that. If we learn that the reason why Snape was so into Dark Arts ( if he was) say because he took a Mark while in school. I think the hint that Draco may have it can nicely foreshadow that Snape took it as well. It does not mean that Marauders had to know that, but it certainly may mean that Snape did many other bad things while in school. Speculating obviously. Ceridwen: > I think the only way we're going to get an objective reading of the > Prank is if we see it narrated objectively, in its own time, as if it > was real-time. That's what I would really like to see in DH, if the > Prank is going to play more than a background role in the dynamics > between Snape and the Marauders. > > All in my opinion, of course. Alla: Yes, dear. Me likes your opinions :) I am dying to see that night, dying. Please JKR, pretty please :) JMO, Alla From mandyallen286 at fsmail.net Tue Apr 10 21:56:28 2007 From: mandyallen286 at fsmail.net (wapp13) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:56:28 -0000 Subject: Image on Deathly Hallows book cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167329 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wapp13" > wrote: > > > > I believe the image shows a vault at Gringotts. It would make more > > sense than it being the room of requirement. > > Ryan: > > You didn't specify but I'm assuming you're referring to the UK > children's edition cover. > > Why would it make more sense that it's vault at Gringotts than the RoR? > Yes, sorry, Uk children version. And I believe that there was a whole thing about LV not having access to Hogwarts by virtue of the fact that Dumbledore did not allow him the privelage of being the Dark Arts master. I do not believe that LV had planted a horcrux at Hogwarts but I do believe he could conceivably have one hidden in the single place that is supposed to be as second in security only to Hogwarts. And the doorway is circular which how the doors to the individual vaults in Gringotts have been portrayed. Wapp13 From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Apr 11 01:52:46 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:52:46 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (LONG ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167330 > Alla: But still, aren't all statements of > Sirius about Snape factually looking more and more correct? Dark > Arts, etc. wynnleaf, Hm.. Sirius said Snape ran with a group of people that included the Lestranges and some others that are, we later learn, much older than Snape. Nor do we see any hint of friends in the Pensieve scene. Then in HBP it's rather obvious that there's a lot of animosity between Bella Lestrange and Snape. So -- no collaborative evidence of any friendships except with Lucius. Sirius says Snape knew more curses at age 11 than 7th years. Zero collaborative evidence. All we have in possible support is one curse that Snape created 6 years later. That doesn't collaborate anything about what he knew at age 11. Sirius says Snape was up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts. Collaborative evidence? One curse he invented in 6th year. We also know he wrote a whole lot on his DADA OWL, but since DADA is Harry's best subject, we know that is no indication that a person loves the Dark Arts. Sirius said in GOF that Snape couldn't have been a Death Eater or Dumbledore wouldn't have hired him. Proven wrong. Sirius didn't say anything about Snape's view of pureblood or muggleborns, etc. so Snape's "mudblood" comment doesn't back up any of Sirius' comments. So really, none of Sirius' comments about Snape have much, if any, support. Alla > So, what Zara said is probably true ? Sirius probably does not know > whether Snape loved DA, but I certainly take it as truth that he was > up to his ears in DA. Although who knows maybe he heard him > confessing that he indeed loves those. wynnleaf > Highly unlikely, because with Sirius dead we're unlikely to have any sort of definitive info that Sirius heard some confession of Snape's. > > wynnleaf > > I'm not sure what you mean. What arguments could > possibly "convict" > > Sirius of murder? Who exactly did he kill?? Do you mean > attempted > > murder? Hm. Well, Snape has no proof. On the other hand, in the > > Real World, a 16 year old setting up someone for a prank that > anyone > > should reasonably know is life threatening, would probably be > > considered a murderer if the person actually died. It may not be > > premeditated, but it would still be considered murder. > > Alla: > > I am going to only address couple of your points, because most of it > is just very different interpretation of the same canon. > > Yes, when we have all the information about Sirius **setting Snape > up**. That is my problem - that we do not know how Sirius set him > up and whether he set him up at all. Because yes, as I said if > Sirius put Snape under Imperius and told him to go in the Shack, > sure that can be considered attempted murder. > > But if said sixteen year old had no idea, or I should say forgot > that werewolves can be dangerous for those who are not Animagi, I > think prosecution would have real trouble convicting. wynnleaf Sorry, that's highly unlikely to be the case. In real life, a person certainly might forget that a particular prank they are pulling is extremely dangerous. But the judgement would most likely fall around what *most* people should normally understand to be dangerous and life threatening. Clearly in the Wizarding World, werewolves are widely known to be life threatening. How exactly would Sirius be able to prove that he didn't intend anything, but to scare Snape? Of course, one could use veritaserum in the Wizarding World. But if Snape had actually *died* it wouldn't matter if Sirius didn't mean it -- it would still be considered murder, just not murder in the first degree probably. Alla > I do not do criminal law though. Somebody brought a very good > example some time ago - do you think Hagrid sending boys to follow > the spiders was attempted murder as well? Depends. Did Hagrid send the boys to the spiders maliciously because he knew they'd be terrified of them? If he knew they'd be terrified of them, why would he think that? Because the spiders are incredibly dangerous. But Hagrid doesn't even appear to think the dangerous animals he brings *should* terrify anyone. Hagrid really doesn't seem to understand the danger. But the point of Sirius' prank was at the very least, to scare Snape. And the only reason Snape would be scared is because the werewolf is very, very dangerous. So Sirius had to know the werewolf would be very dangerous, or he'd have no expectation that the "prank" would achieve anything at all, even a decent scare. > > >> > > wynnleaf > > I've read numerous comments that Snape shouldn't have been > following > > the Marauders around to try and get them expelled and that if he > > hadn't been doing that, it wouldn't have happened. While > > technically that's true, it seems to me to indicate that many > > readers think Snape brought it on himself. How dare he try to get > > those nice Marauder boys expelled! However, perhaps you don't > feel > > that way. > > > Alla: > > If there is nothing more besides that story, that Snape was only > going around spying after Marauders, no desire to kill Remus, no > specific desire to harm them with Dark Arts, no desire to harm Lily > because she is a muggleborn or anything like that, then no I do not > think he brought it upon himself, of course not. > (snipping a paragraph) > I will especially think that he brought it upon himself, if he was > indeed planning to kill "Dark creature" when he went to the Shack, > but as it stands now, no I do not. I do not like him spying after > Marauders one bit, but I do not think that justifies the Prank at > all. > wynnleaf Where in the world do you get all those possibilities from? I try to keep my possibilities and theories somehow tied to canon, but we have no hints at all that any of those alternatives above were even considered by anyone, even characters that hate Snape. One might just as well add in "what if Snape was planning to blow up Hogwarts?" or "what if Snape wanted to get to the Shrieking Shack in a plan to destroy Hogsmeade?" or "what if Snape hoped to release a werewolf to terrorize the countryside and maybe kill Dumbledore on the side?" > > > wynnleaf > > What "more bad things" have we learned about what Snape did in > > school? > > Alla: > > Oh well, here we are having difference of opinion. What to you is > the bad word in the stressful moment, to me is the hint ( not > necessarily evidence, but a hint) that Snape shared Voldemort's > philosophy, full stop. wynnleaf, Think so? The odd thing is what James said in answer to Lily's question of "what's he ever done to you?" James wants to impress Lily. Now was the time for him to answer "Snape's up to his ears in Dark Arts," or "Snape hexes us all the time. We're just retaliating." or some other excuse that might placate Lily. But no, James can't think of an excuse other than, "because he exists." Alla Sectusemptra to me is the hint that Sirius > words about Snape knowing dark curses, etc is perfectly true. wynnleaf So Snape creating a curse in 6th year is a hint that he knew more curses than anyone else at age 11? Does that mean that Harry being able to do a patronus at age 13 means that he was actually able to do all sorts of advanced magic at age 11? No, of course not. wynnleaf From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 02:32:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:32:22 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (LONG ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167331 > > Alla: > But still, aren't all statements of > > Sirius about Snape factually looking more and more correct? Dark > > Arts, etc. > > wynnleaf, > Hm.. Sirius said Snape ran with a group of people that included the > Lestranges and some others that are, we later learn, much older than > Snape. Nor do we see any hint of friends in the Pensieve scene. Then > in HBP it's rather obvious that there's a lot of animosity between > Bella Lestrange and Snape. So -- no collaborative evidence of any > friendships except with Lucius. Alla: Except one can also say that his friendship with Lucius IS the support for that statement, because why would there be others in pensieve scene? They would have already left Hogwarts, no? And we still see that he is friends with Malfoys and Narcissa does know how to get to his house and Bella as well in HBP. So, no IMO there is plenty of hints that this statement is likely to be true. wynnleaf: > Sirius says Snape knew more curses at age 11 than 7th years. Zero > collaborative evidence. All we have in possible support is one curse > that Snape created 6 years later. That doesn't collaborate anything > about what he knew at age 11. Alla: There is of course that boy shooting flies, who may turn out to be Snape, no? wynnleaf: > Sirius says Snape was up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts. > Collaborative evidence? One curse he invented in 6th year. We also > know he wrote a whole lot on his DADA OWL, but since DADA is Harry's > best subject, we know that is no indication that a person loves the > Dark Arts. Alla: Yes, to me Sectusemptra is a plenty, JKR IMO reveals Snape badness in small doses more and more and more every book. > wynnleaf > Where in the world do you get all those possibilities from? I try to > keep my possibilities and theories somehow tied to canon, but we have > no hints at all that any of those alternatives above were even > considered by anyone, even characters that hate Snape. One might just > as well add in "what if Snape was planning to blow up Hogwarts?" or > "what if Snape wanted to get to the Shrieking Shack in a plan to > destroy Hogsmeade?" or "what if Snape hoped to release a werewolf to > terrorize the countryside and maybe kill Dumbledore on the side?" Alla: That is my point, I believe that there is much more unknown in Prank night, than known, that is a lot of speculation is inevitable IMO. I already said why I believe that Snape may have learned who Remus was ( two essays) and I also believe I stated that I am speculating. I believe speculation about him trying to kill Remus is canon based, it is nothing more than canon based speculation though. If there is a tiny hint of Snape trying to blow up Hogwarts, then sure one can add that possibility as well :) > > Alla: > > > > Oh well, here we are having difference of opinion. What to you is > > the bad word in the stressful moment, to me is the hint ( not > > necessarily evidence, but a hint) that Snape shared Voldemort's > > philosophy, full stop. > > wynnleaf, > Think so? The odd thing is what James said in answer to Lily's > question of "what's he ever done to you?" James wants to impress > Lily. Now was the time for him to answer "Snape's up to his ears in > Dark Arts," or "Snape hexes us all the time. We're just retaliating." > or some other excuse that might placate Lily. But no, James can't > think of an excuse other than, "because he exists." Alla: I am afraid I disagree. I do not think that OOP was necessarily the time for James to confirm all bad things that Snape may have done as being up to his ears in DA. I think it may have been just too early to reveal that. Just as that have been too early to reveal that Snape sold prophecy couple and their baby to Voldemort, just as that have been too early to reveal that Snape created Sectusemptra, etc. I think that *because he exists* can very nicely transform in to exact explanation of what Snape did, which may not have been revealed for plot purposes yet. JMO, Alla From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 02:32:45 2007 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:32:45 -0000 Subject: Motorbike? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167332 > > Ken: > > > > In SS/PS Hagrid claims to have "flown" to the sea island, > > right? He and Harry took the boat back to the mainland. > > We don't know how the Dursleys got back! But one plausible > > theory has to be that the bike is still on the island. > > bboyminn: > > Yes, Hagrid's comment of having 'flown' is one of the many > mysteries of the series. One that we will probably never > know the answer to. I suspect, if you just Apparated or > Portkeyed to a location and met someone who knew nothing > about magic, a quick and easy explanation to inquiries as > to how you got there, would be 'I flew'. Hargid was simply > saving himself a long and complex explanation. > > I doubt that Hagrid flew the Motorbike, because that would > involve leaving behind a magically enchanted and therefore > illegal object for muggles to find; seems unlikely. hpfan_mom now: I wondered about this in post 144248. In PS/SS, just before Hagrid arrives at the Hut-on-the-Rock, Harry hears noises: a creak outside, something slapping hard on the rock, a funny crunching noise. I don't think Hagrid apparated, since he was expelled in his third year and presumably never received training in that skill. I suspected in that post that he took the motorbike, but on second thought a thestral seems more likely. Unlike the motorbike, it could return to Hogwarts on its own. (At least, I assume the motorbike needs a rider. Assuming is often a bad idea in the HP universe.) And we see thestrals in OOTP being ridden somewhere and finding their own way back. Hagrid has been cultivating a herd of thestrals at Hogwarts (OOTP, p. 447). He tells the COMC class that Dumbledore would use a thestral if he's "takin' a long journey an' don' want ter Apparate." (p. 446) But . . . when asked what happened to the motorcycle, JKR told us: "You'll find out, but the real sleuths among you might be able to guess." (World Book Day interview) Hmmm. hpfan_mom From richlauraelaina at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 11 03:34:38 2007 From: richlauraelaina at sbcglobal.net (richandlaura1) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:34:38 -0000 Subject: Image on Deathly Hallows book cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wapp13" wrote: > Yes, sorry, Uk children version. And I believe that there was a whole > thing about LV not having access to Hogwarts by virtue of the fact > that Dumbledore did not allow him the privelage of being the Dark Arts > master. I do not believe that LV had planted a horcrux at Hogwarts > but I do believe he could conceivably have one hidden in the single > place that is supposed to be as second in security only to Hogwarts. > And the doorway is circular which how the doors to the individual > vaults in Gringotts have been portrayed. > Wapp13 richandlaura1 now: I would have to agree that this is Gringotts. Am I the first to notice the goblin-like figure somewhat hidden behind Harry? It is holding the only weapon, a sword. I guess it could be Dobby... From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 06:56:02 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:56:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Head Boy (was Re: World Building And The Potterverse...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40704102356g5fe65643x2b869493185f2d0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167334 > > Lupinlore signed off: > > Lupinlore, who also points out that the covers are inconsistent, as > Harry is not wearing a robe in the British children's cover (whereas > Ron and Hermione seem to be in dress robes) but is wearing a robe in > the American cover Kemper now: The covers are obviously two different scenes in the book. Or are you being funny? My primary language is English, so maybe I missed the tone :) Siriusly :| Speaking of robes... Voldie and Harry-poo seem to be wearing the same casual robes, do you think they both shop at Madam Malkin's? Kemper From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 03:37:37 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:37:37 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167335 > > Alla: > > Yes I know, you'll say you could best be entertained by Harry living and being happy, and I think you believe it, but I don't think it's really true. > Eggplant: > If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will be completely out of your thoughts. coriandra2002 now: I don't know about any of the other characters, but Harry's almost certainly going to live. How do I know? When he's surrounded by Dementors in the P.O.A, he sees what he thinks is his father's spirit coming to save him, but it's actually himself transported from the future. How would this be possible if he dies while he's still a boy? coriandra2002 From nkersc at hotmail.com Wed Apr 11 05:26:31 2007 From: nkersc at hotmail.com (nataliek2_2000) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:26:31 -0000 Subject: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167336 Just one extra prediction to add - Draco fights LV after LV will kill Luscious... er sorry Lucius, (nudge nudge, wink wink) for his multiple failures. Draco has been trying to live up to Daddy's reputation and LV killing him will send Draco over the edge. (Like most bullies he is just a scared coward). I can see him playing an important role providing inside the DEs information back to Harry. But he will never be totally trusted by the OOTP or Harry so this will limit the role he can play. Shades of Snape perhaps, But Draco's young sole will be redeemed. Nat From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 08:24:28 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:24:28 -0000 Subject: Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167337 Goddlefrood: The second helping of this series now. Remus Lupin: "It all comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus" HBP - A Very Frosty Christmas Famous last words? Or should we take Snape at the face value placed on him by Albus? As I stated in the opener, I think not, however here is a version of how Snape became Dumbledore's man I would not be averse to were it to turn out I am anywhere near correct. I note there have been some few comments relative to the prank on another thread recently ;). I do not propose to go there, but pick up the story of Snape from the point where the prank is over and Severus is being debriefed. You couldn't imagine he wasn't, after what happened in the tunnel to the Shack, now could you? This is where he became good, Dumbledore's man, which he remains and always will. The forgotten warrior for the Order, a man who, at great personal risk became a Death Eater and fooled LV for, well forever, since that time. It does somewhat conflict with what Albus himself said at the proceedings relative to Karkaroff during GoF, but then, it seems to me, that, genius though he undoubtedly is, Dumbledore plays his cards very close to his chest. It may be that this is one reason for his statement that he makes mistakes, but being of his nature his mistakes are greater than those of others. IOW he should have told someone. Oh, he would have done, Aberforth. If this Snape is good turns out near enough correct then Aberforth will be our informant. All else flows from that, much of which has been analysed in great detail previously. I have little to say on this post as this is not my favourite version of Snape. That one is for the next, far more substantial post :) Goddlefrood, who asks you to take a look at Tobias and the Angel, here is a link to a reproduction of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_and_the_Angel_%28Verrocchio%29 "How sweet!", you cry. No, not Snape at all ;) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 08:43:15 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:43:15 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH / Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167338 Sorry to cut everything, but I think Carol makes a good basic point - we don't know. We don't know exactly what Sirius said to get Snape to enter the Whomping Willow. We don't know what James did to save him. But /I/ do know that people are making this a much bigger deal than it really is. First, let's look at Life Debt in general. We know that Peter most likely owes Harry a Life Debt. Peter was in eminent danger of dying. Sirius and Lupin stood over him ready to cast the Death Curse, presumably; they raised their wands, and Peter was as good as dead until Harry stepped in. It's pretty hard not to see a clear association between Peter being alive and Harry's actions. It seems that Snape /might/ have a life debt to James, but the circumstances are not that clear. Dumbledore implies the life debt is there, but we don't know the details. We do know that Snape was not defenseless. He was knowledgeable in the Dark Arts, as well as Defense Against Dark Arts, had his wand, and was perfectly able to defend himself. Personally, if I worry about anyone, it's Lupin. I think he was far more likely to be killed than Snape, and he certainly has far more reason to be angry than Snape does. Snape never got that close. Yes, he did get close enough to catch a glimpse of Lupin in werewolf form. But my impression is that the entrance to the Shrieking Shack is relatively restricted; that is, it's a small opening. If Lupin has started to come out, Snape could have defended himself. Next, Snape is not guiltless. It was crystal clear from circumstances, that the Headmaster did not want anyone going into the Whomping Willow. It was clear from the fact that Mdm. Pomphrey accompanied Lupin to the Willow that whatever was going on was official Hogwarts business. Snape was out of bounds, likely out after hours, and going into a situation that he could reasonable conclude entailed some degree of danger. Also, note that it seems that Snape resisted being rescued, since James had to drag him away. I have very limited sympathy for Snape here. Next, we don't know what Sirius said to get Snape to enter the Whomping Willow. He could have very sarcastically used reverse psychology. He could have said something like - 'Prod the knot on the Whomping Willow if you dare, but you will meet your death there. You've been warned'. OK, that's not a great example, but you get the idea. To a rational person, 'danger' and 'meet your death' are warnings, but to a teenager, they are enticements. Yet, in court, Sirius could reasonably say he warned Snape that it was dangerous and deadly. Now I can't say that Sirius did that, but since we don't know, we don't know that he didn't. Further, most people who argue how horrible the Prank was claim that James and Co. got off with no punishment, but, as Carol points out, we don't know that. Certainly Sirius wasn't punished for attempted murder or anything similar, but Snape was unharmed, and there were likely no real witnesses, plus Snape broke about a dozen rules in going there. Essentially putting himself in harms way. So, I suspect EVERYONE was punished in typical school fashion. As to the Snape/James life debt, it really is grey. The strongest evidence we have is Dumbledore suggestion that the life debt exists, but the circumstances are very unclear. Remember JKR said that Ginny doesn't own Harry a life debt, because he didn't directly save her life. Her living was a secondary by-product of defeating Tom. So, in the Snape/James case, maybe it was the fact that Snape resisted rescue that raised it to the level of a direct /save/. Maybe it was Snape's determination to go forward and James determination to pull him back that save Snape. Still I see it as very unclear. As to connecting that Prank to the final book, I don't see it being made a big deal of. I suspect we may get some more details in-passing, but I don't see the flow of the story stopping to resolve this issue, nor do I think the issue is important enough to warrant much page time. Again, I think we will get more info, but it will be very conversational, in-passing, and short. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Wed Apr 11 12:06:44 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:06:44 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167339 Alla: > Yes I know, you'll say you could best be entertained by Harry living and being happy, and I think you believe it, but I don't think it's really true. Eggplant: > If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will be completely out of your thoughts. coriandra2002 now: > I don't know about any of the other characters, but Harry's almost certainly going to live. How do I know? When he's surrounded by Dementors in the P.O.A, he sees what he thinks is his father's spirit coming to save him, but it's actually himself transported from the future. How would this be possible if he dies while he's still a boy? ___________ Inge: >From the future? That's not quite how I read the scene, since the "Harry transported" you refer to was there all along and only 3 hours age-different from "Harry-attacked-by-Dementors" - definitely not a "grown-up-version" of Harry. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 12:18:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:18:23 -0000 Subject: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167340 > Alla: > > > Yes I know, you'll say you could best be entertained by Harry > living and being happy, and I think you believe it, but I don't > think it's really true. > > Eggplant: > > > If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you read the > last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will be > completely out of your thoughts. > Alla again: G-d only knows how much I hate to waste a post on something like this, but it is so contrary to what I think that I guess have to. Both of those paragraphs belong to Eggplant, nothing of this belongs to me. From random832 at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 12:53:01 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:53:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704110553g19564251w6e04b403743f03e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167341 On 10 Apr 2007 14:13:13 -0700, Steve wrote: > JKR needed school to begin on an assumed Monday and so it > does. When I read about the first day of school, trust me > I am not rushing to the calender to see if it really is > a Monday. No, but she should have at least made sure the day before wasn't also a Monday. (yes, i know, that's one of the few that actually got fixed in reprints, but it's still an example of just how careless she can be about these things) Similarly, I don't care if the full moons line up with 1993-94, but it'd be nice if they were at about the same day each month (actual full moons are at an interval of 29.5 days). In other words, I don't care if there was a full moon or not on halloween of 1993, but you can't have one then and on christmas. Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 13:06:25 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:06:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50704101106x714e68d7he6bbfe3b0cd20069@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704110606q3e96f3a5i6fcb3743fe6445c3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167343 > Ken: > > I don't know if you are being serious or not so I don't know whether > to respond seriously or not. Perhaps this time travel sidetrack has > gone on long enough so rather than post a detailed discussion, let me > just say this: "perfectly self-consistent recursive causation"? I LOVE > it, it has me rolling on the floor in fits of laughter! I don't know > if that is the response you expected or not. I cannot take this > seriously as a plausible element in a "serious" work of fantasy or SF, > there are way too many problems with it. If you were being serious and > it works for you, so be it, I am sure you are not the only one who > enjoys stories written around the notion. It's just a big, ugly wart > on the HP series to me. I can ignore it well enough to truly enjoy the > rest of the story, I can never accept it. I meant that there was no easy "go back and change things" like you see in certain genres like alternate history - everything they did when they went back in time, happened the first time around. Like in the Heinlein story "All you zombies", except, you know, with less complexity, and less baby-making. > Ken: > I've been running all this over in my mind and come to think of it I > do not believe that the authors I enjoy most make much use of time > travel. Isaac Asimov's Spacer/Robot/Empire/Foundation universe started > out with a time travel culture but then a character in the time travel > ministry realized that the technology was ruining the human race and > managed to kill off time travel entirely. As I recall only one other > character after that time traveled and he was blown forward in time. > Mostly the authors I like avoid the notion like the plague and I don't > pick authors based on their stance on time travel so I guess the kind > of mind that dislikes time travel just naturally seeks out its own kind. There are two kinds of time travel - the "silly" kind, where you can change the past, there are "ripples" or whatever ridiculous mechanism for the changes to propagate in a way that looks good on screen, you can create paradoxes and contradict your own existence, you can go to alternate futures, then back to the past to fix it and somehow it goes 100% back to normal, etc. And then there's the "serious" kind, where there are no paradoxes, you cannot change the past (though you can be your own grandfather, it just means you were all along), everything that happens when you go back in time happens the exact same way that it did before when your future self (possibly unknown to you at the time) arrived. You seem to have mistaken HP for the former, and maybe you're not even aware of the latter's existence at all. > Ken: > "Tensor calculus? That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son". Well, in the context it seemed like you had a problem with the way time travel was executed in the books, rather than with time travel in general. As for my literary preferences... generally I do like stories that just e.g. handwave an aircraft carrier back in time and forget about the whole time travel thing after that (focusing the rest of the story on what they do now that they're there), but those stories aren't _about_ time travel. They're about an aircraft carrier from 2020 sent back to 1942, or about what the south would do in the civil war if they had AK-47s, etc. For stories _about_ time travel, stuff like back to the future that goes with, again, the "silly" kind, but then tries to explain it and build a coherent system out of it, are painful. But the serious kind can be interesting. Random832 From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 14:49:46 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:49:46 -0000 Subject: Head Boy (was Re: World Building And The Potterverse...) In-Reply-To: <700201d40704102356g5fe65643x2b869493185f2d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > Kemper now: > The covers are obviously two different scenes in the book. Or are you > being funny? My primary language is English, so maybe I missed the > tone :) Siriusly :| > Oh, just remarking on what is probably an unimportant detail. But if Harry is not returning to Hogwarts, he probably wouldn't have much call to be wearing robes (he doesn't appear to be a fashionista). The scene of the British children's cover, at least, is consistent with that. Then again, maybe Harry just got caught in a disrobed moment [slightly wicked :-)] > Speaking of robes... Voldie and Harry-poo seem to be wearing the same > casual robes, do you think they both shop at Madam Malkin's? > Quite possibly. As I recall, that is the only Wizard clothing store we've seen, although it's implied (or maybe even stated) that there are others. But it would make a great deal of sense if they both bought there robes at the same sale. I can see it now: CLOSE OUT SALE! HUGE SAVINGS! ALL CASUAL OUTDOOR ROBES 20% OFF! EXTRA 10% FOR TEENAGE HEROES, DARK LORDS, AND CHILD ABUSING POTIONS PROFESSORS! The last, of course, so that dear, child-abusing Snapey-poo won't feel left out. The robes look loose enough to make nice shrouds, so they could serve double duty, at least for Voldums and Snapey-poo. Lupinlore, who does wonder why conjuring and transfiguring wizards need clothing stores at all (or any other kind of store, save possibly those that carry wands and other magical items), or money for that matter, and why Molly couldn't have just fixed Ron's dress robes in GoF with a little of the old Hocus-Pocus. Maybe all the recent time-travel discussions are onto something, and there is some sort of Law of Conservation of Magical Energy at work. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Apr 11 15:55:36 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 Message-ID: <29496979.1176306937042.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167345 From: Goddlefrood >"It all comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledore's >judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus" > >HBP - A Very Frosty Christmas > >Famous last words? Or should we take Snape at the face value >placed on him by Albus? I don't trust Snape at all, and have little trust for Dumbledore. I do, however, trust JKR. I cannot see a scenario where she kept the reason for Dumbledore's trust of Snape a major secret of the series, yet has Dumbledore being fooled. Now, if we KNEW the reason, and it was an iron-clad reason, THEN I can see Evil Snape. Otherwise, JKR has been saying, "Trust me, Snape is loyal. Trust me, Snape is loyal. Trust me, Snape is loyal. Oh well, it looks like I lied." Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 11 16:28:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:28:01 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH / Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167346 Steve: > Sorry to cut everything, but I think Carol makes a good > basic point - we don't know. We don't know exactly what > Sirius said to get Snape to enter the Whomping Willow. > We don't know what James did to save him. But /I/ do > know that people are making this a much bigger deal than > it really is. Pippin: This reminds me of the arguments made before HBP that Harry was going to outgrow his childish conflicts with Snape and Draco, and those characters would then recede into the background of the story. Face it, if JKR left it till Book Seven to resolve, it's important. The childish conflict between the Marauders and Snape didn't go away, it escalated and continues to do so. So far, the casualties are two dead, one hapless slave, one fugitive and one social outcast. I think she's going to want us to know how the escalation started. The conflict as we saw it in the Pensieve didn't seem to be so intense -- James may offer to pants Snape, but he's not about to kill him. And Snape doesn't seem to be in mortal terror -- if he was, he wouldn't have told Lily he didn't need her help. Nor does he try a really damaging curse like Incendio. This was a stylized conflict, as ritualized as the TWT or a Quidditch game, though the rules were those devised by children for their own purposes. No one denies that the prank put Snape in mortal danger. We need to know whether that was just an unintentional result of the usual student mischief, and Snape is being oversensitive, or it was a real attempt at murder, something outside the boundaries of normal student rivalry at Hogwarts. JKR has hinted there was more behind it than mutual loathing, but we don't know what. I don't think she can make a big mystery out of that and then have the answer be 'more of the same.' The conversation Harry has with Sirius and Lupin tells against it. They say that in seventh year, Snape was hexing James every chance he got and naturally James wouldn't stand for it. But if that was already the case in fifth year, why didn't they say so? But no, according to them they were just idiots and berks who hexed everybody, not just Snape. Steve: > Next, Snape is not guiltless.It was crystal clear from >circumstances, that the Headmaster did not want anyone > going into the Whomping Willow. Pippin: I think you are forgetting that the Marauders were wizards. To paraphrase Dumbledore, can you think of any measure that the Marauders might have taken to make Snape forgetful of school rules and his own safety, and pursue Lupin into the willow? He may well have been as guiltless as Madame Rosmerta. If Snape resisted rescue, perhaps it was because he was ensorcelled, as blindly drawn towards the werewolf as Ron was to the brains at the MoM. Pippin From katmandu2007 at mail2world.com Wed Apr 11 16:45:29 2007 From: katmandu2007 at mail2world.com (katmandu_85219) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:45:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and Spinners End house. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167347 I'm just curious. Is there any evidence that the house on Spinners End is the house Snape grew up in? Or that Snape even owns it? I know Bellatrix uses the phrase "lives here" and Wormtail says "your house", but I know of people who use both phrases even when renting over a summer. Maybe he snitched it, like Slughorn does? It doesn't seem to be an overly "ordinary" house with a hidden doorway with a mysterious narrow staircase. Then another hidden doorway?? ---sheesh, English homes are so much more interesting than American homes! katmandu_85219 From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 15:25:47 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:25:47 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167348 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, and that's *exactly* what bugs me. Where does the WW get their > stuff? How do they manufacture it, what is their means for paying > for it, how do they interact with Muggles if that's what needed and > where exactly do the goblins figure in? I agree, JKR probably relies > on the easy and sloppy "shesezso". Which is the cheap way out, IMO. Exactly. And I agree it is a severe dampener on the series in that it shoots you out of the narrative with its sheer unbelievable nature. You are going merrily along when you run into something that is obviously contrived simply so the plot can go a certain way and or JKR can explore certain dilemmas, even at the cost of severe violations of consistency or even "storybook" plausibility, and you go "Oh, bull#@!!" To disagree with Pippin, I think it DOES matter why the CPS, Muggle or Magical, weren't doing their job with Harry and the Dursleys. It DOES matter why Harry wasn't, for instance, sent out of the country. For JKR to say, "I want to explore a certain ethical dilemma" invites the "bull#@!!" response. It DOES matter what the alternatives were in GoF. It DOES matter that the WW seems to have a calendar where 1 September falls on a Monday year after year after year. It DOES matter, to agree with Betsy, that wizards are able to transfigure and conjure, yet seem to be as dependent on commerce, money, and manufacturing as anyone else. It DOES matter that huge numbers of people in the WW are muggleborn or half-blood, yet the disfunctional and backward political and social system shows no reflection of this fact. And the big problem is that much of this could have been fixed very easily. True, it would have required a certain amount of techo- babble (or magico-babble), but it would have made things much more consistent and therefore smooth and believable. Simple references to the difficulty of conjuring or the availability of magical energy could have helped explain the need for stores, money, etc. Five minutes with a calendar program could have cleared up the Mondays dilemma. A slight change in plot (i.e. having the Ministry rather than Dumbledore make the placement at the Dursleys) would have helped the believability of the Dursley storyline, even if it would have required creativity to work in the blood-protection angle. A paragraph about what happened to somebody who violated a magical contract would have cleared that up. Unfortunately, the disfunctional WW is just a bleeding wound > > I used to think that these issues would clear up as Harry got older > and took more notice of things. It hasn't. It's not a series killer > (the characters are still important), but it is a series dampener, > IMO. That the WW is a magical world only makes the lack of logic > worse, IMO. Well, herein lies much of the trouble. In the beginning, and up through at least much of GoF, the series was basically a fairy-tale. You don't expect fairy-tales to make sense in order to work -- it just isn't part of the genre expectation. Then, as Harry got older, things shifted. The story became much more of a dark melodrama, with elements of teen angst and the moral allegory thrown in. Those DO require much more consistency in order to work. As the genre shifted, many of us expected the consistency to improve as well. Basically we said, "Okay, XXXX was fine as long as we were dealing with a fairy tale, but in this kind of story it's NOT fine, and you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do." Unfortunately, the explanations and consistency never came. And JKR's own comments betray that she really didn't understand the boundaries she was crossing. When she says things like "well, I assumed that people would understand that if wizards can apparate, they'll be situations where they can't" the answer is, "If this was still a fairy tale, I guess that's okay. Since this isn't a fairy tale anymore, that is NOT okay." Lupinlore From katmandu2007 at mail2world.com Wed Apr 11 17:01:18 2007 From: katmandu2007 at mail2world.com (katmandu_85219) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:01:18 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167349 I was reading the prank topic, and someone stated that Snape was responsible for Sirius' death. That started me to think. Why would Snape be responsible for his death? Isn't Sirius Harry's guardian? His God-father? Wasn't it his duty and responsibility to come to Harry's rescue? Not hide away, and leave the danger to others? Shouldn't anyone with information on Harry's welfare come to Sirius? Isn't he the responsible party? Speaking as a mom, I would certainly have been there if it was my son in danger. katmandu_85219 From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Apr 11 15:27:34 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:27:34 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rain References: <7b9f25e50704110553g19564251w6e04b403743f03e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009d01c77c4d$ee318fe0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167350 > On 10 Apr 2007 14:13:13 -0700, Steve wrote: > > JKR needed school to begin on an assumed Monday and so it > > does. When I read about the first day of school, trust me > > I am not rushing to the calender to see if it really is > > a Monday. > Random832: > No, but she should have at least made sure the day before wasn't also > a Monday. (yes, i know, that's one of the few that actually got fixed > in reprints, but it's still an example of just how careless she can be > about these things) Similarly, I don't care if the full moons line up > with 1993-94, but it'd be nice if they were at about the same day each > month (actual full moons are at an interval of 29.5 days). In other > words, I don't care if there was a full moon or not on halloween of > 1993, but you can't have one then and on christmas. Shelley: But this sort of analysis is rather pointless, isn't it? I mean, in most stories we read, we don't care to go reread it a million times, plot out calendars and dates and triple check to see if the author got everything exactly correct. It's a little unfair of us to say to Rowling, "hey look, lady, since your series is SO popular, we are holding you to a higher standard than we do any other author we read." All authors make errors- that's what editors are for! If you have to blame anyone, blame the editors who checked over her work for errors before it was sent out. God knows that any textbook has to be reprinted several times to get all those errors. Practically any written work at all shows the humanity of it's author. Heaven forbid that anyone be "careless"! (Gasp, what do you mean, you're human???) Personally, none of the mistakes you talk about make any difference to the plot. Plus, the year 1993 isn't in canon anyway, so I feel the fans are being a bit misleading by trying to match Harry up with actual years to determine how old he would be for this year, 2007, or to line Harry's first years in the books up with our calendar years to see just which days that Halloween or Christmas would fall on. I agree with Steve- as I read this series, I am not rushing to any calendar to see if the day she says something falls on lines up. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 11 17:18:24 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:18:24 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rain In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704110553g19564251w6e04b403743f03e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167351 Random: > No, but she should have at least made sure the day before wasn't also > a Monday. (yes, i know, that's one of the few that actually got fixed > in reprints, but it's still an example of just how careless she can be > about these things) Similarly, I don't care if the full moons line up > with 1993-94, but it'd be nice if they were at about the same day each > month (actual full moons are at an interval of 29.5 days). In other > words, I don't care if there was a full moon or not on halloween of > 1993, but you can't have one then and on christmas. > Pippin: Ah, but we don't know that Lupin's absence at Christmas was due to the full moon. "I'm afraid the poor fellow is ill again" doesn't have to mean he's suffering from his transformation, even if Dumbledore makes it sound that way by asking Severus if he's made the potion. It doesn't have to mean Lupin was incapacitated at all. Possibly Lupin made a polite excuse because he didn't think he'd enjoy a dinner with Snape, (neither would JKR or so she says) or maybe Lupin was already engaged in spying on the werewolves and slipped away to do so while school was not in session. It could be a little hint: just as Lupin might be absent for reasons unrelated to his transformations, he might behave destructively unrelated to his transformations also. It's noticeable that Trelawney, who ought to be up on the phases of the moon if anyone is, had every expectation of seeing him at the table. Pippin From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Apr 11 17:46:34 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:46:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and Spinners End house. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167352 wrote: > > I'm just curious. Is there any evidence that the house on > Spinners End is the house Snape grew up in? Or that Snape > even owns it? I know Bellatrix uses the phrase "lives here" > and Wormtail says "your house", but I know of people who use > both phrases even when renting over a summer. Maybe he > snitched it, like Slughorn does? It doesn't seem to be an > overly "ordinary" house with a hidden doorway with a > mysterious narrow staircase. Then another hidden doorway?? > ---sheesh, English homes are so much more interesting than > American homes! > wynnleaf First, I think we should assume that the direct statements that people make about the house are likely to be true. Since Peter calls it Snape's house and Bella says Snape lives there, it is probably his house. But was it the house where he grew up in? The house has an air of neglect and appears that no one regularly lives there. This does not seem to me like someone's summer home, as most people keep up their summer/vacation home. Therefore it's unlikely to be a house Snape uses a lot. We know he has stayed at Hogwarts for some holidays. Further, the books are high quality -- leather bound -- yet left in a house that is neglected. If the books are Snape's personal collection, and he bought high quality books, why would he put them in a house that he was neglecting? In other words, if he cared enough to buy quality books, why not take care of them? Further, the furniture is worn, which also speaks of long use, yet with the "air of neglect" seeming as though Snape isn't there often, then how did the furniture get so much use? >From several essays by people in the UK, the house is apparently a common style in mill towns -- a two-up-two-down, in which the house is either two rooms wide above and below, or (as is more likely in this case) two rooms deep with the front door entering into the middle of the front room downstairs and the kitchen behind it. You might want to check out some of the essays on this subject. I could link you to one, if you like. Apparently some people who are familiar with the mill towns of Northern England think it looks like that's the kind of town where Spinner's End is located. Add to that, the notion that some readers have that Snape is a northerner, and it would make sense that his childhood home was in a quintessentially northern town, and his house be a typical older mill town house. wynnleaf From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 11 17:55:57 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:55:57 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rains In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > A flaw in 'world building' is only a flaw if it is so > glaringly obvious and jarring that you are drawn out of > the story by it. As long as you are compelled to keep > reading, it doesn't really matter if Mars was /really/ > bright that night, or if the moon was /really/ full that > night, or if Dragon /really/ exist. > There is a mixture here because some of the flaws I noticed instantly, others on reflection, others yet because other readers pointed them out. A story I read only once through can get away with a lot of errors. Part of the attraction of these stories to those on this list is that they generally bear up to repeated reading and close scrutiny. That puts an extra burden on the author to be accurate and the inaccuracies here are often of a kind that were easily fixed. The end of "Around The World In Eighty Days" has a delightful twist because Jules Verne got it right. That is missing here in many instances and while it does not ruin the books for me, it does grate. Ken From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 17:59:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:59:58 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167354 --- "katmandu_85219" wrote: > > I was reading the prank topic, and someone stated > that Snape was responsible for Sirius' death. That > started me to think. Why would Snape be responsible > for his death? ... > > katmandu_85219 > bboyminn: Here's the thing, Harry blames Snape for Sirius's death, but that is partly to deflect his own feelings of responsibility onto someone else. That is understandable, but I think Harry it taking too much guilt onto himself. Yes, we can say if Harry hadn't been so foolish, Sirius would still be alive. But we can also say that if Dumbledore had kept Harry more informed, Sirius would still be alive. We can also say that if Sirius had been paying attention instead of gloating and bragging, he would still be alive. We can say if Dumbledore has wasted less time questioning Kreacher, he would have arrived sooner and could have saved Sirius. So, there are lots of people we can blame for this event. Just as you can say that if you son hadn't delayed you leaving the house (hypothetical), you wouldn't have gotten into that car accident. But that is all random chance. The truth is, if the other driver hadn't smashed into you, you wouldn't have had the accident. And in our case here, if Bellatrix hadn't been such an evil old hag and hadn't cast a curse against her own cousin thereby knocking him behind the Veil, he would still be alive. Let's place the blame squarely where it truly belongs. Bellatrix acted with full conscious willful and malicious intent. The other people who we can put some secondary blame on, are really just people involved in the random sequence of events that occur in our lives everyday. So, Harry blames Snape, but that is to displace his own sense of guilt, but I don't think Harry has any reason to feel guilty. He did what he thought was right based on the information he had. If he starts to second guess everything he does, he's going to be powerless to act. I think Harry will come to, and is coming to, realize this. He did what he felt he had to do, based on what he knew, everything else was just random chance. No, the only real blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the person causing the death, and that is Bellatrix. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From logistis_20 at yahoo.gr Wed Apr 11 17:27:13 2007 From: logistis_20 at yahoo.gr (george_19.5 george) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:27:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <134121.70370.qm@web27303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167355 katmandu_85219 wrote: > I was reading the prank topic, and someone stated that > Snape was responsible for Sirius' death. Why would > Snape be responsible for his death? George: He is resposible to the death of Sirius. Because he was a spy of LV plants. If he was doing his job Sirius would be alive. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 18:20:25 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:20:25 -0000 Subject: World Building And Time Travel In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704110606q3e96f3a5i6fcb3743fe6445c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167356 --- "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Ken: > > > > .... I cannot take this > > seriously as a plausible element in a "serious" work > > of fantasy or SF, there are way too many problems > > with it. .... It's just a big, ugly wart on the HP > > series to me. I can ignore it well enough to truly > > enjoy the rest of the story, I can never accept it. > > I meant that there was no easy "go back and change things" > like you see in certain genres like alternate history - > everything they did when they went back in time, happened > the first time around. ... > bboyminn: Once again, sorry to have cut so much. I've been around here a long time, and I have been involved, deeply involved, in all the time travel discussions, and I invariable find this - If you believe 'Time Happened Once', everything is cool. If you believe 'Time Happened Twice', headaches and misery ensue. I can't say what Ken and others believe, but Jordan seems to clearly believe that 'time happened once' and we are merely seeing it from two perspective. Naturally, that is the camp that I am in. JKR dropped enough subtle clues to synchronize the two versions of events. Norm!Harry and Norm!Hermione hear the thud of the axe and Hagrid cry out. TT!Harry and TT!Hermione hear those same events, only now they also see them and it becomes clear the the axe hit a pumpkin and Hargid cried out for joy. In entrance hall, Norm!Harry and Norm!Hermione stay hidden until the hall is clear. The people they heard clearing the hall, are TT!Harry and TT!Hermione. TT!Harry and TT!Hermione then stay hidden until the hall is clear. What they hear while hiding is Harry, Ron, and Hermione leaving to go to Hagrid's. There are clues like this hidden in both versions of events that serve to synchronize the events, and make it clear we are really seeing one set of events from two different perspectives. Again, I can't say how Ken sees the events, but I can say with absolute certainty that if anyone see 'It Happened Twice', then all I can say is - 'This way lies madness'. Steve/bboyminnn From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Apr 11 18:31:27 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:31:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Dursleys: the missing piece? Message-ID: <258811.1176316287543.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167357 Bart: When the first Star Wars movies came out, a film professor pointed out to what was either not spotted by many film historians, or, probably more likely, film historians were afraid to write about in the open. It was about the character, C3P0. Although he was given gold "skin", and a British accent, he was modeled after a different sort of character that used to be much more common in the movies: the wide-eyed always fearful black servant. Of course, if he used lines like "Don' go in thar Artoo! You get us both in a heap o'trubba!" the movie would have been, well, blacklisted. By making him British and a bit over-refined, it made the character less offensive to the audiences. I have been puzzled by the Dursleys. A materialistic family like that would not be so dead set against magic; if anything, they would want to use it to their advantage. Their behavior towards Harry goes way beyond wanting to be "normal". Yet, there is an stereotype that WOULD behave the way the Dursleys would: the hypocritical pseudo-fundamentalist Christian, who act in very un-Christian manners themselves, but expect everybody else to toe the line defined by their faith. They would consider magic to be Satanic, and would absolutely punish a child for showing signs of difference that were not of the child's making, considering the child to be one of Satan. I suggest thinking through the novels again, thinking about the actions of the Dursleys, and seeing if their behavior towards Harry makes more or less sense based on my surmise of the personality traits that were removed as an afterthought. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 11 18:31:35 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:31:35 -0000 Subject: Christmas / World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: he big problem is that much of this could have been fixed very > easily. True, it would have required a certain amount of techo- > babble (or magico-babble), but it would have made things much more > consistent and therefore smooth and believable. Pippin: Convincing babble is still babble. You said it yourself, it's the genre expectation, not the story itself, that needs it. There are lots of people who can't get into science fiction (I'm not one of them) because real people don't stop in the middle of whatever they're doing to explain how something works. And there are others (I'm not one of them either) who can't find anything believable without an explanation of how it works. I guess it takes all kinds. Lupinlore:> > Well, herein lies much of the trouble. In the beginning, and up > through at least much of GoF, the series was basically a fairy-tale. > You don't expect fairy-tales to make sense in order to work -- it > just isn't part of the genre expectation. Then, as Harry got older, > things shifted. The story became much more of a dark melodrama, with > elements of teen angst and the moral allegory thrown in. Those DO > require much more consistency in order to work. Pippin: JKR is under no obligation to imitate Tolkien or to better him. She's been frank that that kind of world-building is not her interest. Tolkien took fairy tales out of the nursery and out of traditional fairylands so he could work with angst and dark melodrama. He took pains to depict his faery world in a naturalistic way, chronology included, though as one who was privileged to read his work during his lifetime I found the constant tinkering as he struggled to get things just so more distracting than the inconsistencies themselves. But JKR reminds us, disturbingly, that there is plenty of room for angst and dark melodrama in the nursery itself. We don't have to leave the artificial world of children's tales to find it. We just have to stop pretending that it isn't there. Pippin From katmandu2007 at mail2world.com Wed Apr 11 17:26:33 2007 From: katmandu2007 at mail2world.com (katmandu_85219) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:26:33 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167359 Dumbledore was a member of the Wizard court, why would he allow a man (sirius) to be sent to Azkaban without a trial? Just sent away. Did he know Sirius to be innocent? Nobody bothered to use veriserum or legimancy (spelling?) to see what happened. Did Dumbledore trade Sirius for Severus? Did he think--why not? Innocent or not, he tried to murder a classmate a few years before? Was he playing judge, jury and executioner? Did he so believe that he was guilty, that a trial was unneccessary? They didn't even try a fake trial. It seems that Dumbledore didn't kick up any fuss whatsever. Sirius doesn't seem to hold a grudge against him, and Dumbledore says he trusts Sirius. If he knew, because of Pettigrew, that Sirius was innocent. Why didn't he use the above means to prove his innocence? After all, there were 4 other people who saw Pettigrew. Dumbledore is a very disturbing character. katmandu From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Apr 11 18:59:58 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:59:58 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: the missing piece?/The Prank in DH/Responsibility for Sirius' In-Reply-To: <258811.1176316287543.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167360 Bart: > > When the first Star Wars movies came out, a film professor pointed out to what was either not spotted by many film historians, or, probably more likely, film historians were afraid to write about in the open. It was about the character, C3P0. Although he was given gold "skin", and a British accent, he was modeled after a different sort of character that used to be much more common in the movies: the wide-eyed always fearful black servant. Of course, if he used lines like "Don' go in thar Artoo! You get us both in a heap o'trubba!" the movie would have been, well, blacklisted. By making him British and a bit over-refined, it made the character less offensive to the audiences. Magpie: I think it more likely that film historians didn't spot it because there's just no evidence for it. C3PO is not always fearful in the way you're describing. He's not afraid of ghosts and doesn't jump at shadows. C3PO was, I believe, originally intended to be more modelled after a used car salesman in terms of being slick, and then they later decided to make him more a more propor protocol droid. I think the film historian was projecting (and seriously stretching) to make C3PO the stereotype he wanted to see there. The English Butler is its own type and can't, imo, just be grafted on top of teh racist one. There's a difference between a character who prefers things to be orderly and follow the rules (and also, err, a bit effeminate by some standards?) and the fearful (and ignorant, which C3PO is not) black servant stereotype. Bart: > I have been puzzled by the Dursleys. A materialistic family like that would not be so dead set against magic; if anything, they would want to use it to their advantage. Their behavior towards Harry goes way beyond wanting to be "normal". Yet, there is an stereotype that WOULD behave the way the Dursleys would: the hypocritical pseudo- fundamentalist Christian, who act in very un-Christian manners themselves, but expect everybody else to toe the line defined by their faith. They would consider magic to be Satanic, and would absolutely punish a child for showing signs of difference that were not of the child's making, considering the child to be one of Satan. > > I suggest thinking through the novels again, thinking about the actions of the Dursleys, and seeing if their behavior towards Harry makes more or less sense based on my surmise of the personality traits that were removed as an afterthought. Magpie: Are you saying they're really fundamentalists the way C3PO is "really" a black stereotype? Because there's nothing strange about an aspirational, conservative middle-class person wanting their family to be "normal." An artistic child might ultimately earn a lot of money for his family, but that wouldn't necessarily stop a family like the Dursleys from preferring him to be "normal" instead of creative. They wouldn't have to be fundamentalists to think that way. In the Dursleys case, they seem to be a charicature of a specific British type that isn't religious in that way. If the story were set in America I think the Dursleys might be more likely to be religious that way, and that it would be overt. There's no hint that they're worried about the devil. Pippin: I think you are forgetting that the Marauders were wizards. To paraphrase Dumbledore, can you think of any measure that the Marauders might have taken to make Snape forgetful of school rules and his own safety, and pursue Lupin into the willow? Magpie: Or perhaps there was just more at stake for Snape in whatever he thought he was catching them doing, or in catching them at doing something (and of course Sirius knew that). katmandu_85219 wrote: > I was reading the prank topic, and someone stated that > Snape was responsible for Sirius' death. Why would > Snape be responsible for his death? George: He is resposible to the death of Sirius. Because he was a spy of LV plants. If he was doing his job Sirius would be alive. Magpie: I don't understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that Snape is responsible because he's supposed to know *all* of LV's plans, so he should have told everybody what was going on? That doesn't hold up, imo. There's no reason to think that Snape knew what LV's plans were- -he's not expected to know everything that LV is planning. As it is Snape actually did his job anyway--he made sure Sirius was all right and later alerted the Order that Harry seemed to have gone to the MoM to "rescue" Sirius. At this point Sirius isn't in danger at all. The only reason he was ever in danger was because he went to the MoM to fight Bellatrix, which he did pretty much knowing what he was getting into. There's nothing more Snape could have told him or anyone that would have changed things in that context that I can see. Sirius knew by that point what LV's plan was. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 19:30:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:30:37 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rain In-Reply-To: <009d01c77c4d$ee318fe0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167361 Shelley wrote: > All authors make errors- > that's what editors are for! If you have to blame anyone, blame the editors who checked over her work for errors before it was sent out. God knows that any textbook has to be reprinted several times to get all those errors. Practically any written work at all shows the humanity of it's author. Heaven forbid that anyone be "careless"! (Gasp, what do you mean, you're human???) > > Personally, none of the mistakes you talk about make any difference to the plot. Plus, the year 1993 isn't in canon anyway, so I feel the fans are being a bit misleading by trying to match Harry up with actual years to determine how old he would be for this year, 2007, or to line Harry's first years in the books up with our calendar years to see just which days that Halloween or Christmas would fall on. I agree with Steve- as I read this series, I am not rushing to any calendar to see if the day she says something falls on lines up. > Carol responds: Speaking as a professional copyeditor, I'm afraid you're putting too large a burden on the editors. Ultimately, the responsibility for the content of the books belongs to the author, who is free to accept or reject the copyeditor's corrections. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the same person has copyedited all six books (so far) in either the Bloomsbury or Scholastic editions, and it's not the copyeditor's responsibility to check for inconsistencies within the series, as opposed to those within a particular volume. (Now, if I'd copyedited them, I'd have pointed out a few that caught my attention and queried them, but, alas, I don't have that privilege. And even if it were, it would be JKR's job, not mine, to fix the inconsistency if she so desired.) As for whether such errors are important, I think it's entirely subjective. Some errors jar me as a reader, and I'll think, "No, that's just wrong!" and I'll head for some other book to find the contradictory passage. It *did* bother me that Lupin transformed at both Halloween and Christmas. That just doesn't fit with the 28-day cycle for a full moon. And it bothered me that he transformed when the moon came out from behind a cloud rather than when it rose. That was just plot manipulation, that was. (I also wonder what happened to Lupin during all those other months and whether Snape substituted for him more than once. Surely, all his other transformations didn't conveniently occur on weekends.) But since I enjoy the books and care about the characters, I try to ignore the inconsistencies, or figure out ways in which Charlie Weasley could "really" be only three years older than Percy and still win the Quidditch Cup, or plausible reasons why a "legendary" Seeker who could have played for England could lose the cup year after year. It is, after all, not only a fictional but to some degree a fantasy world; JKR is, after all, writing for herself and for children. To some degree, she's stuck with established patterns from previous books (e.g., the DADA curse) that have to play out from year to year. And, whether I like it or not, she's given a ghost who died in 1492 an Elizabethan ruff and a Jacobean hat. (She shold have made it his 400th Death Day rather than his 500th, which would have helped a little. And in SS/PS, he hadn't eaten in 400 years, so she should have stayed with that idea. Again, if I were her copyeditor, I'd have pointed out those details, but if the copyeditor of CoS is a different person from the CE for SS/PS, he or she can't be expected to recognize such inconsistencies.) Now "minscule" for "minuscule" (SS) and "site" for "sight" (HBP) are definitely the copyeditor's fault, but copyeditors are human, too (as I know all too well). So, ultimately, we can accept the books as written, hoping that the more glaring errors are eventually edited out and the more obvious inconsistencies corrected (Percy's silver badge being identical to Ron's red and gold one has already been corrected, for example) or we can let the inconsistencies bother us. We can willingly suspend our disbelief or we can spend our time trying to work out a "fix" that satisfies us or we can complain about JKR's world-building skills and eye for detail and memory and math skills and logic not meeting our expectations. We can stop reading the books if it bothers us sufficiently. (Evidently, it doesn't, or we wouldn't be here.) I, for one, am not bothered by the Time-Turning in PoA now that I understand that time was not changed--Harry had *always* come back from the not-very-distant future to cast that Patronus, and Dumbledore had *always* figured that out and sent him and Hermione to save Buckbeak, Sirius Black, and themselves. But once is enough. If she does it again, it will feel--to me--like a deus ex machina. As for the inability to conjure food and money to solve the problem of poverty, I think we find the answer to that with Leprechaun gold. Conjured money isn't real and doesn't stay around. Conjured furniture lasts as long as its needed and is then swept away. Conjured food would taste good and feel substantial as it was eaten, but it would have no nutritional value and the eater would soon be hungry again. Wizards, like Muggles, require real food, some of which is grown in the Hogwarts or Burrow garden, but some of which must be purchased. >From whom, and how, and whether Squibs and Muggles are involved, I leave to others to worry about. At any rate, we can't help our individual reactions to the books or what bothers us about them. And we have every right to express our opinions, or our feelings, about what we consider to be inadequacies. And, ultimately, it *is* JKR's responsibility to correct (or explain away) any real inconsistencies in the books. As for explaining how magic works in the WW, I'd rather she didn't. I don't want her to bring in the physics of an AK spell. In the unlikely event that I wanted to read about physics, I'd consult a textbook. Or more likely, a website or "Physics for Dummies." I do agree, though, that authors are human. All authors make mistakes. Shakespeare placed books and clocks in ancient Rome, for crying out loud. And one of my favorite books of all time, "Moby Dick," is seriously flawed from a technical perspective. (I do wish, though, that some modern copyeditor would catch and fix that annoying reference to Second Mate Stubb as the third mate. I've never seen that corrected in any edition.) Carol, who reserves the right to feel annoyed by errors and inconsistencies that *somebody* should have caught just as others have the right to complain about the political and economic and scientific inadequacies they find in the books, which most of us enjoy despite their perceived inadequacies or we wouldn't be discussing them From tctrppr at netscape.net Wed Apr 11 18:57:22 2007 From: tctrppr at netscape.net (grouchymedic_26149) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:57:22 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167362 katmandu: > Dumbledore was a member of the Wizard court, why would he allow a > man (sirius) to be sent to Azkaban without a trial? Perhaps DD wasn't a member of the Wizengamot when Sirius was incarcerated?? Paul From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 19:59:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:59:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and Spinners End house. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167363 wynnleaf wrote: > First, I think we should assume that the direct statements that people make about the house are likely to be true. Since Peter calls it Snape's house and Bella says Snape lives there, it is probably his house. > > But was it the house where he grew up in? > > The house has an air of neglect and appears that no one regularly lives there. This does not seem to me like someone's summer home, as most people keep up their summer/vacation home. Therefore it's unlikely to be a house Snape uses a lot. We know he has stayed at Hogwarts for some holidays. Further, the books are high quality -- leather bound -- yet left in a house that is neglected. If the books are Snape's personal collection, and he bought high quality books, why would he put them in a house that he was neglecting? In other words, if he cared enough to buy quality books, why not take care of them? Further, the furniture is worn, which also speaks of long use, yet with the "air of neglect" seeming as though Snape isn't there often, then how did the furniture get so much use? > > From several essays by people in the UK, the house is apparently a common style in mill towns -- a two-up-two-down, in which the house is either two rooms wide above and below, or (as is more likely in this case) two rooms deep with the front door entering into the middle of the front room downstairs and the kitchen behind it. You might want to check out some of the essays on this subject. I could link you to one, if you like. Apparently some people who are familiar with the mill towns of Northern England think it looks like that's the kind of town where Spinner's End is located. > > Add to that, the notion that some readers have that Snape is a northerner, and it would make sense that his childhood home was in a quintessentially northern town, and his house be a typical older mill town house. Carol: I don't think we can conclude anything beyond your first deduction: It's Snape's house. Bellatrix is surprised that he lives there, meaning that she, at least, has not been there before, but somebody has, or Snape would not stock elf-made wine (not the only drink available, or he wouldn't say that it "will do") or talk about Wormtail's having lately developed the habit of listening at doorways. Is Spinner's End Snape's childhood home? His summer home? (He doesn't go there for the Christmas holiday, evidently?) A newly acquired holiday? We don't know. One thing we do know: the house is in a rundown Muggle neighborhood, but it isn't a Muggle house. It has magically operated hidden doorways in the bookshelves and it's lit by candles and candelabras, not by electricity. I don't know when electricity became standard in England, but I would think that any Muggle house built in the 1940s or later would have it as a matter of course. So either this house was built much earlier and taken over by a wizarding family (the Princes?) in the early twentieth century at the latest, or it was converted to a wizarding house by Snape, hidden doorways, candelabras and all. But surely, if he had taken the trouble to convert a Muggle house into a wizarding one, he'd have fixed the rickety furniture as well. (Surely, Snape, powerful as he obviously is, can fix a rickety chair if he's going to spend any time in the place at all.) It does seem likely, however, that the books are his. Maybe they're protected from decay by some spell. :-) I don't think that the Muggle Tobias Snape would have lived in such a house in the 1960s, when Severus was a child (assuming that his parents were still together). I can't imagine any Muggle of his era (the generation that came of age in the 1940s) living in a house like that one. I can imagine it belonging to his Prince grandparents if they, like the Blacks, lived in disguise among Muggles. Or I can imagine one of Voldemort's (or Dumbledore's) agents acquiring it as a hideout for Snape. For all we know, Mundungus Fletcher found it for him, but since Wormtail is living with him, it seems more likely that a DE or DE associate was the finder. At any rate, the deduction that Snape is a northerner appears to derive from the assumption that Spinner's End (actually the name of the street, not the house, but, oh, well) is his childhood home. His manners and speech patterns, with the solitary exception of spitting, suggest otherwise. He's as cold and reserved and sarcastic as any pureblood Slytherin, from Lucius Malfoy to Phineas Nigellus Black. Carol, who thinks it's best not to assume too much about Snape's background from the house at Spinner's End since we're likely to be wrong From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 20:06:15 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:06:15 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rain In-Reply-To: <009d01c77c4d$ee318fe0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167364 > Shelley: > But this sort of analysis is rather pointless, isn't it? I mean, in most > stories we read, we don't care to go reread it a million times, plot out > calendars and dates and triple check to see if the author got everything > exactly correct. > Personally, none of the mistakes you talk about make any difference to the > plot. Plus, the year 1993 isn't in canon anyway, so I feel the fans are > being a bit misleading by trying to match Harry up with actual years to > determine how old he would be for this year, 2007, or to line Harry's first > years in the books up with our calendar years to see just which days that > Halloween or Christmas would fall on. I agree with Steve- as I read this > series, I am not rushing to any calendar to see if the day she says > something falls on lines up. > JW: With all respect, Shelley, HP's age and the years he attends Hogwarts ARE INDEED canon!. In CoS, there is a chapter devoted to Nick's deathday party. On Holloween of HP's second year, he attends the party that comemmorates the 500th anniversary of Nick's execution. The year of the execution is explicitly given as 1492. Therefore, the party takes place October 31, 1992. Go to the Lexicon website, and you will see that all dates flow from that "fact" (and a few other hints thrown in by JKR here and there). Further, in one of the HP computer games, an official timeline is included - which is a duplicate of the Lexicon timeline. JKR herself has said that PS/SS takes place in 1991-92, even though it was not published until several years later. It would appear that 1991-92 correlates (roughly) to the time during which JKR started writing the book. I agree that the myriad mathematical and chronological inaccuracies do little to spoil the characters and plot of the book. I also agree with you that many of these inconsistencies should have been caught by the editors (we can not know how many they DID catch). However, many readers of SF and mature fantasy (as opposed to childen's fantasy and fairy tale) place a great amount of thought and concern on the credibility and internal consistency of the world created by the serious author. It is NOT the popularity of the HP series, but rather the nature of inventing alternate universes that requires us to hold JKR up to the high standard set by her most talented and successful predecessors. IMO, her results are good, but certainly not great. Please note that I am not at all bothered by the nature of JKR's magic, and the freedom it gives JKR. She frequently uses what I call "shesezso" to define the capabilities and limitations of magic. I spend a great deal of energy and time analyzing radical new technologies in the Real World. I fully appreciate what Buckminster Fuller meant when he said "any sufficiently advanced technology can be mistaken for magic." I can treat JKR's magic as such a sufficiently advanced technology. However, I do have a problem with her society - a tiny minority diffused throughout, yet isolated from, a hugh mainstream - that lacks a valid economic and political model. It has a government that doesn't work, a banking system that doesn't work, a sociological model that doesn't work, and a technology that today is quite stagnant despite its historically spectacular achievements. Quite simply, the only thing holding this society together is its strong historical and cultural tradition. What happens to the WW if those cultural ties are destroyed by the war? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 19:36:01 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:36:01 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: the missing piece?/The Prank in DH/Responsibility for Sirius' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167365 > > Magpie: > Are you saying they're really fundamentalists the way C3PO > is "really" a black stereotype? Because there's nothing strange > about an aspirational, conservative middle-class person wanting > their family to be "normal." An artistic child might ultimately earn > a lot of money for his family, but that wouldn't necessarily stop a > family like the Dursleys from preferring him to be "normal" instead > of creative. They wouldn't have to be fundamentalists to think that > way. In the Dursleys case, they seem to be a charicature of a > specific British type that isn't religious in that way. If the story > were set in America I think the Dursleys might be more likely to be > religious that way, and that it would be overt. There's no hint that > they're worried about the devil. > I think this is basically right, although I would emphasize that this type of person tends to think of "money" and "normality" in the same way -- i.e. it's the "normal" and "respectable" people that get ahead in the world, the "weird," "strange," and, to use your example, "artsy-fartsy" don't. Several recent social surveys in the US have pointed out that middle-class religion/morality and middle- class capitalism are closely linked -- that is, people see their religious and moral values as also being market values. One institute that sponsored the survey reported being quite surprised that when they expected religious answers, they got capitalist ones. I.E. you shouldn't dress in offensive ways because it crushes your chances of promotion, you shouldn't associate with disreputable people because it might be remembered at a crucial moment, etc. As the surveyors pointed out, values that some people loosely associate with morality truly ARE moral values to the middle class, but are ALSO simply expressions of hard-headed pragmatism. After all, such views and warnings about what will and will not serve you well in your career and ability to advance are correct at least 95% of the time -- or, to put it another way, its remarkable how much smarter your parents become as you grow older. Of course, human motivation is complex, and simply because something is rooted in pragmatism doesn't mean it's pragmatic in every situation. A parent with a wizard child or an artistic genius child would be better advised, in that situation, to encourage their special nature. But that does not mean that the appeal to pragmatic, capitalist values in support of "normality" is irrational in general. Thus people like the Dursleys, whether in Britain or the US, really do value "normality" at least partially because in the vast majority of their experience it really DOES aid in success and strangeness of oneself or ones relatives really IS a drag on your advancement. All of which is to say that Vernon's claim that he wanted to "quash the magic" out of Harry for the boy's own good is, of course, MOSTLY self-serving and utterly contemptible. But that is not to say that, from Vernon's own perspective and experience in the corporate world, it's COMPLETELY a false or unreasonable claim. Lupinlore, who never thought he'd use the words "reasonable" and "Dursley" in the same sentence, but never thought he'd live to see a lot of other things, either From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 20:58:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:58:58 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167366 katmandu wrote: > > Dumbledore was a member of the Wizard court, why would he allow a man (sirius) to be sent to Azkaban without a trial? Just sent away. Did he know Sirius to be innocent? Nobody bothered to use veriserum or legimancy (spelling?) to see what happened. > > Did Dumbledore trade Sirius for Severus? Did he think--why not? Innocent or not, he tried to murder a classmate a few years before? Was he playing judge, jury and executioner? Did he so believe that he was guilty, that a trial was unneccessary? > > They didn't even try a fake trial. It seems that Dumbledore didn't kick up any fuss whatsever. > > Sirius doesn't seem to hold a grudge against him, and Dumbledore says he trusts Sirius. > > If he knew, because of Pettigrew, that Sirius was innocent. Why didn't he use the above means to prove his innocence? After all, there were 4 other people who saw Pettigrew. > > Dumbledore is a very disturbing character. Carol responds: Which four people saw Pettigrew? When? If you mean that four DEs (the Lestranges and Barty Jr.) knew that he was the spy who had betrayed the Potters to Voldemort, they were most unlikely to provide that information to Dumbledore. All the evidence we have indicates that Dumbledore, like the rest of the WW, believed that Sirius Black had betrayed the Potters, killed the twelve Muggles and Pettigrew, and escaped from Azkaban to murder Harry. No one (except Black himself) saw Pettigrew blow up the street and transform into a rat to escape into the sewers. No one (except Black) knew that Pettigrew had blown off his own finger and faked his own death. The witnesses, all Muggles who subsequently had their memories modified, testified that Black had blown up the street, killing thirteen people. And Black, blaming himself for the Secret Keeper switch, merely laughed like a madman s the Aurors took him away and apparently made no effort to defend himself to them or to Crouch. If he had only testified that Pettigrew was an Animagus and demonstrated that he was one himself, people might have listened. Crouch might have use Veritaserum or Legilimency to test his story. But, AFAWK, he didn't speak up. In any case, Barty Crouch Sr., not Dumbledore, was Head of Magical Law Enforcement. It was his decision, not Dumbledore's or the Wizengamot's as a whole, to determine whether or not Black went to trial. Dumbledore merely testified (at a hearing, apparently) that Black had been the Potters' Secret Keeper, which was the truth as he knew it. (James Potter had refused DD's offer to be SK and had told him that he wanted Sirius Black, the man he most trusted, to be the SK instead. DD had no way of knowing about the Secret Keeper switch from Black to Pettigrew.) He could not have known the truth until he talked to Sirius Black near the end of PoA (an action that saved Black from having his soul sucked out because it prompted DD to suggest the Time Turner to Hermione). Had Black come to DD immediately after Godric's Hollow to tell him about the SK switch and ask for his help instead of going after Pettigrew to take revenge into his own hands, he would never have been sent to Azkaban. Black's own recklessness (and possibly desire to punish himself for suggesting the SK switch), in combination with the ruthless administration of "justice" under Barty Crouch Sr., led to Black's imprisonment. Dumbledore's testimony that Black was the Potters' Secret Keeper (the truth as he knew it) was a drop in the bucket. It merely confirmed the testimony of all those Muggle witnesses, every one of whom "saw" Black murder Pettigrew, of whom nothing was left (so Fudge and the others thought) but a finger. Dumbledore has confessed to making huge emotional mistakes. I think his assumption that an innocent man was guilty qualifies as one of those mistakes. Under the circumstances, however, the mistake was understandable (which must be why Black held no grudge against DD), and it had nothing to do with Snape as far as I can see. Carol, who BTW meant to refer to the house at Spinner's End (in another thread) as Snape's "hideaway," not his "holiday"! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 21:04:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:04:18 -0000 Subject: Side Note: The Third Fan Site - Woo Hoo! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167367 Hope I don't get into trouble for this, but here it goes... For those who haven't check 'The Leaky Cauldron' today http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/index.php?articleID=9693 There is a link to a feature article in the Toronto Star Newspaper which is about Harry Potter Fan Sites. Naturally, the two greatest fan site are mentioned - The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet. http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/201974 But a third, equally great fan site is mentioned. Our very own 'HP for Grownups', which it turns out was founded by MIKE GRAY. When enrollment on this site reached 10,000 it became too much for him to manage and he turned it over to a committee of List-Elves. (Bows to List-Elves) The news article doesn't give a link to our site, but the Leaky Cauldron does. Note, we are referred to as 'Harry Potter for Grownups' which is only partly true. We are actually 'HP for Grownups'. There is a newer and smaller Yahoo group literally called 'Harry Potter for Grownups' and while I do check in there now and then, I have to say that this group, our group, probably has the best, most controlled, deepest, and most thoughtful Harry Potter discussions of any site on the 'Net. Currently we are boasting a proud 26153 members in our group. For those who check the 'Message History' at the bottom of the main Home page, you will see that our posting rate peaked July 2003 with 8,234 posts that month. Let's all take a moment to thank all the List-Elves who volunteer and work tirelessly to keep the discussion on track. (Once again bows humbly to the may List-Elves.) Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From muellem at bc.edu Wed Apr 11 21:37:45 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:37:45 -0000 Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167368 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > >MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has." Found in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm The sniggering little girl, I divine, will be the one whom Snape loved. Who she is I have as yet to divine. Not, IMHO, as stated above, Lily Evans. colebiancardi here: please note, JKR nor the questioner, asked if Snape LOVED someone, but if Snape has ever been loved? Big difference. And quite frankly, I think the one person that loved Snape was his mother. No proof, of course. But I just wanted to point out that the question was "Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?" not "Has Snape ever loved someone?" colebiancardi (I think that Snape probably loved his mum and even Dumbledore....but no one else) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 11 21:38:57 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:38:57 -0000 Subject: History's Mysteries was Re: Side Note: The Third Fan Site - Woo Hoo! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167369 > > But a third, equally great fan site is mentioned. Our > very own 'HP for Grownups', which it turns out was > founded by MIKE GRAY. When enrollment on this site > reached 10,000 it became too much for him to manage > and he turned it over to a committee of List-Elves. > (Bows to List-Elves) Pippin: Erm, not exactly. If you're interested in the story of HPFGU, you can find it here: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/history.html Mike Gray *is* responsible for the archive which eventually became Quick Quotes Quill and then accio-quote. ::Bows to Mike:: Which just goes to show you ::Pippin armwrestles this post on topic:: that history, true or feigned, is a moving target, and accounts which agree on all points have probably been tampered with. I think egg will make contact with fewer faces if we grant JKR the benefit of the doubt as to what's a continuity error and what's a clue until we've got Book Seven in our hot little hands. I can remember when people insisted that The Hogs Head mentioned by Hagrid in PS/SS must be a mistaken reference to The Three Broomsticks. On the other hand, many of us were *sure* ::blushes:: that the wand order glitch was a clue. Oh well, only a few more months to go. Pippin From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Apr 11 21:43:57 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:43:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704110606q3e96f3a5i6fcb3743fe6445c3@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50704101106x714e68d7he6bbfe3b0cd20069@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50704110606q3e96f3a5i6fcb3743fe6445c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1562064171.20070411144357@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167370 Jordan: JA> You seem to have mistaken HP for the former, and maybe JA> you're not even aware of the latter's existence at all. Dave: This is okay for something like "A Christmas Carol", where the characters are passive observers, but you *still* cannot have a "closed timelike loop" without creating a paradox of causality. An example of a "closed timelike loop" is Harry going back in time to save himself from the dementors, so that later he can go back in time to save himself from the dementors. There's only two ways that I see to resolve the paradox, both of which are problematic: 1. Everything in the Potterverse is predetermined from the Creation onward, in which case all of Dumbledore's talk about "the choices we make" is just meaningless lip service, because in such a universe of determinism, (doing my best impression of Alec Guinness in _A Passage to India_) "you can do what you like, Mr. Fielding, but the outcome will be the same." 2. There was a second Patronus-caster behind the grassy knoll(!) to initially save Harry's life, before he goes back in time to save himself. But then the question is, WHO?? (It can't be Snape because his testimony in _PoA_ is that the dementors were already retreating when he regained consciousness.) From dougsamu at golden.net Wed Apr 11 21:59:28 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:59:28 -0400 Subject: World Building And Time Travel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167371 Steve/bboyminnn I can't say what Ken and others believe, but Jordan seems to clearly believe that 'time happened once' and we are merely seeing it from two perspective. Naturally, that is the camp that I am in. Doug: Of course this fits best, and I'm just not kissing up to you. Every character in the books tells the tale from their own point of view. The mystery is resolved when the true story actually comes out, and it isn't discernible from what the characters tell us. Just like the tales spun by Ms Rowling's own favourite author. ___ __ From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Apr 11 22:20:17 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:20:17 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and jail References: Message-ID: <000b01c77c87$95b36660$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 167372 justcarol said: >>>All the evidence we have indicates that Dumbledore, like the rest of the WW, believed that Sirius Black had betrayed the Potters, killed the twelve Muggles and Pettigrew, and escaped from Azkaban to murder Harry. No one (except Black himself) saw Pettigrew blow up the street and transform into a rat to escape into the sewers. No one (except Black) knew that Pettigrew had blown off his own finger and faked his own death. The witnesses, all Muggles who subsequently had their memories modified, testified that Black had blown up the street, killing thirteen people. And Black, blaming himself for the Secret Keeper switch, merely laughed like a madman s the Aurors took him away and apparently made no effort to defend himself to them or to Crouch.<<< Marion: Ah, but don't forget that Sirius didn't know Peter was still alive until he saw that foto of the Weasleys in the newspaper and he recognised Peter's animagus form. So what had happened? Sirius finds the Potters betrayed, he goes off, being impulsive as usual, to search for Peter because Peter no doubt betrayed them and fooled him. So they meet, they sling hexes and curses at eachother, enough to blow up the street and kill thirteen Muggles. Peter does his chop-the-finger disappearing act and when the smoke clears, the street is littered with dead and dying Muggles and Peter's bloody robes plus finger. And then the Aurors turn up. Of course Sirius didn't defend himself, Sirius thought he had killed Peter and several Muggles. Of course he laughs like a madman, he's had his revenge, but when the smoke clears he had to come to terms with the fact that because of his stupidity, impulsiveness and gullibility, he changed places with Peter as Secret Keeper which killed the Potters and he killed his one-time friend Peter and several nameless Muggles. Of course he didn't defend himself from the charges of murder, he believed himself to be a murderer! (and as for the explosions which killed thirteen Muggles, I don't think Peter was solely responsible for that; they were clearly fighting eachother which got innocent bystanders killed) It was only when Fudge showed him the newspaper with the foto of the Weasleys winning the lottery, with Ron holding Scabbers that he realised that Peter had bamboozled him *again*. Which is why he escaped. Let me repeat that: he only escaped when he realised that he did not murder Peter. He could have escaped in his animagus form any time he wanted to. But he thought he was a murderer. He felt guilty for killing his former friend, the traitor. When he realises he's been fooled again, he stops his selfimposed incarceration and promptly escapes. Incidently, it says something about Sirius' personality that he didn't and doesn't feel even sligtly guilty about nearly killing Snape by the cunning use of a werewolf, but he does feel guilty about supposedly killing his traitorous friend who talked him into changing Secret Keeper with him only to betray the secret. He's very good about dehumanising people who are not from his 'pack'. But then, who knows what Peter had said during their magical fight. "Oh Sirius, I didn't *mean* to, he tortured me" etc etc. And Sirius, being frigging Sirius would've flung curses about in his anger and grief even more *because* of Peter's whinging, and this of course would give Peter plenty of cover to do his dissappearing act. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 22:36:41 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:36:41 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167373 > >>Betsy Hp: > > The more magical and fantastical your premise, the more rooted in > > logic you need to be if you've a hope of creating a viable, > > believable world for me. JKR wants us to believe that the WW is > > a real place. I don't. And yes, it kills some of the magic for > > me. I don't really care about Voldemort's effect on the WW > > because I don't buy that the WW exists. > >>Pippin: > I'm not sure she does want us (ie adult readers) to believe the WW > is a real place. I think she honestly feels that if you're old > enough that it matters to you whether the numbers add up or the > economy works, you're old enough not need to believe in magical > wonderlands in order to appreciate their uses. Betsy Hp: Like Neverland? No, I don't buy that idea. Because while Neverland was filled with the glorious lack of logic of young childhood or specifically young boyhood (as I recall, there's a wonderful scene where the lost boys stalk the pirates who stalk the red indians who stalk the lost boys until they all go to sleep to start up again in the morning), JKR has a world where children grow up to be young adults who worry about passing their tests so they can enter into their desired career. Ain't much magical or wonderland about that, IMO. That's what I'd call cold, hard realism. (Nothing colder or harder than looking for a job.) We also have the powerful adult figure shown up to be only human in the end. And the evil super-villain makes a cunning use of politics to sway people to his side. Again, none of that strikes me as very wonderland-like. > >>Pippin: > As Harry slowly comes to realize that the WW isn't any refuge > from the problems of the Muggle world, the reader realizes > that JKR is using her fantasy landscape to explore some ethical > thought problems, and to create a fable about adolescence, > both of which entail a certain lack of realism. Betsy Hp: Which is where the magic part comes in. Just as in the movie "Pitch Black" the sci-fi element is used to set up the "really, *really* stranded in a really, *really* hostile environment" premise that the characters are set loose in. I agree that using sci-fi and fantasy to explore ethical and philosophical issues is a perfect use of either genre. And, if this were a short story, or even just a short book, I wouldn't expect JKR to do much more than quickly sketch the barest bones of background in. But this is a series. A series wherein the hero should become more and more aware of the realism of his world as he grows, as children do. But Harry doesn't. And I suspect it's not because Harry is stupid or incurious (though sometimes he does seem to be both) but because JKR can't be bothered. It's not that I need to know every single detail. But I would love to think the details are actually there. > >>Pippin: > > But in the Potterverse, we're expected to accept JKR's > limited alternatives as given. Harry can be safe and miserable > at the Dursleys or happy and short-lived anywhere else, because > JKR wants to explore that dilemma. That in the real world > people would want to know why Child Protection Services > wasn't doing their job is irrelevant. Betsy Hp: This is where you lose me. Because I *do* accept that the blood- protection was the best protection Dumbledore could hit upon to keep Harry safe. That's not what bothers me. So I don't think you're really addressing the issues I have with the series (not of course that you need to ). What bothers me is exactly *what* is Dumbledore's power within the WW? How did he get it, how does he maintain it, what are its weaknesses? He's able to sweep away the orphaned baby of a well-known couple with nary a comment. How? In what ways do the Muggle world and WW interact, as they must do? What involvement does the MoM have with that interaction and what about it so bothered various pure-blood families they decided to turn to terrorism to further their view-points? And where do were-wolves (and other "lesser" species) fit in? Why would they join with the "bigoted" side? Why the attachment to Ancient Roman culture? (Latin spells, pure- blood names, those darn robes) What attachment is there, and how is it formed and maintained, to modern British culture? How connected are the various magical folks to each other? IOWs, just how much of a "world" is the WW anyway? (We've had contradictory info on this: the Weasleys' ignorance of Muggle ways, an almost pure-blood nobility vs. the Muggle world having a record of Mrs. Bones, the Weasleys being so isolated from other wizard families and the nearby Muggle village.) I have seen fans put a lot of effort into answering those sort of questions. My favorite example is the essay, "Expecto Patronus: or how the wizarding world really works" http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html And when I first read the above essay I thought the author had figured out JKR's real overview of her world. But as the books continued, I realized that it was merely a good explanation for the unexplainable. JKR had no such over-arching scheme in mind. It was all what JW calls "shesezso". So instead of a deep and rich culture, steeped in its own history and traditions, we've got a somewhat moth- eaten curtain we'd do very well not to look behind. Which I personally find a bit disappointing. (As Ken says, it'd be nice to see another writer play in JKR's "world" and maybe give it some much needed meat and bones.) > >>Shelley: > But this sort of analysis is rather pointless, isn't it? I mean, in > most stories we read, we don't care to go reread it a million > times, plot out calendars and dates and triple check to see if the > author got everything exactly correct. It's a little unfair of us > to say to Rowling, "hey look, lady, since your series is SO > popular, we are holding you to a higher standard than we do any > other author we read." > Betsy Hp: I know you're more addressing the math side of this particular question, but I do have to say that this sort of analysis is *everything* for me. When I enjoy a story I *do* reread it a million times. When I first read SS, I immediately flipped to the beginning to read it again. That's how I know I've found something I like. But the series itself isn't standing up to my kind of reading. I had to almost *make* myself reread HBP. I'm not rereading the series (as of yet) because the idea doesn't excite me. I'm afraid of finding more flaws than re-entering an enjoyable and fun world. [Brief aside for continuity rant: Oh my God! Draco's darn hand of glory!! What the heck was up with that?!? One of the most pivotal and character defining scenes for Draco developed around Draco *not* getting that hand. And then all of a sudden, in HBP he *has* it? And *Ron* knew about it?!?! Gah!!] Now of course, none of this comments on the fact that the series *is* so popular. I've pre-ordered DH, so I'll be boosting JKR's numbers, and I'm sure it'll break records. What I *do* wonder about is its staying power. Once the story is fully out there and the mystery is gone, will Harry Potter take his place beside Peter Pan and Frodo Baggins? Or will the continuity errors and incohesive world building cause Harry to go the way of the pet rock or monchhichis? Betsy Hp (stunned to see Lupinlore and I in agreement on something, though I'm betting I lost him on the "okay with the blood-protection" thing ) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Apr 11 23:23:24 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:23:24 -0600 Subject: was Potterverse, now Muggle Child Abuse References: Message-ID: <007201c77c90$66d4b7a0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167374 snipping greatly to start a new thought line: > Pippin: > As Harry slowly comes to realize that the WW isn't any refuge > from the problems of the Muggle world, the reader realizes > that JKR is using her fantasy landscape to explore some ethical > thought problems, and to create a fable about adolescence, > both of which entail a certain lack of realism. snip > But in the Potterverse, we're expected to accept JKR's > limited alternatives as given. Harry can be safe and miserable > at the Dursleys or happy and short-lived anywhere else, because > JKR wants to explore that dilemma. That in the real world > people would want to know why Child Protection Services > wasn't doing their job is irrelevant. I would like to explore for a second this notion that Child Protection Services wasn't doing their job. While I believe what the Dursleys did to Harry was ethically and morally wrong, I am of the opinion that even if the CPS did look at this family, that they would not have the authority to do anything. Harry wasn't starved, although we are led to believe that he was thin. We aren't told of any hitting. Harry does have clothes, and a room to himself. The areas that get grey most certainly are the bars on his room, and being locked in his room for punishments, and the constant difference in the way they treat their "favored" son over Harry. You could make a case for psychological abuse, but if you interviewed Harry, you wouldn't come up with a kid that has been traumatized. Harry appears healthy in all aspects. Thus, I think even if they did look at this family, the Dursleys would have been let off scott free. Frankly, I know first hand of a child that ended up in a hospital with stitches to her head from a telephone that her mother violently threw at the child at very close range, they interviewed the family and then nothing came of it. The incidences have to be 1) grave and 2) repeated, and you just don't have that in this story. Even if they "made recommendations" that the Dursleys had to feed Harry more, give him clothes that fit him, and not lock him in his room, I don't think the Dursleys would have heard from CPS again. Many kids have suffered far worse than Harry, and were still left in the home. What I find most interesting is who it is that the Dursleys fear when it comes to Harry's treatment, and that is the Wizards. This then causes me to ask of why they weren't intervening sooner. If I had the "Boy Who Lived" being sent off to live with the Muggles, I would still want to keep an eye on him. But we have no indication that they followed up on Harry to make sure that this was the "right sort of home" for their precious survivor. Do they just assume that these Muggles would automatically do right by Harry? Do they just assume he's going to get the love that his parents would have shown him through his aunt? Did Dumbledore even have a clue that the Dursleys never told Harry the truth about his life and his family? Judging by the first Hogwarts letters, and DD having to send Hargrid personally, apparently not. So then becomes the real question for me: not why the Muggles failed to love and protect Harry, but why did the Wizards in his life fail to love and protect Harry? He has a Godfather. Moreover, DD knows of the prophesy, and can put two and two together to get Harry's name- and if he thought for a minute that this child would grow up to soundly kick Voldemort's ass, then why the Muggles for his early years? I don't buy for a second that he thought "an innocent childhood" would make Harry's task any easier; on the contrast, I would have wanted him raised under the finest and most powerful Wizards I could find to insure the Harry knew about as many spells, potions and magical possibilities as possible so that he had the best chance of surviving that future encounter. Surely, Muggles would not explain how Magic worked or would show Harry even the simpliest things such as nonverbal spells, portkeys and the powers of potions. So, DD is essentially handicapping Harry by cutting his education short for those first years. That's a greater abuse, imho, than the Dursleys giving Dudley thirtysome odd presents and forgetting about Harry's birthday. I find myself more angry at DD than I am at the Dursleys. Shelley From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Apr 11 23:37:10 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:37:10 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building And The Potterverse References: Message-ID: <000901c77c92$53756360$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 167375 horriporrid said: >>>In what ways do the Muggle world and WW interact, as they must do? What involvement does the MoM have with that interaction and what about it so bothered various pure-blood families they decided to turn to terrorism to further their view-points? And where do were-wolves (and other "lesser" species) fit in? Why would they join with the "bigoted" side? <<< Marion: Well, of course you'd have the problem of any traditional society that gets confronted with modern technology and consumerism (think the reaction of Amazonian indians when they find their jungle chopped down to make way for a MacDonalds restaurant). We *are* talking about a society of people whose members are up to 150, 200 years old (and even older, in case of Nicholas Flamel) People who were born when Muggles were toying with Spinning Jennies and steamengines are suddenly confronted with Muggles who wield computers and nuclear weapons. Think also of the timing of Voldemort. Its after WWII. Big disillusionment. Millions of civilians killed. Cities bombarded. Dresden barbecued. Hiroshima fried to a crisp. Although the Wizards are quite happy to ignore the Muggles to a frightening degree, there would be a few amongst them who'd listen in on the Muggle news and get quite hot under the collar. Then there is the Cold War, the Cuba Crisis and near-nuclear annihillation. There is Korea and Vietnam. There is Pol Pot and his Kmer Rouge. There is environmental awareness and the fear that humankind will destroy itself by polluting the planet. Those silly powerless Muggles are starting to look mighty dangerous. Then of course, in the *same* time that Voldemort recruits his followers, we see the rise of strange sects, lead by handsome, charismatic men. Charles Manson, the Son of Sam, Reverend Jones of Jones Town. Many, many others. Disillusioned Muggles, frightened Muggles, Muggles who no longer trust their government to have their interests at heart would follow any charismatic, intelligent, talented young man With A Vision. Why should wizards be any different? Voldemort is simply the Charles Manson of the WW. It makes me rather sad. Tom Riddle would've taken first the cream of the young wizards. The scions of the Old Families. The bright ones. Young people always think that adults are stupid (well, look at Harry's attitude towards adults in general and the Ministry in particular) You can just hear those first young followers, can't you? "Those old fogies in the Ministry, they'd love to stick their heads in the sand and believe that Muggles are still toying with catapults and wooden swords, but did you see those pictures? Muggles now have the abiltiy to blow up whole *cities* by just pushing a button being *miles* away! That Lord Voldemort fellow talked about this at Lady Lestrange's garden party last month - I was there of course, they're cousins on my mother's side - but did my parents listen to him? No, of course not. They're just like those fools in the Ministry, closing their eyes from what they don't want to see. But we really need to get more involved in Muggle affairs, distasteful as that might be. If we don't we might wake up one day and find our magic is no longer sufficient in keeping them at bay. You really should go and have a talk with Lord Voldemort. He's such an interesting man! And a powerful wizard too!" Poor kids. You know, I always thought that Bella Black was the Hermione of her time. You know, "brightest witch of her time". And just like Hermione said, "you are a great wizard, Harry" and from that moment started to steal supplies, brew illegal potions, smuggled illegal dragons, blackmail, maim and lead a woman to a gang-bang Centaur induced cataconia, just so Bella followed Tom Riddle, the 'great wizard' of his time. I can't help wonder if Hermione would start zapping foxes and taunt people in a baby voice after twelve years of Dementors. Crucioing people into madness I can easily see her do; she's got a ruthless streak a mile high. But I digress. Voldie started off with the creme de la creme of young people, but soon he would also recruit 'enforcers', people to do the dirty work. At first his young followers would defend their master to their world; Lord Voldemort only wants what good for the WW, unlike that self-serving fossile of a Ministry! But after a few political murders and a chilling change of tone it becomes clear: Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort is not the kind, charismatic politician he appeared to be. By then it's too late. Once you're in, you can never get out. By then there are two kinds of DE's; the ones who either still fanatically believe in him (a very small group) and the enforcers who were only in it for the kicks and there are the DE's who would rather go home, forget they ever donned the black robes and silver masks but who, after witnessing a few executions Voldie-style of fellow DE's who wanted 'out', realise that they are in it for the ride until the end. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 23:42:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:42:39 -0000 Subject: Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167376 > Goddlefrood: > This is where he became good, Dumbledore's man, which he remains > and always will. The forgotten warrior for the Order, a man who, > at great personal risk became a Death Eater and fooled LV for, > well forever, since that time. zgirnius: Hmm. Yes, well, depending on the resolution of certain minor matters to which I refer below, the post might be appropriately named. > Goddlefrood: > It does somewhat conflict with what Albus himself said at the > proceedings relative to Karkaroff during GoF, but then, it seems > to me, that, genius though he undoubtedly is, Dumbledore plays his > cards very close to his chest. zgirnius: The statements of Dumbledore's which I find most in need of examination in light of this theory are not those made to the Wizengamot. That Snape was recruited as a teen-ager is such an iron-clad reason for trust that Voldemort cannot fail to see it that way himself. I can believe Dumbledore would mislead the Ministry on this point if he feared his testimony might leak out. (A reasonable fear in light of highly places spies Voldemort has had there in the past - the Unsepakable Rookwood comes to mind, as well as Lucius Malfoy's chumminess with Fudge and Umbridge.) No, what interests me is exactly what happened one cold, wet night at the Hog's Head Inn. > Dumbledore, to Harry, OotP: > My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper > was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from > the building.' > > 'So he only heard - ?' > > 'He heard only the beginning, the part foretelling the birth of > a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. > Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you > would be to risk transferring power to you, and marking you as > his equal. So Voldemort never knew that there might be danger > in attacking you, that it might be wise to wait, to learn more. > He did not know that you would have power the Dark Lord knows not - ' > Dumbledore, to Harry, HBP: > "Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in > Lord Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first half > of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. Naturally he hastened to > tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master > most deeply. zgirnius: The question arises, what was he doing listening outside that door? Surely as Dumbledore's most trusted spy, if he had orders from his supposed 'Master'to spy on Dumbledore, exactly what true information and misinformation to bring back would have been discussed with Dumbledore? In which case, it was no mistake. It may be my sentimental nature, but while I am willing to buy Dumbledore would have been so cold-blooded as to send Snape with this story to Voldemort, I have a distaste for theories in which the PS/SS promise of Dumbledore not to lie to Harry is broken. I may, of course, be proven wrong in this preference in a number of ways in DH. If Snape did indeed act independently, why? What motive does our angel have for making this 'terrible mistake'? It is in part such concerns that lead me to prefer the idea that Snape joined the Death Eaters for his own reasons after finishing school. That the 'debriefing' played a role I could see, but the role would be that of a straw on the camel's back. And, of course, a foundness for the 'true siunner makes good' storyline hinted at if he did thereafter appraoch Dumbledore and switch sides. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 12 00:48:12 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:48:12 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: <000b01c77c87$95b36660$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167377 Marion: > So they meet, they sling hexes and curses at eachother, enough to > blow up the street and kill thirteen Muggles. Peter does his chop- > the-finger disappearing act and when the smoke clears, the street > is littered with dead and dying Muggles and Peter's bloody robes > plus finger. And then the Aurors turn up. > Of course Sirius didn't defend himself, Sirius thought he had > killed Peter and several Muggles. SSSusan: Hmmmm. We KNOW this? Sirius thought *he* had killed the Muggles? Marion: >(and as for the explosions which killed thirteen Muggles, I don't > think Peter was solely responsible for that; they were clearly > fighting eachother which got innocent bystanders killed) SSSusan: I know that you said you *think* this, but I just don't see where we have canon for it. Where do we get evidence that there were multiple explosions, that there were numerous spells/hexes/curses being cast? How do we know that it wasn't one major nasty which blew up the street/Muggles? Fudge says, "...and I was one of the first on the scene after Black murdered all those people. ...A crater in the middle of the street, so deep it had cracked the sewere below. Bodies everywhere. Muggles screaming." [PoA, US hardback, p. 208] SSSusan again: To me, reference to *a* crater (singular) certainly indicates one big, powerful spell. Also, unless you feel that we cannot trust Sirius' account for some reason, we have his own words: "When I cornered him, he yelled for the whole street to hear that I'd betrayed Lily and James. Then, before I could curse him, he blew apart the street with the wand behind his back, killed everyone within twenty feet of himself -- and sped down into the sewer with the other rats...." [ibid, p. 363] SSSusan again: Here Sirius seems quite clearly to be saying that he did NOT believe he'd killed Pettigrew. Rather, he realized that Pettigrew had set him up. Marion: > It was only when Fudge showed him the newspaper with the foto of > the Weasleys winning the lottery, with Ron holding Scabbers that > he realised that Peter had bamboozled him *again*. > Which is why he escaped. > Let me repeat that: he only escaped when he realised that he did > not murder Peter. > He could have escaped in his animagus form any time he wanted to. > But he thought he was a murderer. He felt guilty for killing his > former friend, the traitor. When he realises he's been fooled > again, he stops his selfimposed incarceration and promptly escapes. SSSusan: I just don't see this. Lupin asks Sirius not "How did you know Peter was alive?" but "How *did* you find out where he was?" And Sirius shows Lupin the Daily Prophet and says, "When [Fudge] came to inspect Azkaban last year, he gave me his paper. And there was Peter, on the front page...on this boy's shoulder.... I knew him at once...." [ibid, p. 363] Why in the world would Sirius "know him at once" if he believed he was dead? Why would he even look at a rat if he didn't expect Peter was alive somewhere? BTW, Sirius went on in that speech to say, "And the caption said the boy would be going back to Hogwarts... to where Harry was...." And later this: "But then I saw Peter in that picture... I realized he was at Hogwarts with Harry... perfectly positioned to act, if one hint reached his ears that the Dark Side was gathering strength again.... So you see, I had to do something. I was the only one who knew Peter was still alive...." [ibid, p. 371] SSSusan again: Yes, Sirius says he wants to commit the murder he'd been imprisoned for -- no doubt about that -- but are you saying THAT was the motivation for his escape, rather than a desire to protect Harry? If so, I don't see that. >From these words of Sirius', one could easily say that Sirius only escaped when he realized that Peter was going to Hogwarts and that Harry was thus in immediate danger. It wasn't the realization that Peter was alive and he wanted to kill him so much as the recognition that Harry needed protection. Don't forget, also, how quickly Sirius backed off when Harry said, "No! You can't kill him!" If Sirius was ALL about revenge and murderous desire, he wouldn't have respected Harry's opinion. But at this point, once Pettigrew seems to be safely in their grasp and on his way to Azkaban, and Harry says "No!" Sirius *does* back off. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 01:11:36 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:11:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461D8748.6040101@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167378 katmandu_85219 wrote: > Dumbledore was a member of the Wizard court, why would he allow a > man (sirius) to be sent to Azkaban without a trial? Just sent away. > Did he know Sirius to be innocent? Nobody bothered to use veriserum > or legimancy (spelling?) to see what happened. Sirius considered himself to be guilty of the deaths of his best friends; it was HIS idea to make Pettigrew the secret keeper. Therefore, in his own mind, he DESERVED to go to Azkaban, and therefore didn't bother to fight it. It's not explicit, but it is definitely implied in POA. Once in Azkaban, the Dementors made sure (albeit without intention) to make him continue to believe he belonged there. Bart From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 23:47:50 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:47:50 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Now of course, none of this comments on the fact that the series *is* > so popular. I've pre-ordered DH, so I'll be boosting JKR's numbers, > and I'm sure it'll break records. What I *do* wonder about is its > staying power. Once the story is fully out there and the mystery is > gone, will Harry Potter take his place beside Peter Pan and Frodo > Baggins? Or will the continuity errors and incohesive world building > cause Harry to go the way of the pet rock or monchhichis? Well, I guess it will depend on how things end up, largely. If she manages to answer enough of the outstanding plot questions and satisfy enough people on enough sides of enough issues, then she'll be in a comfortable position. How much is enough? Who knows? I would guess if Harry dies the overall readership of the series will drop severely in the future. Then again, the readership will decline inevitably, once everyone knows what the answers are to the various mysteries. So, only time will tell. After all, the popularity, sales, critical acclaim, and readership of Tolkien and Barrie (and Baum and Lewis and Dahl and everyone else) has varied widely over time. My guess is that, if expectations of a quasi-religious ending play out, the best comparison will be with Lewis, and like Narnia the Potter books will fall in and out of relative favor over time, but remain standards. However, they probably won't, in the fullness of time, be seen as being in the same league as Tolkien or even Howard or Lovecraft, largely because of the flaws in world-building, continuity, and internal consistency. > > Betsy Hp (stunned to see Lupinlore and I in agreement on something, > though I'm betting I lost him on the "okay with the blood- protection" > thing ) > Of course you did, as I find DD's idiotic actions (and contemptible inaction) in that affair to be completely unbelievable given the DD JKR so desperately wants everyone to buy. But for the rest, , politics is very strange. Just ask anyone who works in Washington. Lupinlore From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 01:18:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:18:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: the missing piece?/The Prank in DH/Responsibility for Sirius' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461D8900.3000202@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167380 sistermagpie wrote: > Are you saying they're really fundamentalists the way C3PO > is "really" a black stereotype? Because there's nothing strange > about an aspirational, conservative middle-class person wanting > their family to be "normal." An artistic child might ultimately earn > a lot of money for his family, but that wouldn't necessarily stop a > family like the Dursleys from preferring him to be "normal" instead > of creative. Bart: Actually, I knew an extremely talented artist whose family wanted him to be "normal". He could have made a lot of money, but his family drummed into his head that being an artist was not an honorable way to make a living. On the other hand, they did not punish him for attempting to make art, and he continued to be a very talented (and, in his own circles, rather famous) artist. The Dursleys went much, much further. Bart From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 01:25:42 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:25:42 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH / Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167381 Steve wrote: > > > Next, Snape is not guiltless. It was crystal clear from > circumstances, that the Headmaster did not want anyone > going into the Whomping Willow. It was clear from the > fact that Mdm. Pomphrey accompanied Lupin to the Willow > that whatever was going on was official Hogwarts business. > Snape was out of bounds, likely out after hours, and > going into a situation that he could reasonable conclude > entailed some degree of danger. Neri: In addition, according to Lupin (PoA, Ch 10) "They planted the Whomping Willow the same year that I arrived at Hogwarts. People used to play a game, trying to get near enough to touch the trunk. In the end, a boy called Davey Gudgeon nearly lost an eye, and we were forbidden to go near it". Therefore Snape must have known he was out of bounds and taking his chances even just coming close to the Willow. We need to keep in mind here that Hogwarts is the kind of school where the Headmaster can warn his students not to enter a certain corridor in the third floor unless they wish to die a very painful death, and everybody but a few clueless first-years takes him quite seriously. Steve: > As to connecting that Prank to the final book, I don't > see it being made a big deal of. I suspect we may get > some more details in-passing, but I don't see the flow > of the story stopping to resolve this issue, nor do I > think the issue is important enough to warrant much > page time. Neri: I tend to agree. Even if the *consequences* of the Prank (i.e. the life debt) will turn out to be the key for the whole Snape mystery, as I personally theorize, we don't need to know about the Prank more than the fact that James indeed saved Snape's life, which we were already been told by both Dumbledore and Lupin. The details don't seem critical for the consequence. Moreover, the current versions we have were told by Snape and Lupin in quite dramatic circumstances, so BANG considerations don't demand a retelling of the story either. Another question is which character *can* tell us the full story of the Prank? Sirius, James and Dumbledore are dead. Lupin certainly was not present when Sirius told Snape how to get in. Snape himself is a bit suspicious as a witness at the moment. I guess it would be possible to see what had transpired in a Pensieve memory, but the chances of Snape again leaving his worst memories unguarded in Harry's presence seem slim, and if Snape would offer them of his own free will it would appear suspicious, as we now know Pensieve memories can be tampered with, and certain people might be able to do better job at it than Slughorn. Peter's testimony would be suspicious for similar reasons, even assuming he *was* a witness at all. So we need a hitherto unknown witness to tell the story, preferably someone who was present during both the conversation between Sirius and Snape and inside the tunnel. Of course, this is JKR's story and she can make anything happen, but some coincidences would stretch credibility, and I doubt the story even requires the retelling of the Prank. Neri From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 12 01:26:42 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:26:42 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704110606q3e96f3a5i6fcb3743fe6445c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > I meant that there was no easy "go back and change things" like you > see in certain genres like alternate history - everything they did > when they went back in time, happened the first time around. Like in > the Heinlein story "All you zombies", except, you know, with less > complexity, and less baby-making. > > > There are two kinds of time travel - the "silly" kind, where you can > change the past, there are "ripples" or whatever ridiculous mechanism > for the changes to propagate in a way that looks good on screen, you > can create paradoxes and contradict your own existence, you can go to > alternate futures, then back to the past to fix it and somehow it goes > 100% back to normal, etc. And then there's the "serious" kind, where > there are no paradoxes, you cannot change the past (though you can be > your own grandfather, it just means you were all along), everything > that happens when you go back in time happens the exact same way that > it did before when your future self (possibly unknown to you at the > time) arrived. You seem to have mistaken HP for the former, and maybe > you're not even aware of the latter's existence at all. > Ken: I guess the difference between us with respect to time travel is that I lump them all together in the "silly" category. No matter how much more compelling "recursive causality" seems to you and millions of others it is just absurd to me. Harry can be his own father? Seriously? Then Hermione could be her own mother and if she happened to be the mother of twins Harry could be the father, Hermione the mother, of both of them (and yes I know that's not the pairing but work with me here). This is perfectly consistent with recursive causality and I shudder to think that it could therefore be revealed to be the truth in DH (more dry humor, not a prediction). I understand perfectly well the time travel theory used in HP and I understand perfectly well that it seems more serious to many of you. It is still an ugly wart to me. Recursion is powerful, what controls when it occurs? What defines the exit condition? The simple case we see in POA is a single loop, more complex situations could produce infinite recursion. What does that do to the Potterverse? In any universe that allows this kind of recursion infinite loops are bound to occur eventually. Time travel just seems like a tired old crutch to me. It can be wickedly funny when played for laughs and I'll even admit that it can be interesting in a story that is only about time travel. In Harry Potter it seems jarring and unneccesssary. Rowling decided she wanted to write a time travel story so it got tacked on. Other SF staples like faster than light travel are more acceptable to me because they seem like normal extensions of the universe we know. FTL is just a faster train. We don't know how to do it, it doesn't seem to be allowed by Einstein but Einstein wasn't allowed by Newton so who knows for sure? I don't see the problem that Steve mentions with infinite energy in sub-light travel in stories that use it. Larry Niven for example was very careful to specify that the common Kzinti war ship had an acceleration capacity of two C: up to half light speed and then down to zero on the outbound trip, same on the return. Beyond current human capacity but not beyond imagining, not beyond energy plausibility, no offense to Einstein. Any universe that allows time travel seems of neccessity to be profoundly different from ours. I'm not sure we can even imagine how different it would be. I don't believe that *any* time travel author has begun to scratch the surface of how different a universe with time travel would be. The Potterverse certainly does not. POA would work just as well without time travel. Ken > Jordan: > As for my literary preferences... generally I do like stories that > just e.g. handwave an aircraft carrier back in time and forget about > the whole time travel thing after that (focusing the rest of the story > on what they do now that they're there), but those stories aren't > _about_ time travel. They're about an aircraft carrier from 2020 sent > back to 1942, or about what the south would do in the civil war if > they had AK-47s, etc. For stories _about_ time travel, stuff like back > to the future that goes with, again, the "silly" kind, but then tries > to explain it and build a coherent system out of it, are painful. But > the serious kind can be interesting. > Ken: Do I detect a reference to "Guns of the South"? Many years ago I saw the cover with Robert E. holding an AK-47 and thought it must be a joke. No one would publish an 8 year old boy's fantasy about Lee with a machine gun vs Lincoln with an F-16 would they? Well later on I read that the story was about South African whites desperate to hang on to power and that made it sound a little more interesting but still no sale to this reader. I assumed for years that "How Few Remain" by the same author was more of the same. But then I discovered that this other book about how the South won the Civil War involved no time travel, only three cigars and a piece of paper. I've been reading Harry Turtledove's alternate historys ever since, but only the ones that deal with plausible departures from reality. No time machines or alien invasions need apply. The "problem" facing me this July is that "In At The Death" comes out a few days after "Deathly Hallows", at the latest. Ken bboyminn: If you believe 'Time Happened Once', everything is cool. If you believe 'Time Happened Twice', headaches and misery ensue. I can't say what Ken and others believe, but Jordan seems to clearly believe that 'time happened once' and we are merely seeing it from two perspective. Naturally, that is the camp that I am in. (snip) Again, I can't say how Ken sees the events, but I can say with absolute certainty that if anyone see 'It Happened Twice', then all I can say is - 'This way lies madness'. Steve/bboyminnn Ken: Initially I saw it as twice through because if time travel works at all that is how I see it most naturally working. Since then I have come to understand how it supposed to be viewed in the Potterverse: recursive causality. As I explain above that does nothing for me. It is absurd to me whether once, twice, or infinite times through. The Harry who we are to believe is his own salvation could throw the Potterverse into a meltdown by simply refusing to go back, or to cast a Patronus. That's a very odd way to run a Potterverse, in my opinion. That way lies madness applies to all time travel as far as this reader is concerned. Ken From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Apr 12 01:47:02 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:47:02 -0000 Subject: The Prank in DH (LONG ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167383 Alla: > > Oh well, here we are having difference of opinion. > > What to you is the bad word in the stressful moment, > > to me is the hint ( not necessarily evidence, but a > > hint) that Snape shared Voldemort's philosophy, full stop. wynnleaf: > Sirius didn't say anything about Snape's view of > pureblood or muggleborns, etc. so Snape's "mudblood" > comment doesn't back up any of Sirius' comments. houyhnhnm: Against that hint, and in addition to the fact Sirius never spoke of Snape's bloodline ideology, I think there is an even stronger piece of evidence that he did not share Voldemort's pureblood philosophy. Snape has picked on Hermione Granger thoughout six books--for being a show-off, a know-it-all, and a superficial thinker. He's even made fun of her looks. In not one instance does he allude, even obliquely, to her blood status, nor have we ever seen Hermione self-conscious about being Muggle-born in Snape's presence. Snape also takes cheek off of Muggle-born (as far as anyone knows) Dean Thomas, without so much as deducting a House point. We never hear any sotto voce whine about having to be politically correct. We never see him trying to push the envelope. Unlike real racists. (Just turn on your TV.) From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 12 01:46:37 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:46:37 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > [Brief aside for continuity rant: Oh my God! Draco's darn hand of > glory!! What the heck was up with that?!? One of the most pivotal > and character defining scenes for Draco developed around Draco *not* > getting that hand. And then all of a sudden, in HBP he *has* it? > And *Ron* knew about it?!?! Gah!!] > Ken: I think this aside from Besty illustrates perfectly why Rowling's "maths" errors are serious enough to spawn, and then sustain way beyond anything I could have expected, this thread. If Rowling had taken the time to work out how many students and teachers Hogwarts really needed to have, when full moons really occur, what days of the week that months really start on, and all the rest; if she then skillfully wove her story into this framework that has real, satisfying heft; what would we think of the Hand of Glory? Most likely we would think that here is a careful story planner who makes as few mistakes as is humanly possible. Draco intensely wanted this grotesque artifact but was refused. Draco hounded his father until he relented. Once he got it he boasted about it at every opportunity. Of course he boasted about it to a *Weasely*. And then he used it. Even though we only saw the first and last steps in this progression we would confidently fill in the details and think nothing of the omission of the intermediate steps. As it is we can't be sure with this author. Do we give her the benefit of the doubt, or is this just more sloppy story planning? Ken From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Thu Apr 12 01:50:51 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:50:51 -0000 Subject: Ghosts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167385 In a previous post, I asked what are we to think of the people who have died yet live on in the picture frames. I'm really wondering what is JKR saying about death. If the WW doesn't have real death, is there a reason for LV to be afraid? Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry that wizards can leave behind a pale imprint of themselves. With Peeves, it seems is sometime pale and sometimes not. Peeves is insubstantial enough to walk through walls. Yet he can also be solid enough to drop objects. I get very uncomfortable with that. Now photons don't have mass. So ghosts can be vague shapes floating around. But how do they speak? Speech requires the vocal chords to move air. This means to me, only psychics should be able to communicate with ghosts. Barry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 02:23:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:23:03 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse / some Jules Verne's spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167386 Ken: > The end of "Around The World In Eighty Days" has a delightful twist > because Jules Verne got it right. That is missing here in many > instances and while it does not ruin the books for me, it does grate. Alla: LOLOL. I am sorry but I do find Jules Verne example to be hilarious as example of someone who **got it right**. Okay, contrary to lovely Betsy who managed to touch Sarah Monette books without spoilering them, I am going to be discussing some spoilers here. But I will tie my comments with Potterverse, I hope. So, yes, of course Jules Verne **got it right** in Around the world in 80 days. The ultimate surprise of the book depended on him getting it right, hehe. So, if JKR will does something really stupid to resolve the final battle ( well, something more stupid than Potterverse allows, lol) I will buy this contrast, I guess. I think right now for me more fitting analogy between JKR, say math mistakes and Jules Verne, would be say Jules Verne "Children of the Captain Grant", "20000 miles in the water", and " Mysterious Island" trilogy, which happen to be my Verne's favorite books ever and I read **plenty** of his books growing up. He was very popular back in the country I grew up in, much more popular than he seems to be in the US. Anyways, I digress. If you read Mysterios Island, I will invite you to recall Tom Ayrton's confession to other colonists and then recall when the journey in "The Captain Grant's children" **really** started. How many years is Ayrton off? Fifteen? Twenty? I will call it a shameless manipulation of the timeline to make sure that everything fits in the last book, LOL. Sooo, it does not seem to me any **less** significant timeline eror( deliberate or not) than JKR's Charley Weasley graduation and other things previously discussed. As I mentioned previously, I respect that it bothers people. I am probably just so oblivious to numbers, that it does not bother me in the slightest. When I read Ayrton's confession, I am enjoying a great deal the story of the redeemed man, I feel his pain, etc, so timeline inconsistencies is something that I could care less about. I suppose I sort of agreeing with Steve - it has to be something REALLY big for me for timeline to annoy me. Like if say the first book was set in roman times and in the last book in Potterverse we would be back in modern times, or something. I am exaggerating, but you get the drift. As long as we are in the same time frame, I am fine :) JMO, Alla From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 03:10:31 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:10:31 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: the missing piece?/The Prank in DH/Responsibility for Sirius' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167387 > Magpie: > I don't understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that Snape is > responsible because he's supposed to know *all* of LV's plans, so he > should have told everybody what was going on? That doesn't hold up, > imo. There's no reason to think that Snape knew what LV's plans were- > -he's not expected to know everything that LV is planning. As it is > Snape actually did his job anyway--he made sure Sirius was all right > and later alerted the Order that Harry seemed to have gone to the > MoM to "rescue" Sirius. At this point Sirius isn't in danger at all. > The only reason he was ever in danger was because he went to the MoM > to fight Bellatrix, which he did pretty much knowing what he was > getting into. There's nothing more Snape could have told him or > anyone that would have changed things in that context that I can > see. Sirius knew by that point what LV's plan was. > > -m Jenni from Alabama responds: IMHO, if anyone is responsible for Sirius's death, besides Bellatrix obviously, it is Kreacher. He told Harry that Sirius was not there when Sirius was in fact upstairs feeding Buckbeak. If Harry knew Sirius was there, he would never have gone to the MoM in the first place. If Harry wants to avenge Sirius's death, he should destroy not only Bellatrix but Kreacher as well. Harry, being the loving, forgiving person he is, won't take revenge on Kreacher even though he played a huge role in Sirius's death. I don't think that Harry should kill anyone - even Riddle in the end. I think, as DD says - there are other ways of destroying someone. IMHO, I think the ideal thing would be a curse that allows the person to feel all the pain, fear and trauma of their victims. Riddle would see death speeding towards him over and over and feel the fear that his victims felt, feel the pain of each and every Cruciatus Curse, be controled by the Imperius curse and feel the effects of every curse he's ever used. THAT would be justice. IMHO Jenni From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 03:19:32 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:19:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if Dumbledore never left? In-Reply-To: <20070409181340.31857.qmail@web53809.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20070409181340.31857.qmail@web53809.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470704112019x20ee12e4k88ca5be0d509d686@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167388 I'm not sure if this has been dicussed here, but my friends and I are re-reading all 6 books together and something came to my mind about Dumbledore. All those times that he left the school at what seemed like the most inappropiate time (example: SS when the trio ran into McGonagal and she informed them that he was gone. OOTP when he vanished in his office) What if he never left? He was the transfiguration teacher, so he could have easily turned himself into a desk against the wall. If not, where was Dumbledore all those times? And how did he know just when to show up? Could it be that he was at Hogwarts the whole time and new what was going on? cassandralee1120 ============================= Jeremiah: (After a long break in which he has re-read them all, too)... I think you're onto something there, but I don't think that DD would lie about going somewhere and then transfigure into a pillbox (or what have you) and then tell Harry that he had left... Sure, I think there are times he actually sticks around, but I'd say that if DD says he had left then he really did. But there could be times he doesn't. Sorry to be so vague but I'm trying to say that he most likely wouldn't lie to Harry about something like leaving. He'd just tell him something like, "I wasn't able to come down" or "I was preoccupied." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 03:22:20 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:22:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can't see Harry's Scar?? In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470703301056l4d4dc121ud14bc699e0d76905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470704112022i29c4a9e2w8918af01b5d59ecf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167389 > Jeremiah: > Yes, Dondee. It is there. I read this and said, "What?" > So, I looked and the US and UK covers. It is definitely there. A big old > lightning bolt scar... on both covers... > So, no. It doesn't mean anything. :( Sorry, Tandra. Tandra: You really can't see it on the US cover. I did look at it on the Scholastic site where you can move the magnifying glass around and just don't see it. I'll look real close when I get my copy I guess. I know it's there on the UK cover. It's plain as day on that one. ==================== Jeremiah: If you go to The Leaky Cauldron and download the pic and then open it in a program where you can continue to zoom in you will see it. I know, I didn't see it at first, either, but it's there- not as plain as day. You have to zoom in really really close. It looks like astray hair. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 04:21:25 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:21:25 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167390 Why complicate the Dursley's reactions and abscribe any motivation to them aside from fear? Why can't the Durlsey's just be people who are afraid of what they don't understand and therefore do what sadly most people do with new and frightening things; attempt to crush the idea. Most likely the Dursley's have never had a positive experience with magic. Name one canon incident in which something positive happended to them that involved magic. >From their POV magic can do nothing but harm them. It killed Petunia's sister for Merlin'sake. I always thought that JKR was always just trying to portray the Dursley's as fearful and materialisitic people. JKR finds this contemptable as 'courage' she has said is her highest value. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 04:35:31 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:35:31 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167391 > Aceworker: > Most likely the Dursley's have never had a positive experience with magic. Name one canon incident in which something positive happended to them that involved magic. Goddlefrood: Dudley had some lovely toffee :O) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 05:21:41 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:21:41 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167392 > > >>Pippin: > > I'm not sure she does want us (ie adult readers) to believe the WW > > is a real place. I think she honestly feels that if you're old > > enough that it matters to you whether the numbers add up or the > > economy works, you're old enough not need to believe in magical > > wonderlands in order to appreciate their uses. > > Betsy Hp: > Like Neverland? No, I don't buy that idea. Because while Neverland > was filled with the glorious lack of logic of young childhood or > specifically young boyhood (as I recall, there's a wonderful scene > where the lost boys stalk the pirates who stalk the red indians who > stalk the lost boys until they all go to sleep to start up again in > the morning), JKR has a world where children grow up to be young > adults who worry about passing their tests so they can enter into > their desired career. Ain't much magical or wonderland about that, > IMO. That's what I'd call cold, hard realism. (Nothing colder or > harder than looking for a job.) > Neri: I don't think JKR has ever intended HP to be realistic. It was not intended to be world-building fantasy like LotR either, or world-building sci-fi like Niven's Known Space, and as you say, neither pure illogical fantasy like Peter Pan. Most world-building aspects in HP are either required by the mystery plot, or are unintended byproducts of JKR the storyteller falling in love with her own backstory. What JKR did intend the WW to be, I believe, is first and foremost a *parody* of the real world, a parody were entertainment is derived from the deliberately unresolvable contrast between the fantastic stereotypes and the realistic RL concepts. To take your example, the tests necessary for entering your desired career are named OWL and NEWT. the OWL name (Ordinary Wizarding Level) might be very remotely described as realism, but the NEWT (Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests) is obviously JKR poking fun of both the fantastic stereotypes and the RL realties. In a book where the werewolf is named Remus Lupin, the Herbology teacher is named Professor Sprout and the sadistic teacher Severus Snape, any reader looking for hard realism is doing it on her own risk. Realism is there mainly as one element of parody, to demonstrate that even a fantastic world cannot be perfect and even magic is mired in bureaucracy and careerism. Neri From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 05:12:14 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:12:14 -0000 Subject: Ghosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167393 > Barry: > Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry that wizards can leave behind a pale imprint of themselves. With Peeves, it seems is sometime pale and sometimes not. Peeves is insubstantial enough to walk through walls. Yet he can also be solid enough to drop objects. I get very uncomfortable with that. JW: Barry, you are overlooking a very significant fact: Nick is a ghost, while Peeves is a poltergheist. Those are two different types of beings. How do we know this to be true? Because ... Shesezso! Poltergeists can hold and throw objects, and otherwise physically interact with the material world. Ghosts can not. Why is this? Shesezso! IIRC, you can go to the FAQ on the JKR site and read her statement on this subject. As for why we can converse with ghosts, who can not otherwise interact with the material world, it's also because shesezso. Go invent you own alternative universe. It will work exactly the way you wish it to. Why? Because Yousezso! BTW, very few wizards choose to remain behind after death. Further, those that do choose the whiter shade of pale do not seem very happy with their choice. And do not forget that portaits are not alive, are not even as sentient as ghosts, according to Her Shesezsoness. JW From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 05:14:55 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:14:55 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Aceworker: > > > Most likely the Dursley's have never had a positive experience > with magic. Name one canon incident in which something positive > happended to them that involved magic. > > Goddlefrood: > > Dudley had some lovely toffee :O) JW: And an interesting birthday cake. And some friendly discourse with a coupla Dementawhatsits. From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Thu Apr 12 11:59:55 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:59:55 -0000 Subject: Voldy's lifestyle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167395 Hi all. I've been somewhat isolated and housebound lately while looking after a sick toddler, have been driven nuts by that and because I'm trying to re-read the series now, of course I thought of poor lonely Voldy :), all alone, 'incomplete' with his soul ripped into shreads, half-human and half-whoknowswhat, etc, etc. Two particular questions: 1) What would his lifestyle be like? I mean, where does he live, what does he eat, what on earth does he do with his time?? With all that eternity that he's got on his hands at the moment. Because once Potter is out of his way (as he hopes), he's going to be so bored with no challenge. 2) What is he getting out of being an outcast? I mean, if he wanted to merely stay immortal, there was no need to be a meanie-poo to the whole WW: you need your 7 Horcruxes? - fine, make them, hide them, go to Hawaii and enjoy surfing. I know he's a sociopath and a megalomaniac with an agenda (purebloods vs mudbloods/muggles). But still, to be immortal and be hiding for eternity? Goodness me. What do you think? Kvapost From matthew at mjwilson.demon.co.uk Thu Apr 12 11:50:32 2007 From: matthew at mjwilson.demon.co.uk (matt_le_wilson2002) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:50:32 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167396 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > POA would work just as well without time travel. Quite. Should we therefore conclude that the appearance of time travel in PoA is actually just to make us aware that it exists within the Potterverse? My current theory is that time travel will be a key part of DH, either in back story or the main plot. (For example, in a universe with time travel, where a great enemy suddenly vanished after a confrontation with a young family, is it even conceivable that nobody travelled back in time to see what really happened? I don't think that it is.) Matthew From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Thu Apr 12 12:55:57 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:55:57 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse (Harry's disinterest in parents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167397 Betsy Hp: > I used to think that these issues would clear up as Harry got older > and took more notice of things. It hasn't. Kvapost: Speaking of Harry getting older and taking more notice of things. One issue really bugs me big time and tilts the series towards 'fairy tales for kids' for me, rather than being multilayered well crafted masterpiece 'for everyone'. Did Dursleys really do a good job in 'stamping out' most of Harry's interest in his parents ("Don't ask questions!") or am I wrong? I do not recall much of his genealogical digging after he entered Hogwarts. A couple of little chats here and there with DD, Sirius and Lupin, some photos that Hagrid obtained from parents' friends, and that's it. I'm not counting Snape's memory in a pensieve as Harry was not after specific information redarding his parents when he poked his nose in there. It looks like he's either afraid to ask questions about them or is not really interested that much. I'd expect an orphan like him to comb through the schools' archives etc in search of every little bit of information, anything at all, I'd expect him to pester every living soul that has ever anything to do with Mum and Dad. But he doesn't. Most of the information he gets is either volunteered by someone else (Hagrid with photos) or is obtained by accident (Snape's pensieve). I don't care much about an author's precision in World Building, let there be 7 Mondays a week and light-speed travel, but when JKR keeps accentuating orphan's misery throughout the series, Harry's unnatural inactivity in that sense contradicts her portrayal of Harry as a bright child longing for loving relatives. Kvapost, sometimes wanting to kick the WW's saviour Harry so he moves and thinks faster. From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 13:22:05 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:22:05 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167398 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Marion: > > So they meet, they sling hexes and curses at eachother, enough to > > blow up the street and kill thirteen Muggles. Peter does his chop- > > the-finger disappearing act and when the smoke clears, the street > > is littered with dead and dying Muggles and Peter's bloody robes > > plus finger. And then the Aurors turn up. > > Of course Sirius didn't defend himself, Sirius thought he had > > killed Peter and several Muggles. > > SSSusan: > I know that you said you *think* this, but I just don't see where we > have canon for it. > > Fudge says, "...and I was one of the first on the scene after Black > murdered all those people. ...A crater in the middle of the street, > so deep it had cracked the sewere below. Bodies everywhere. > Muggles screaming." [PoA, US hardback, p. 208] > > SSSusan again: > To me, reference to *a* crater (singular) certainly indicates one > big, powerful spell. > > Also, unless you feel that we cannot trust Sirius' account for some > reason, we have his own words: > > "When I cornered him, he yelled for the whole street to hear that > I'd betrayed Lily and James. Then, before I could curse him, he > blew apart the street with the wand behind his back, killed everyone > within twenty feet of himself -- and sped down into the sewer with > the other rats...." [ibid, p. 363] Annemehr: There are also these word of Sirius's [PoA ch. 19, p. 371 US]: "I think the only reason I never lost my mind [in Azkaban] is that I knew I was innocent. [...]" And further down the same page: "But then I saw Peter in that picture...I realized he was at Hogwarts with Harry...perfectly positioned to act, if one hint reached his ears that the Dark Siode was gathering strength again...." Sirius always knew he hadn't killed Peter. As SSSusan says, he left Azkaban when he found out where Peter *was*, not that he was still alive, which he knew all along. Annemehr From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Apr 12 13:39:10 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:39:10 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167399 > Ken: > I understand perfectly well the time travel theory used in HP and I understand perfectly well that it seems more serious to many of you. It is still an ugly wart to me. In Harry Potter it seems jarring and unneccesssary. Rowling decided she wanted to write a time travel story so it got tacked on. POA would work just as well without time travel. Dungrollin: Would you feel better about it if it turned out to be vitally important for book 7? Not in that they use time travel again, but the effects of the events in PoA. 'Cause I was just doing some elementary maths... Harry jumped back and lived three hours over again, but he never jumped forwards, so he is now three hours older than he should be. Does this mean that the blood protection will expire three hours earlier than Harry thinks, and did Pettigrew hang around long enough in rat form to see Timetravelling Harry and Hermione, deduce what they had done, and tell Voldemort? Dungrollin Thinking it could just as easily be ESE!Lupin who spilled the beans... From random832 at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 14:03:20 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:03:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704120703n546c9887k8b7e98a30d0186d2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167400 >Dave: > This is okay for something like "A Christmas Carol", where the > characters are passive observers, but you *still* cannot have a > "closed timelike loop" without creating a paradox of causality. An > example of a "closed timelike loop" is Harry going back in time to > save himself from the dementors, so that later he can go back in time > to save himself from the dementors. Random832: A paradox would be if he went back in time and killed his past self, i.e. something that _cannot_ resolve in a self-consistent manner. (there are various principles for dealing with this, my favorite is the Novikov self-consistency principle, the idea that the probability of anything that would contradict itself vanishes to zero, and the resolution of any time-travel event happens in a quantum probabilistic manner. you might not be familiar with the various ideas that exist in this area of SF, since you, as you said, don't like time travel and have largely, if unintentionally, avoided it.) And there are no closed timelike loops involved. A closed timelike loop is when a single object sent back in time from (say) 5:00 to 3:00 _is_ its own past self, never existed before 3:00, and doesn't exist after 5:00. Your problem seems to be with the fact that it could just as easily have resolved as Harry being killed by Dementors and no-one ever going back in time. But the selection between those resolutions is completely arbitrary, and even if one is more probable than the other, improbable things do happen randomly on a quantum level. > Dave: > There's only two ways that I see to resolve the paradox, both of > which are problematic: > > 1. Everything in the Potterverse is predetermined from the > Creation onward, [...] I don't think full predestination is necessary for Novikov to apply; you're taking an all-or-nothing approach here. It's sufficient for the universe to simply have a constraint against inconsistency, and anything not inconsistent may happen based on free will etc. > Dave: > 2. There was a second Patronus-caster behind the grassy knoll(!) > to initially save Harry's life, before he goes back in time to save > himself. But then the question is, WHO?? [...] Random832: Again, you're insisting that "time happened twice" - Future!Harry _is_ the patronus-caster behind the grassy knoll. > Ken: > But then I discovered that this other book about how the South won the > Civil War involved no time travel, only three cigars and a piece of > paper. I've been reading Harry Turtledove's alternate historys ever > since, but only the ones that deal with plausible departures from > reality. What about the series (i forget the title) by him that deals with these but use some ridiculous interdimensional travel as a framing device? What do you think of those? > Ken: > The Harry who we are to believe is his own salvation could throw the > Potterverse into a meltdown by simply refusing to go back, or to cast > a Patronus. That's a very odd way to run a Potterverse, in my opinion. Random832: Except he doesn't know any of this. And that is the key here - if he did, there would be a risk of that - if nothing else he might _fail_ to cast Patronus due to overconfidence or whatever. > Dungrollin: > Harry jumped back and lived three hours over again, but he never > jumped forwards, so he is now three hours older than he should be. > Does this mean that the blood protection will expire three hours > earlier than Harry thinks, Random832: I love it! Though, I've been thoroughly unimpressed with the "blood protection" thus far. We only see it undisputedly in action once, in PS, and we have a very good reason to think that it's _gone_ as of GOF. > Dungrollin > Thinking it could just as easily be ESE!Lupin who spilled the beans... --Random832; that, not so much. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 14:46:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:46:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: Message-ID: <20950964.1176389216890.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167401 From: aceworker >I always thought that JKR was always just trying to portray the >Dursley's as fearful and materialisitic people. JKR finds this >contemptable as 'courage' she has said is her highest value. Bart: Because the way they are portrayed, especially in the earlier books, they actually seem to believe that keeping Harry away from magic is good for HIM. Combine this with their obvious greed, and you get a situation that does not make sense. They clearly don't want "normal"; they want to be better than everybody else, their neighbors in particular. Look at what Dursley puts his family through to impress a potential client (and note that none of the efforts shown are an attempt to show the good points of his drills). Can you picture such a man to be unwilling to use magic if it will make him an extra quid or two? Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 12 15:04:59 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:04:59 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704120703n546c9887k8b7e98a30d0186d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167402 Jordan > And there are no closed timelike loops involved. A closed timelike loop > is when a single object sent back in time from (say) 5:00 to 3:00 _is_ > its own past self, never existed before 3:00, and doesn't exist after > 5:00. > > Your problem seems to be with the fact that it could just as easily have > resolved as Harry being killed by Dementors and no-one ever going back > in time. But the selection between those resolutions is completely > arbitrary, and even if one is more probable than the other, improbable > things do happen randomly on a quantum level. Magpie: I can't speak for the other poster, but I don't see why this makes it any more sensible for myself, or any more "serious" than the other kinds of Time Travel in story. The only difference between PoA and, say, Back to the Future, seems to me to be that in Back to the Future the writer has Marty McFly experience time in a linear way (as we all do), and then go back and change it, and then return to the future with his same experiences so that he remembers the way time originally spooled out before he made the decision to go back in time. It had to have spooled out that way the first time since he hadn't yet done it, based on how we experience time. In PoA it seems like the only difference is a different gimmick. JKR chooses to show the version where Harry #1 sees Harry #2 come back in time, only she hides it so he doesn't know that's what he's seeing. If there was an alternate universe where Harry #2 didn't go back in time, it's lost to Harry's experience. In Back to the Future, once Marty changes time, everyone else forgets the existance of the original way time worked (or they are replaced by different versions of themselves who lived different lives). He himself doesn't forget it because the writer doesn't want him to, though he probably should. After all, if he's had a different life maybe he wouldn't have gone back in time at all, which would erase the possibility anyway. (The movie gets around this by saying that in this universe, too, Marty had gone back in time.) I always think of that with PoA because so often I've heard it explained that the only reason Harry is able to go back in time is because he already did it, and that this somehow makes the time travel in PoA more logical than in another story, and that I don't get. For instance, one problem with time travel in fiction is that it's essentially a reset button. If you've got it, why not use it? Why not save Sirius in OotP if two books ago Time Travel was easy enough that people used it to take extra classes and save an animal (and Siirus again). And people would say no, Harry couldn't go back in time--not just because the Time Turners were destroyed, but because he didn't see his future self do it. But to me that seems obviously more about how the author chooses to write Time Travel than how Time Travel works. Harry not seeing his future self would only mean that he didn't go back in time, not that it would somehow now be illogical to do so where it wasn't before, right? That, to me, is what creates a loop. It's saying Harry can only choose to do something if he's received a sign that he's already chosen to do it-- so then where is the moment where Harry makes his choice? It's seems like what it's really saying is that we know Harry won't go back in time because according to JKR's rules if she's going to show Time Travel we'll "see" it (even if we don't realize it) before we know about it. Since we experience time in a linear way, isn't there an unknown pocket here? What happened in that pocket of time after Harry #1 met the Dementors, but before Harry#1 became Harry #2 and saved himself? We don't see that pocket of time in JKR's narrative stream, but wouldn't it exist? (And why should the alternate versions of the characters conveniently go away when they're finished?) How did Harry #1 go on to become Harry #2 without the help of Harry #2 who did not yet exist? -m From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Apr 12 15:10:57 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:10:57 EDT Subject: The editor was sobbing/ JKR originality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167403 >Eggplant: The genius of the Potter books is that they are original and difficult to categorize. >Magpie: I disagree. They are a bit difficult because they mix lots of genres together, but that depends on many of the things that aren't original in them. >Magpie: I don't think that can really be said to say anything about Potter as a book. It was the right story at the right time with lots of things coming together to make it very popular. Perhaps in another time and place they just would have been very popular children's/YA books. The popularity with adults also seems to sometimes lead to things in them being considered original when they're not as well. Nikkalmati I have seen others state as though it was agreed that JKR's work is not original. Although I am not a literary critic and I know at least one well-known critic made this statement, I can't disagree more. JKR has built her world with elements that are found frequently in legends, myths, and children's stories, but in a unique way. She has followed the conventions of different genres but she has woven them together and she still keeps us guessing as to where she is going. I enjoy the stories because, IMHO, there is something original (and often amusing) in almost every chapter. I say this as an adult who has read some children's literature, both as a child and as an adult, and who has read some fantasy and science fiction. Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why they consider that the HP stories are not original, creative and unique? Nikkalmati (who can't believe she agrees with Eggplant!) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 12 15:15:21 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:15:21 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: <20950964.1176389216890.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167404 > From: aceworker > >I always thought that JKR was always just trying to portray the > >Dursley's as fearful and materialisitic people. JKR finds this > >contemptable as 'courage' she has said is her highest value. > Bart: Because the way they are portrayed, especially in the earlier books, they actually seem to believe that keeping Harry away from magic is good for HIM. Combine this with their obvious greed, and you get a situation that does not make sense. Magpie: But it does make sense. It doesn't have to be the most practical for them to make sense according to human nature. People don't always make decisions that way or feel things that way. You said you had a friend whose family didn't consider being an artist respectable. The Dursleys don't think having magic is respectable. They don't like magic no matter who has it. Therefore it's both better for themselves if Harry is normal, and better for Harry. What is good for them is good for the world in general because it is the way things should be. Bart: They clearly don't want "normal"; they want to be better than everybody else, their neighbors in particular. Look at what Dursley puts his family through to impress a potential client (and note that none of the efforts shown are an attempt to show the good points of his drills). Magpie: Of course they want normal. Their ambitions regarding their neighbors have nothing to do with not being normal--they're trying to be the very best at normal. The Dursleys aspire to a very specific kind of "better than everyone else" that sometimes means not being better than everyone else. Wanting a prize for having the nicest garden in England is a form of ambition, but not one that's tied to wanting to be different from everyone else. The efforts Vernon goes to to impress his clients are all tied to being normal as well. > Bart: Can you picture such a man to be unwilling to use magic if it will make him an extra quid or two? Magpie: I can, yes. Easily. He's shown doing exactly that in canon so I rather have to.:-) But I'm still not sure what the premise is that you're getting at underneath. You started out talking about Fundamentalist Christians and I'm not sure of the connection. Are you saying that because you don't expect the canonical explanation about the Dursleys and magic they must really be worried that Harry's magic is demonic? -m From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 15:30:06 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:30:06 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167405 Bellatrix, Snape, Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore could all share some of the blame for his death. But I think we all know who is really at fault. Clearly it's Grawp. It's great that he just happened to show up in the nick of time to save Harry and Hermione from the Centaurs but did he have to go and bleed all over the place? If he'd just kept his blood to himself those thestrals wouldn't have conveniently appeared to fly the Harry and co. off to the Ministry. Without thestrals, they may not have made it to the Ministry at all. And then Sirius would have no reason to rush off and try to protect Harry. No blood, no thestrals, no Ministry, no duel, no veil. Yep, all Grawp's fault. KathyK, also considering Hagrid may have had something against Sirius and that's why he brought young Grawpy home From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 12 15:30:59 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:30:59 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing/ JKR originality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167406 > >Magpie: > I disagree. They are a bit difficult because they mix lots of genres > together, but that depends on many of the things that aren't original in > them. > > > > >Magpie: > I don't think that can really be said to say anything about Potter as a > book. It was the right story at the right time with lots of things coming > together to make it very popular. Perhaps in another time and place they > just would have been very popular children's/YA books. The popularity with > adults also seems to sometimes lead to things in them being considered > original when they're not as well. > > Nikkalmati > > I have seen others state as though it was agreed that JKR's work is not > original. Although I am not a literary critic and I know at least one well-known > critic made this statement, I can't disagree more. JKR has built her world > with elements that are found frequently in legends, myths, and children's > stories, but in a unique way. She has followed the conventions of different > genres but she has woven them together and she still keeps us guessing as to > where she is going. I enjoy the stories because, IMHO, there is something > original (and often amusing) in almost every chapter. Magpie: So why are you claiming to disagree? You just said she's built her world with elements that are found frequently in legends, myths and children's stories, that she has followed the conventions of different genres--that's exactly what I said. Eggplant claimed they were so alien they couldn't be categorized and that's just plain silly, imo. It's not a choice between JKR not being original, creative or unique at all and JKR being so totally original she can't be spoken of as connected to any genre, tradition or recognizable style at all. You yourself just explained it--she takes familiar elements and weaves them together her own way...just as all the writers in those genres before her, if they were any good. If they were that alien they wouldn't be as enjoyable. The familiar is part of the appeal, and the reason we can even begin to guess what's going to happen next. There are lots of books that keep you guessing that are still firmly part of a genre or tradition. (I'm actually reading a kids' book now that's surprised me far more in the first 100 pages than HP because it actually is a bit more out there, but I still recognize plenty of genre elements in it.) -m (who can't believe she used a post defending the notion that a book series that cheerfully plays with recognizable literary traditions, myths, folklore and types is, in fact, a book series cheerfully plays with recognizable literary traditions, myths, folklore and types.) From april.minor at arkansas.gov Thu Apr 12 14:05:18 2007 From: april.minor at arkansas.gov (arminor75) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:05:18 -0000 Subject: More to the Prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167407 Please forgive me if this has already been discussed or is absolutely disproved by canon or JKR. (I did a search, but couldn't find this particular theory.) I am mainly a lurker in this forum, but I'm re-reading the series (almost done with HBP) and something has struck me. I figured posting here would be one of the quickest ways to find out if my thoughts are silly. There has been a lot of discussion over the discrepancy between DD and Trelawney's recitation of what happened the night she gave the propecy. DD says Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy, but Trelawney gave the entire thing in the pensieve memory without interruption, and she claims Snape rudely interrupted them, so did Snape hear the whole propecy (and DD is lying for some reason), did Snape only hear the first part but didn't interrupt until Trelawney finished the entire thing, or is this a discrepancy we just have to look past? Re-reading the scene where Trelawney tells Harry Snape interrupted and the scene after where Harry confronts DD about it, it got me wondering. Could there be more to the prophecy? What I'm thinking is that Snape heard all of the prophecy that we have heard, but that this part (that we've all throught was the entire thing) is only the "first part" of it. After Snape interrupted and left, maybe Trelawney gave more information? This would mean DD isn't lying, and neither is Trelawney. I know this is far-fetched, but this discrepancy bothers me, and I'm afraid it isn't going to get resolved in the final book. I know we've been led to believe that the part LV didn't know about was "marking him as equal ... power the Dark Lord knows not," but I've read back through carefully, and I do not remember anything specific about what LV knew when he went to the Potters' house, only that he had heard the "first part." April From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 16:24:02 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:24:02 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > Bellatrix, Snape, Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore could all share some of > the blame for his death. > > But I think we all know who is really at fault. Clearly it's Grawp. > It's great that he just happened to show up in the nick of time to > save Harry and Hermione from the Centaurs but did he have to go and > bleed all over the place? If he'd just kept his blood to himself > those thestrals wouldn't have conveniently appeared to fly the Harry > and co. off to the Ministry. Without thestrals, they may not have > made it to the Ministry at all. And then Sirius would have no reason > to rush off and try to protect Harry. > > No blood, no thestrals, no Ministry, no duel, no veil. > > Yep, all Grawp's fault. > > KathyK, also considering Hagrid may have had something against Sirius > and that's why he brought young Grawpy home > Annemehr: Oh, no. Here we go again. It's amazing to me that people are always ready to give the centaurs a pass, just because they're "cool," when at the same time they are ready to place all the blame on the giants just because they are not so pretty. It was clearly all those arrow-shooting centaurs who are responsible for Sirius's death. And yes, I know, Grawp *knocked a snow-white centaur over* [OoP ch. 33, p. 759 US]. But it was a complete accident; he was only innocently reaching for "Hermy" to find out where "Hagger" was. A centaur should be smart enough to figure that out. In fact, I say the centaurs knew exactly what they were doing -- the book says Grawp knocking over the white one was "what the centaurs had been waiting for." The Centaurs *chose* to shoot their arrows, and should bear full responsibility. Annemehr, saying: look for my new theories coming soon -- C.L.O.P. : Culpability Lands On Ponies and U.P.-G.R.A.W.P. : Usual Posts - Giants Receive Awfully Warrantless Prejudices From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 16:25:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:25:54 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167409 Magpie wrote: > In PoA it seems like the only difference is a different gimmick. JKR chooses to show the version where Harry #1 sees Harry #2 come back in time, only she hides it so he doesn't know that's what he's seeing. If there was an alternate universe where Harry #2 didn't go back in time, it's lost to Harry's experience. > > I always think of that with PoA because so often I've heard it explained that the only reason Harry is able to go back in time is because he already did it, and that this somehow makes the time travel in PoA more logical than in another story, and that I don't get. Harry not seeing his future self would only mean that he didn't go back in time, not that it would somehow now be illogical to do so where it wasn't before, right? That, to me, is what creates a loop. It's saying Harry can only choose to do something if he's received a sign that he's already chosen to do it--so then where is the moment where Harry makes his choice? It's seems like what it's really saying is that we know Harry won't go back in time because according to JKR's rules if she's going to show Time Travel we'll "see" it (even if we don't realize it) before we know about it. > > Since we experience time in a linear way, isn't there an unknown pocket here? What happened in that pocket of time after Harry #1 met the Dementors, but before Harry#1 became Harry #2 and saved himself? > We don't see that pocket of time in JKR's narrative stream, but > wouldn't it exist? (And why should the alternate versions of the > characters conveniently go away when they're finished?) How did > Harry #1 go on to become Harry #2 without the help of Harry #2 who > did not yet exist? Carol responds: Harry and Hermione #1, who had already been saved by Harry #2 because for this scene, time is circular and there is no alternate reality, are taken to the hospital wing by Snape, for whom those three hours only exist once. They are told by DD, who has somehow figured out what happened, to use the Time-Turner to save "more than one innocent life"--lives that have, in fact, already been saved because they have *already* saved Buckbeak and been rescued by TT!Harry's Patronus or Snape would have found only de-souled bodies to take to the hospital wing. They go out, rescue Buckbeak, witness what they only heard an misinterpreted the first time, Macnair furiously swinging his axe into the fence and Hagrid crying out with joy, witness themselves, Lupin, and Snape going into the Shrieking Shack, etc. Harry sees the Dementors about to suck his and Sirius Black's souls, realizes that the Patronus caster was himself and casts the Patronus that saves them, he and Hermione rescue Black (who exists, like Snape and the others, only in the linear time sequence) and return to the hospital wing *just as HH#1 are becoming HH#2* (using the Time Turner to relive those hours). At the same time, the returning Harry and Hermione #2 resume the normal time sequence and become, in effect, Harry and Hermione #1. HH#2 have ceased to exist because the time during which they were traveling back has ceased to exist. They have changed nothing; they have only done what always happened. (But, of course, if they *hadn't* traveled back, Buckbeak would be dead and Harry and Sirius Black would be soulless bodies.) There is no gap ("unknown pocket). Harry and Hermione were unconscious, remember, and Snape carried them (and Ron and Black) back to the castle on stretchers that he conjured. That's the only part we don't witness--except when HH#2 witness Snape conjuring the stretchers--because Harry, the pov character, was out cold at the time. The next thing Harry #1 knows, he's in the hospital wing with Ron and Hermione. In short, HH#1 become HH#2, witness their earlier selves, who can't see them, perform some actions that have already been performed from the perspective of HH#1, and return to normal time, becoming, in effect, HH#1 again because HH#2 no longer exist. If there were "an alternate universe where Harry #2 didn't go back in time," Harry #1 would be soul-sucked and the WW doomed. There would be no living, normal, but unconscious Harry for Snape to rescue and take to the hospital wing. Harry #2 *has* to go back and always did go back. That's the only reality in the books, the only possible outcome. Does that make sense to you? I don't know; probably not. But it makes sense to me. There's no gap; there's no change in what actually happened. Only the perception of what happened has changed. And, for me, that's what the HP books are about, in large measure, the perception of reality as opposed to what really happened. look at "Snape" plotting to steal the Sorceror's Stone. Look at Harry "attacking" Justin with the snake. Look at Sirius Black "murdering" Pettigrew and the Muggles and breaking into Hogwarts to murder "Harry." Look at Macnair "executing" Buckbeak and "James" casting the Patronus. Look at what happened on the tower. . . . Carol, who is not arguing that time travel is in any way involved in those other events, only that what the characters interpret as reality is not necessarily reality within the books, regardless of whether time travel is involved From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 16:52:11 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:52:11 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167410 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > Bellatrix, Snape, Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore could all share some of > the blame for his death. > > But I think we all know who is really at fault. Clearly it's Grawp. > If he'd just kept his blood to himself > those thestrals wouldn't have conveniently appeared. Without thestrals, they may not have > made it to the Ministry at all. > > No blood, no thestrals, no Ministry, no duel, no veil. > > Yep, all Grawp's fault. > > KathyK, also considering Hagrid may have had something against Sirius > and that's why he brought young Grawpy home > JW: And Hagrid would not have been in position to kidnap Grawp if it had not been for DD, who sent Hagrid to the giants. Further, the thestrals were in the forest because Hagrid bred them. Without DD, Hagrid would not have been anywhere near Hogwarts. And who was it that regularly used thestrals for transportation? DD!!! And do not forget that all the characters cited above attended Hogwarts while DD was headmaster (or an influential professor). DD obviously chose not to guide Bellatrix and Snape away from the Dark Arts. Clearly, these are clues that DD is actually the greatest Dark Wizard in history. By defying DD, TR/LV is really the greatest hero in the WW! How's THAT for a surprise ending for DH? From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 17:07:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:07:39 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) Message-ID: <13669798.1176397659833.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167411 From: sistermagpie >other kinds of Time Travel in story. The only difference between PoA >and, say, Back to the Future, seems to me to be that in Back to the >Future the writer has Marty McFly experience time in a linear way >(as we all do), and then go back and change it, and then return to >the future with his same experiences so that he remembers the way >time originally spooled out before he made the decision to go back >in time. It had to have spooled out that way the first time since he >hadn't yet done it, based on how we experience time. The basic unaswered question in open time loops is how they started in the first place. Now, for example, in Back to the Future, Marty does not belong in his family at first; it is only when he changes the past that his family appears to be the kind of family he came from. Therefore, one might assume that he didn't change time, but that some, previously unknown event had changed it, and he corrected it. Now, we can speculate in PoA how the time loop initiated. One way, for example, is for, in the pre-loop time, Harry somehow managed to create the Patronus on his own. Note that he DOES violate the rule of time travel by appearing to himself and visibly acting, albeit not clearly. Therefore, that makes it the likely candidate for the paradoxical moment. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 17:11:40 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:11:40 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: Message-ID: <10363943.1176397900504.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167412 Magpie: >I can, yes. Easily. He's shown doing exactly that in canon so I rather >have to.:-) But I'm still not sure what the premise is that you're >getting at underneath. You started out talking about Fundamentalist >Christians and I'm not sure of the connection. Are you saying that >because you don't expect the canonical explanation about the Dursleys >and magic they must really be worried that Harry's magic is demonic? What I am speculating is that the Dursleys, as they appear in the novels, are not as they were originally envisioned, and that the difference was removed, possibly at the publisher's request, to avoid offending certain groups (and yes, I know that there are some who are offended by the Dursleys anyway). The evidence I give is that their hatred of magic is unbelievably out of proportion to the rest of their characters, as depicted. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 17:13:38 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:13:38 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Message-ID: <21946616.1176398018640.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167413 From: KathyK >But I think we all know who is really at fault. Clearly it's Grawp. Flo DID warn Hagrid to quit. Perhaps he did a little "fortune-telling" on the side, regardless of how little he thought of it. Bart From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 12 17:16:09 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:16:09 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167414 KathyK said: > But I think we all know who is really at fault. Clearly it's > Grawp. If he'd just kept his blood to himself those thestrals > wouldn't have conveniently appeared. Annemehr added: > It's amazing to me that people are always ready to give the centaurs > a pass, just because they're "cool," when at the same time they are > ready to place all the blame on the giants just because they are not > so pretty. > > It was clearly all those arrow-shooting centaurs who are responsible > for Sirius's death. Then JW reasonably noted: > And Hagrid would not have been in position to kidnap Grawp if it > had not been for DD, who sent Hagrid to the giants. Further, the > thestrals were in the forest because Hagrid bred them. Without DD, > Hagrid would not have been anywhere near Hogwarts. And who was it > that regularly used thestrals for transportation? DD!!! > > And do not forget that all the characters cited above attended > Hogwarts while DD was headmaster (or an influential professor). DD > obviously chose not to guide Bellatrix and Snape away from the Dark > Arts. So SSSusan suggests: Well then, by golly, we MUST go back a step further, I say! The blame *clearly* lies with Mr. & Mrs. Dumbledore. If they'd stopped with Aberforth, never *had* Albus, then there would never have been a DD to ignore Snape and Bella, to have hired Hagrid, to have allowed him to have thestrals and to retrieve Grawpie, who proceeded to bleed all over after those centaurs that Albus obviously allowed to remain in the forest. Yes, I say it's all Mr. & Mrs. Dumbledore's fault! Hee. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 17:24:53 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:24:53 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] More to the Prophecy Message-ID: <409151.1176398693212.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167415 From: arminor75 >I know this is far-fetched, but this discrepancy bothers me, and I'm >afraid it isn't going to get resolved in the final book. I know >we've been led to believe that the part LV didn't know about >was "marking him as equal ... power the Dark Lord knows not," but >I've read back through carefully, and I do not remember anything >specific about what LV knew when he went to the Potters' house, only >that he had heard the "first part." Bart (wildly speculating, but isn't it fun?): Hmmmmm.... If WE (and Harry) have only heard part of the prophecy, then the rest of the prophecy could have mentioned Dumbledore's death, and hold the explanation as to WHY Dumbledore knew that he could trust Sevvy. Bart From don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 16:41:51 2007 From: don_elsenheimer at yahoo.com (Don Elsenheimer) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: World Building And The Potterverse (Harry's disinterest in parents Message-ID: <93638.11793.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167416 ...when JKR keeps accentuating orphan's misery throughout the series, Harry's unnatural inactivity in that sense contradicts her portrayal of Harry as a bright child longing for loving relatives. This is particularly relevant given what Harry saw in the Mirror of Erised in PS. And even if Harry is bright (but rather incurious), Hermione isn't, and I can't imagine someone like her not taking the initiative to track down this information for her best friend. A scrapbook with wizard photos and memories written down by those who knew Lily and James would have made a heck of a Christmas present, don't you think? Don From djmitt at pa.net Thu Apr 12 17:16:06 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:16:06 -0000 Subject: Can't see Harry's Scar?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167417 --Tandra: This is my opinion and thoughts. On the UK version you can see the scar but on the US version it is not predominately shown as it was on the previous covers. A wisp of hair is covering the area where the scar should be. Why? Also the two covers depict two different time periods in Harry's quest. I think the UK version is depicting his quest for the horcruxes in the beginning and the US version is depicting the final showdown. Just my thoughts Donna From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 12 17:35:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:35:01 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167418 > > >>Pippin: > > I'm not sure she does want us (ie adult readers) to believe the WW > > is a real place. I think she honestly feels that if you're old > > enough that it matters to you whether the numbers add up or the > > economy works, you're old enough not need to believe in magical > > wonderlands in order to appreciate their uses. > > Betsy Hp: > Like Neverland? No, I don't buy that idea. Pippin: No, I mean that she doesn't want you, the adult reader, to lose yourself in the story, or rather, she's intentionally creating a tension between your desire to lose yourself in the story and your desire to understand what's going on. All works of art rely on conventions to simplify the real world because the real world is far too complex and intricate to fully depict in any set of symbols. But different types of art use different conventions. Consider an architect's model compared to the dollhouse. The architect's model is more 'realistic' -- but that in itself is a view formed by convention. Actually neither one is a real, functional dwelling, both are merely aids to the imagination. Both rely on conventions to represent reality, but they use different ones. Imagine the dollhouse (I'm thinking of the stamped metal kind I played with as a child.) It has two stories but no staircase to connect them -- you have to pretend that it's there. The architect's model would normally show you where the stairs are. But suppose you make something that combines elements of both. Now it's not certain what the missing staircase means. Did the architect hide it? Did the dollhouse maker leave it to your imagination? Is it some kind of mistake? Or is this a house of the future where everybody teleports, or a fantasy house where they apparate, or a house in the past before stairways were invented, and what you should be imagining is a ladder? See, I think the confusion is inherent in the genre-bending and it's part of the fun, but also part of the message. We rely on convention and stereotype far more than we think, just like the characters in the books. In reading HP, we don't know whether to apply the conventions of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, bildungsroman, satire or whathaveyou. But in the end they're all artificial. The Mirror contains neither knowledge nor truth. If you want that, you can't lose yourself in what it shows you. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 17:39:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:39:05 -0000 Subject: More to the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167419 --- "arminor75" wrote: > > ... > > There has been a lot of discussion over the discrepancy > between DD and Trelawney's recitation of what happened > the night she gave the propecy. DD says Snape only > heard the first part of the prophecy, but Trelawney > gave the entire thing in the pensieve memory without > interruption, and she claims Snape rudely interrupted > them, so did Snape hear the whole propecy ..., did > Snape only hear the first part but didn't interrupt > until Trelawney finished the entire thing, or is this > a discrepancy we just have to look past? > > ... bboyminn: Yes, this has been touched on, though the resulting thoughts remain polarized. The first flaw in your logic is that you assume all parties are giving full and completely factual accounts of what happened. They are not. They are giving short, broad, and general summaries of events, each emphasizing what they personally feel is important. Remember that while Trelawney is in a trance, she is unaware of what is going on around her. So, if she remembers Snape interrupting, that means the prophecy was /not/ interrupted. If she was aware of her surroundings then she was full and completely finished with the Prophecy. Next remember that Snape himself was interrupted. He was interrupted by Aberforth while listening at the keyhole. That interruption is what prevented him from hearing the whole prophecy. By the time Aberforth and Snape finished discussing what the heck Snape was doing listening at the door. The Prophecy was over, and Aberforth brought Snape into the room to see what Dumbledore wanted to do with him. Those aren't inconsistent stories. Those are the same story told by different people with different perspectives with each different storyteller emphasizing different aspects of the story. So, Snape was interrupted by Aberforth. That prevented him from hearing the full Prophecy. When the Prophecy was finished, Aberforth brought Snape into Dumbledore, which is the interruption that Trelawney is referring to. Both accounts are correct, they are just focusing on different aspects of the same event. Or so says I. Steve/bboyminn From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 12 17:53:25 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:53:25 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704120703n546c9887k8b7e98a30d0186d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167420 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > Ken: > > But then I discovered that this other book about how the South won the > > Civil War involved no time travel, only three cigars and a piece of > > paper. I've been reading Harry Turtledove's alternate historys ever > > since, but only the ones that deal with plausible departures from > > reality. > > Jordon: > What about the series (i forget the title) by him that deals with these > but use some ridiculous interdimensional travel as a framing device? > What do you think of those? > Ken: No, I only read his "reality based" stuff: the "How Few Remain/Great War/American Empire/Return Engagement" series, "Ruled Brittania", "Days of Infamy/End of the Beginning", and "In the Presence of Mine Enemies". All are based on things that just as well could have happened (arguably at least) but didn't. No time travel, no aliens, nothing remotely resembling magic or science fiction. Turtledove is sometimes brilliant, often banal and repetitive, but I enjoy him anyway because I guess that most of the time he is good enough. Turtledove puts more care into getting the "maths" details correct, Rowling puts more care into other elements of the story. Balance people, balance. > > Ken: > > The Harry who we are to believe is his own salvation could throw the > > Potterverse into a meltdown by simply refusing to go back, or to cast > > a Patronus. That's a very odd way to run a Potterverse, in my opinion. > > Random832: > Except he doesn't know any of this. And that is the key here - if he > did, there would be a risk of that - if nothing else he might _fail_ to > cast Patronus due to overconfidence or whatever. > Ken: He doesn't know when he gets sucked into it but by the time he has to cast the Patronus he knows full well. Harry, being Harry, would not consider anything else. In the same situation Ken Hutchinson, or Hermione for that matter, would hesitate too long while considering the ramifications of the situation, the kiss would be given, and then what?? Lets say for argument's sake that Harry and Hermione were their own parents, as is allowed by this time travel theory. Where does the DNA come from? The equivalent of billions of bits of digital information is created out of nothing. Why are they human and not Kzinti or Orcs or Centaurs? This type of universe just has to be unimaginably odd, nothing like our universe or the Potterverse. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "matt_le_wilson2002" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" > wrote: > > > POA would work just as well without time travel. > > Quite. Should we therefore conclude that the appearance of time travel > in PoA is actually just to make us aware that it exists within the > Potterverse? > > My current theory is that time travel will be a key part of DH, either > in back story or the main plot. (For example, in a universe with time > travel, where a great enemy suddenly vanished after a confrontation > with a young family, is it even conceivable that nobody travelled back > in time to see what really happened? I don't think that it is.) > Ken: Later last night I reached the same conclusion. To paraphrase the cat in "Babe", what if the things that seem to have no purpose really do have a purpose? I don't want to see any more time travel in DH but this argument carries weight. There's only two possibilities here: either JKR was saying to us "Look at what I can do! Time travel too!!" in POA or she intends to use it later. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > Ken: > > I understand perfectly well the time travel theory used in HP and > I understand perfectly well that it seems more serious to many of > you. It is still an ugly wart to me. > > In Harry Potter it seems jarring and unneccesssary. Rowling decided > she wanted to write a time travel story so it got tacked on. > > POA would work just as well without time travel. > > Dungrollin: > > Would you feel better about it if it turned out to be vitally > important for book 7? Not in that they use time travel again, but > the effects of the events in PoA. 'Cause I was just doing some > elementary maths... > > Harry jumped back and lived three hours over again, but he never > jumped forwards, so he is now three hours older than he should be. > Does this mean that the blood protection will expire three hours > earlier than Harry thinks, and did Pettigrew hang around long enough > in rat form to see Timetravelling Harry and Hermione, deduce what > they had done, and tell Voldemort? > Ken: Would I feel better about time travel having been used at all? No. Do I think you have hit upon another plausible idea for why Rowling introduced it? Yes. Ken From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 17:57:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:57:46 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167421 > Magpie: > Since we experience time in a linear way, isn't there an unknown > pocket here? What happened in that pocket of time after Harry #1 met > the Dementors, but before Harry#1 became Harry #2 and saved himself? > We don't see that pocket of time in JKR's narrative stream, but > wouldn't it exist? (And why should the alternate versions of the > characters conveniently go away when they're finished?) How did > Harry #1 go on to become Harry #2 without the help of Harry #2 who > did not yet exist? zgirnius: Assuming the 'time happens once and the past cannot be changed' paradigm of time-travel in the Potterverse: Harrys #1 and #2 were both physically present in the scene in question the first, and only, time it actually happened. Harry #2 was already present back when he rescued Bucky, which was before Harry #1 ever met a Dementor. Harry #2 popped into being, always, though we were not shown it, in the hospital wing at the precise time Harry #1 was about to leave the castle to go see Hagrid. Harry #2 then had the string of adventures described in the books, which had already been described to us by Harry #1, including the rescue of Bucky, which is why Harry #1 heard Hagrid's cry of glee and heard the headsman cut the pumpkin. Of course, Harry #1 *thought* he was hearing a cry of grief and a decapitation, but this is hardly the first time Harry has been mislead by appearances. Harry #1, to an outside observer, disappeared with Hermione after they had their little talk with Dumbledore. (Of course, this was because he went back in time at that point). The events recounted by Harrys #1 and #2 in the books, though recounted in order because that's how the author wrote them and how Harry subjectively lived them, occured *simultaneously*. And were the *exact same events*, simply described from different points of view. There was no 'before Harry 1 became Harry 2' with the Dementors, because Harry 1 became Harry 2 before Harry 1 ever left the castle. It's not what Harry sees or does not see that determines whether the past can be changed. It cannot be changed, period. If Bucky had been killed, he could not be rescued, according to this theory. We don't know for sure that he was always rescued, since we were not shown that scene by the narrator, but if I am assuming the correct paradigm of time travel, then he was not killed. I believe Dumbledore's cryptic remark about saving not one but two innocent lives, indicates Bucky always got away and is a clue that this is the right paradigm, in the sense that it is what Rowling intended. It follows, if the paradigm is the correct one, that if someone went back in time to save Sirius at the MoM, nothing would change in the past. We know, as an objective fact, that Sirius fell through the Veil, so this is what happened, period. To go back with this end in mind would be pointless and dangerous. Sirius would still die; the time-traveler would be risking danger to him/herself for no possible gain. (While we know Sirius died, we could not say one way or the other whether a mysteriously 2-years-older Harry Potter also met a grisly end during those events, just out of our field of view. If he did, way back then, we would have been able to see it in OotP, if Rowling had only described it to us, for it would have happened *then*). > Magpie: > so then where is the moment where Harry makes his choice? zgirnius: He made his choice when we saw him make it, in the hospital wing after Dumbledore made is suggestion. If he had made a different choice, Sirius would have died shortly thereafter. And the escape of Bucky and the rescue of Harry and Sirius (neither of which was either known or explained at that point) would turn out to have had a different explanation. Dumbledore can't always be right. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 12 18:14:59 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:14:59 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse / some Jules Verne's spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167422 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Ken: > > > > The end of "Around The World In Eighty Days" has a delightful twist > > because Jules Verne got it right. That is missing here in many > > instances and while it does not ruin the books for me, it does > grate. > > > Alla: > > LOLOL. I am sorry but I do find Jules Verne example to be hilarious > as > example of someone who **got it right**. Okay, contrary to lovely > Betsy who managed to touch Sarah Monette books without spoilering > them, I am going to be discussing some spoilers here. But I will tie > my comments with Potterverse, I hope. > > > So, yes, of course Jules Verne **got it right** in Around the world > in > 80 days. The ultimate surprise of the book depended on him getting > it > right, hehe. So, if JKR will does something really stupid to resolve > the final battle ( well, something more stupid than Potterverse > allows, lol) I will buy this contrast, I guess. > > I think right now for me more fitting analogy between JKR, say math > mistakes and Jules Verne, would be say Jules Verne "Children of the > Captain Grant", "20000 miles in the water", and " Mysterious Island" > trilogy, which happen to be my Verne's favorite books ever and I > read > **plenty** of his books growing up. He was very popular back in the > country I grew up in, > much more popular than he seems to be in the US. > > Anyways, I digress. If you read Mysterios Island, I will invite you > to > recall Tom Ayrton's confession to other colonists and then recall > when > the journey in "The Captain Grant's children" **really** started. > > How many years is Ayrton off? Fifteen? Twenty? I will call it a > shameless manipulation of the timeline to make sure that everything > fits in the last book, LOL. > Ken: I didn't mean to say that Jules Verne gets things right more often than JK Rowling. The Verne example I gave was just to illustrate how getting the "maths" right can actively delight the average reader and not just those who read with a slide rule in one hand and a perpetual calendar in the other. I've only read "Around the World in 80 Days" and "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" from among Verne's works. Those I read before graduating from high school and I have little memory of them today. If Verne typically makes grievous "maths" errors and if they grate on you, that really just makes my point even if my pulling a counterexample from among his works amuses you. I have not the experience with his work to question you on that point and in fact I assume that you are correct so I can see why you would regard Verne as an odd choice to pull an example from. But the example still works. And if I had known that Verne was generally guilty of being "maths" challenged I still would have used that example precisely because the irony of it would amuse those familiar with his work. That *is* the sort of bear I am, but in this case it was accidental. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 18:16:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:16:15 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: <20950964.1176389216890.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167423 aceworker wrote: > >I always thought that JKR was always just trying to portray the Dursley's as fearful and materialisitic people. JKR finds this contemptable as 'courage' she has said is her highest value. Bart replied: > Because the way they are portrayed, especially in the earlier books, they actually seem to believe that keeping Harry away from magic is good for HIM. Combine this with their obvious greed, and you get a situation that does not make sense. They clearly don't want "normal"; they want to be better than everybody else, their neighbors in particular. Look at what Dursley puts his family through to impress a potential client (and note that none of the efforts shown are an attempt to show the good points of his drills). Can you picture such a man to be unwilling to use magic if it will make him an extra quid or two? Carol responds: "Normal" for the Dursleys is more than just middle-class materialism --having a well-paying job (with power over your subordinates), a green lawn, a shiny new car, a clean kitchen with all the latest appliances, more birthday presents than last year, etc. On one level, the Dursleys are a caricature of those values: an unimaginative, bullying father (that is, he bullies his subordinates and his nephew, but usually not his wife and son); a nosy, soap-opera watching, cleanliness-obsessed wife; an overindulged, video-game-playing, obese son who seems destined to follow in his father's footsteps (unless his inadequate education and naive view of his own importance catch up with him). But "normal" for them also means nonmagical. They are Muggles; they can't do magic. If it weren't for Petunia's relationship to the Potters, they, like their equally materialistic, equally appearance-obsessed neighbors (who water their lawn in the middle of the night despite the ban on hose pipes just as Vernon does), would not know or believe that magic exists. Muggles can't see Hogwarts; it looks like a ruin to their eyes. They walk right past the Leaky Cauldron and St. Mungo's. They're unaware of the Knight Bus ("they don't see nuffink, do they?") or the expansion of 12 GP actually moving their own houses to make room for itself. The Dursleys would be in exactly the same position as most other Muggles who don't have Muggleborn witches or wizards as children if it weren't for Petunia's murdered sister and brother-in-law and their orphaned son, who most inconveniently was placed on their doorstep, and whom Petunia grudgingly and reluctantly took in, her humanity apparently overcoming her selfishness in this particular instance. No doubt Vernon's attitude toward magic would be entirely different had he been born magical, especially if he had at least one magical parent. I can see him becoming a male Umbridge, or one of her underlings, or even a Death Eater given his enjoymment of bullying and his view of his own superiority, which ironically mirrors the more aristocratic Lucius Malfoy's (though I think that Vernon would be more inclined to Muggle-baiting than murder). As it is, he's on the other side, the arch-Muggle, as I called him in an earlier post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/90322 Since he can't do magic and what he's seen of magic is dangerous, he's determined either to pretend it doesn't exist or to stamp it out of anyone connected with him. He can't admit that his wife's nephew is magical--the neighbors or his colleagues would think that he was insane--so he pretends that Harry's "abnormality" is juvenile delinquency and that, instead of going away to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for ten months each year, he attends St. Brutus's Secure Center for Incurably Criminal Boys. (Did Vernon invent St. Brutus's? If so, he has more imagination than we thought!) Dudley, of course, shares his father's attitude, with even more cause to fear magic, having been given a pig's tail at age eleven and a "ton tongue" at age fourteen and faced an invisible Dementor that tried to suck out not only his happiness but his soul. Such experiences are humiliating and terrifying and very much outside the range of "normal" experience as poor unimaginative, over-indulged, bullying Dudley knows it. Petunia is, IMO, a more complex character than either Vernon or Dudley. On the one hand, she, too, is a Muggle, and since she can't do magic, she considers herself "normal" and Lily a "freak." On the other hand, she knows considerably more about the WW than Vernon does, having grown up in the same house with Lily (though after Lily went away to Hogwarts, she would have seen her mainly during the summer holidays). Unlike Vernon, she can't really deny that magic exists though she furiously *pretends* that it doesn't. But Petunia knows about Voldemort and Dementors (and frog spawn and Transfiguration). Even before she finds out that the Potters' house has been blown up, she seems to be keeping secrets from Vernon. (Her angrily suspicious behavior in SS/PS chapter 1 when he asks if she's heard anything about the Potters reminds me of Lupin's when Harry asks him whether he knew Sirius Black.) In PoA, she peeks out the curtains after she hears about Sirius Black on the news, suggesting that she's familiar with the name and possibly expects him to come after Harry. She "has corresponded" with Dumbledore. Twice (SS/PS and OoP), some of the secrets she's been suppressing about the WW come bursting out of her. Something is up with Petunia. Yes, she's a Muggle, not a Witch or a Squib. She's no more likely to perform magic than Dudley or Vernon or you or me. But she knows something that she's concealing not only from Harry but from her own husband and son, and, IMO, Harry (and the reader) will find out what she knows in DH. Dudley is just Dudley; Vernon is just Vernon; but there's more to Petunia than meets the eye. Carol, who is also a Muggle and therefore "normal, thank you very much," even though her values are rather different from the Dursleys' From random832 at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 18:20:40 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:20:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: <10363943.1176397900504.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <10363943.1176397900504.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704121120t5ec24cc0md7f641ecd04de7be@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167424 On 12 Apr 2007 10:13:10 -0700, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > What I am speculating is that the Dursleys, as they appear in the novels, are not as they were originally envisioned, and that the difference was removed, possibly at the publisher's request, to avoid offending certain groups (and yes, I know that there are some who are offended by the Dursleys anyway). The evidence I give is that their hatred of magic is unbelievably out of proportion to the rest of their characters, as depicted. I suspect that part of it has more to do with Petunia's personal resentment towards Lily (and "that awful boy", etc) than anything else. Since that's actually in the books, it's much easier for me to believe than some imagined religious fundamentalism. --Random832 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 18:31:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:31:18 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <13669798.1176397659833.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167425 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: sistermagpie > >... Back to the Future, seems to me to be that in > > Back to the Future the writer has Marty McFly > > experience time in a linear way ..., and then go > > back and change it, and then return to the future > > with his same experiences ... > Bart: > > The basic unaswered question in open time loops is how > they started in the first place. Now, for example, in > Back to the Future, Marty does not belong in his family > at first; it is only when he changes the past that his > family appears to be the kind of family he came from. > ... > > Now, we can speculate in PoA how the time loop initiated. > One way, for example, is for, in the pre-loop time, Harry > somehow managed to create the Patronus on his own. Note > that he DOES violate the rule of time travel by appearing > to himself and visibly acting, albeit not clearly. > Therefore, that makes it the likely candidate for the > paradoxical moment. > > Bart > bboyminn: You are talking about Time Loops when I think you should be talking about Time Lines. Marty McFly and Back to the Future is all about Time Lines. This is an extremely problematic method of theoretical time travel. Marty essentially keeps going back into the past and creating a branch in the time continuum. When Marty makes a change in the Past, he destroys the current Time Line and replaces it with an alternate Time Line that completely changes history from the point where Marty made the change, proceeding from there onward into an infinite future. When Marty returns to the present, if he doesn't like what he sees, he goes make, makes another change, and keeps doing this until he finally gets a future he is satisfied with. The implications of this are astronomical. The complication, both to logic and to time, are equally of a mammoth magnitude. Yet, this is one very valid theory of how Time Travel potentially works. Now back to our story, you keep talking about Time Loops, but I don't think you have a Time Loop. What you have is a logic loop. Once again, I point out that JKR left small details that were left as clues to us, so we would understand that there was a certain synchronicity to the events. These clues, after the fact, should be our realization that events only happened once. Assumptions were made in the first perspective that were proven wrong and explained in the second perspective. Now the fallible loop aspect seems to be the fact that Harry could have chosen NOT to go back in time, thereby creating an unresolvable time paradox. In theory, that is true, but look at the circumstances. Even though he doesn't immediately understand the details of the plan, he does understand that it is his one and only chance to save Sirius. Lots of things can happen /in theory/, lots of very crazy and unlikely things. I could win the Lottery, but the realistic odds are astronomically against it. In reality, despite infinite theoretical possibilities, we actually only have a limited set of choices. Given who Harry was and what Harry knew, he could logically and realistically have made only one possible choice. So, the time paradox of Harry choosing to not go back in time, while having theoretical merit, has no real world merit. There are points where the first perspective and the second perspective overlap or intersect. These intersections are the clues JKR left to lead us to the conclusion of one set of events, happening only once in time, but seen from two different perspectives. This is a linear sequence of time events. At 6:00pm a second Harry and Hermione enter the one and only time line, and they are there observing and interacting with the events as they unfold, leaving clues that are seen but unrealized the the original Harry and Hermione. There is no paradox in Harry potentially choosing not to go back because that choice is unthinkable. Given an opportunity, he is going to do everything and anything he possibly can to save Sirius. This is not causality or predestiny, this Harry Potter being true to himself, and making the only decision that we could or would expect Harry Potter to make. The greatest illogic, is to ponder Harry not making the decision to save Sirius. Far warning, I have participated in /many/ Time Travel debates, I am here to say 'they will make you crazy'. There is always going to be real and theoretical /illogic/ in any time travel by any author under any circumstances. Time Travel can only exist if we suspend our insistence on reality and logic. Marty McFly was playing in time in a way that could have had the most disastrous and irreversible consequences. If anything, it is the most dangerous and illogical method of time travel, but it still made for a great series of movies, /if/ you were willing to accept the basic premise and let the movie play out. I am willing to accept the basic premise that they have an sufficient source of energy to have near-light-speed travel in the Enderverse because that allows the story to proceed. I am willing to accept the logical analysis of JKR version of Time Travel which is far less problematic, especially the way it played out, than nearly any other version in any other story. The potential for severe time paradoxical conflict in JKR version was certain there, but she controlled the story, and let it play out in a way that avoided the catastrophic potential. Don't know if that helps, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn - PS: discussing time travel is like discussing religion or politics, it is impossible to get people to agree. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 18:34:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:34:22 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse / some Jules Verne's spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167426 > Ken: > > I didn't mean to say that Jules Verne gets things right more often > than JK Rowling. The Verne example I gave was just to illustrate how > getting the "maths" right can actively delight the average reader and > not just those who read with a slide rule in one hand and a perpetual > calendar in the other. Alla: Well, sure, yes. Because Verne specifically built the resolution around that twist. JKR is just not interested in that, no? I am trying to say that if the ultimate resolution of the books will depend on JKR getting the maths right and she will not, then I will see the comparison. Ken: If Verne typically > makes grievous "maths" errors and if they grate on you, that really > just makes my point even if my pulling a counterexample from among his > works amuses you. Alla: Um, actually no. My point was that those timeline errors really do not grate on me specifically, in fact I would say I do appreciate him making that error in order to get all the characters together in the third book, if nothing else. I mean, he screwed with the timeline for the plot needs, I think JKR is doing the same thing often enough. I could care less as long as she is not screwing with characters behaving consistently ( which as I happen to believe she does sometimes). And even in that situation I am sometimes wondering, whether I can make this argument about characters behaving consistently or not. I mean, those **are** JKR's creations and if she wants DD to give second chances to some characters and not to give to others, maybe that **is** what DD character is? Maybe she indeed writes consistent character, just much darker than I think DD is? Maybe she revisited Ron's Quidditch insecurities in HBP again because he did not deal with them well enough in OOP? Hmmm, digressing. Just wondering if I can claim that character behaving inconsistently when the author is the only one in the position to know what is the standard for the said character consistent behaviour. I have to think about it. Ken: I have not the experience with his work to question > you on that point and in fact I assume that you are correct so I can > see why you would regard Verne as an odd choice to pull an example from. Alla: Yes, odd. Verne got a lot of things right in his books, made many cool scientific predictions, etc, but he made at least several mistakes like that I am aware of. Personally I consider them insignificant, but to each their own. Ken: > But the example still works. And if I had known that Verne was > generally guilty of being "maths" challenged I still would have used > that example precisely because the irony of it would amuse those > familiar with his work. That *is* the sort of bear I am, but in this > case it was accidental. Alla: I would not make a claim of him being generally math challenged no, sometimes math challenged - sure and the only reason I know that is because I read commentaries, lol. But as I said above, your initial example does not work for me. If JKR gets something wrong which is very fundamental for the end of the books, then it may work for me, but not now. JMO, Alla From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 19:07:53 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:07:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40704121207qa5708c5i7a9a86477df3e2e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167427 Kemper top posting: I love this theory. It seems so right! I hate that Grawp. I hope JKR has a spectacular death for him. Thanks for the smile! Kemper On 12 Apr 2007 08:33:06 -0700, KathyK wrote: > > Bellatrix, Snape, Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore could all share some of > the blame for his death. > > But I think we all know who is really at fault. Clearly it's Grawp. > It's great that he just happened to show up in the nick of time to > save Harry and Hermione from the Centaurs but did he have to go and > bleed all over the place? If he'd just kept his blood to himself > those thestrals wouldn't have conveniently appeared to fly the Harry > and co. off to the Ministry. Without thestrals, they may not have > made it to the Ministry at all. And then Sirius would have no reason > to rush off and try to protect Harry. > > No blood, no thestrals, no Ministry, no duel, no veil. > > Yep, all Grawp's fault. > > KathyK, also considering Hagrid may have had something against Sirius > and that's why he brought young Grawpy home > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 19:24:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:24:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: Message-ID: <27973066.1176405887323.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167428 From: Jordan Abel >On 12 Apr 2007 10:13:10 -0700, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >> What I am speculating is that the Dursleys, as they appear in the novels, are not as they were originally >envisioned, and that the difference was removed, possibly at the publisher's request, to avoid offending certain >groups (and yes, I know that there are some who are offended by the Dursleys anyway). The evidence I give is that >their hatred of magic is unbelievably out of proportion to the rest of their characters, as depicted. > >I suspect that part of it has more to do with Petunia's personal >resentment towards Lily (and "that awful boy", etc) than anything >else. Since that's actually in the books, it's much easier for me to >believe than some imagined religious fundamentalism. Bart: I still maintain there's a missing piece of the puzzle. Whether it's for revelation in book 7, or that it was taken out as an afterthought, we won't know until Book 7. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 19:38:53 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:38:53 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning Message-ID: <11572874.1176406733922.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167429 From: Steve >Now the fallible loop aspect seems to be the fact that >Harry could have chosen NOT to go back in time, thereby >creating an unresolvable time paradox. In theory, that >is true, but look at the circumstances. Even though >he doesn't immediately understand the details of the >plan, he does understand that it is his one and only >chance to save Sirius. OK, here are a few key events on the "line", in order: 1) Harry hears the axe fall. 2) Shrieking Shack incident. 3) Harry & Sirius meet the Dementors. 4) Harry and Sirius get their souls sucked. 5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. 6) Oops. The only explanation is not a line, but a loop; there's the way the events go the "first time", and then the way they go subsequent times: 1) Harry hears the axe fall. 2) Shrieking Shack incident. 3) Harry and Sirius meet the Dementors. 4) Harry lives, but without help from his future self. 5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. 6) H&H save Buckbeak. 7) Harry saves himself, changing the past, but not enough to change the fact he went back in time. 8) H&H save Sirius. 9) H & H 1 go back in time, this time with Harry having the memory of having saved himself. 10) H&H save Buckbeak. 11) Harry saves himself, realizing that this is how he got saved the 1st (really 2nd) time. 12) H&H save Sirius. 13) Time marches on. It's a single loop, but it's a loop. Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 20:02:15 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:02:15 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <11572874.1176406733922.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167430 > Bart: > The only explanation is not a line, but a loop; there's the way the events go the "first time", and then the way they go subsequent times: > > 1) Harry hears the axe fall. > 2) Shrieking Shack incident. > 3) Harry and Sirius meet the Dementors. > 4) Harry lives, but without help from his future self. > 5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. > 6) H&H save Buckbeak. > 7) Harry saves himself, changing the past, but not enough to change the fact he went back in time. > 8) H&H save Sirius. > 9) H & H 1 go back in time, this time with Harry having the memory of having saved himself. > 10) H&H save Buckbeak. > 11) Harry saves himself, realizing that this is how he got saved the 1st (really 2nd) time. > 12) H&H save Sirius. > 13) Time marches on. zgirnius: This is not the only way to explain the events. This is the order in which the narrator of PoA describes (some of) these events. It is not, however, necessarily their actual chronological order. Below I provide a chronological ordering of (most of) these same events which is 100% consistent with canon. Your list also includes events that never happened, and others you assume happened but which did not provably happen, on which I comment below. Here is the order of events as I see it: 5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. This occurs at roughly the same time as H&H leave the castle for Hagrid's. We can deduce this both because they almost certainly hear themselves in the hallway. Also because they rescue Bucky before the axe falls. 6, 10) H&H save Buckbeak. (Why twice? We were only shown it once.) 1) Harry hears the axe fall. 2) Shrieking Shack incident. 3) Harry and Sirius meet the Dementors. 4) (deleted nonexistent event - please cite canon this happened, if I am mistaken. You are *assuming* this, I believe. The assumption that Harry was saved by himself is at least as correct as yours, we have canon of Harry doing it.) 11), 7) Harry saves himself. (This only happens once, again). 12, 8) H&H save Sirius. (Again, only happens once). 13) Time marches on (If you insist; it always does). 9) H & H 1 go back in time, this time with Harry having the memory of having saved himself. This item I can't even place. It makes no sense to me. When did Harry travel back in time with the memory of having saved himself? The thoughts about saving himself are had by Harry 2, who is the Harry we follow through the rest of the series. He has never time-turned since. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 20:46:57 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:46:57 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167431 > >>Neri: > I don't think JKR has ever intended HP to be realistic. It was not > intended to be world-building fantasy like LotR either, or > world-building sci-fi like Niven's Known Space, and as you say, > neither pure illogical fantasy like Peter Pan. Most world-building > aspects in HP are either required by the mystery plot, or are > unintended byproducts of JKR the storyteller falling in love with > her own backstory. Betsy Hp: I agree. But I think it's come back to bite her a time or two already, because while she's not too enamored of the genre, JKR *has* built a world. I don't know if the bites are fatal. We'll just have to see how long the Potter books stick around. > >>Neri: > What JKR did intend the WW to be, I believe, is first and foremost a > *parody* of the real world, a parody were entertainment is derived > from the deliberately unresolvable contrast between the fantastic > stereotypes and the realistic RL concepts. > > In a book where the werewolf is named Remus Lupin, the Herbology > teacher is named Professor Sprout and the sadistic teacher Severus > Snape, any reader looking for hard realism is doing it on her own > risk. Realism is there mainly as one element of parody, to > demonstrate that even a fantastic world cannot be perfect and even > magic is mired in bureaucracy and careerism. Betsy Hp: I don't buy that either. I agree that there are *elements* of parody in the Potter books, but they are not solely parody. For that to be, the Slytherins would all need to be evil merely by virtue of their house (to be thrown out not brought back into the fold), and Snape would need to truly be sadistic (DDM arguments should hold almost no water). And Lupin would need to be more defined by his being a werewolf (loves red meat, etc.). And it would also mean that we readers should care a lot less about who's in charge of the MoM, whether or not they support Harry, the Weasleys' poverty, or Harry's chances of becoming an Auror. We shouldn't really care too much about James' and Lily's death either. Because it's all fake and funny. A good example, IMO, of a parody writer is Roald Dahl. In his "James and the Giant Peach" we learn that James is an orphan because his parents were eaten by an angry rhinoceros (happens on the first page, so no spoilers ). Which tells you right away to not look for realism here. You care for James, but not so much about his dead parents. JKR goes in a different direction. The time Harry spends in front of the Mirror *aching* for his dead parents takes the Potter series out of parody, IMO. > > >>Pippin: > > I'm not sure she does want us (ie adult readers) to believe the WW > > is a real place. I think she honestly feels that if you're old > > enough that it matters to you whether the numbers add up or the > > economy works, you're old enough not need to believe in magical > > wonderlands in order to appreciate their uses. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Like Neverland? No, I don't buy that idea. > >>Pippin: > No, I mean that she doesn't want you, the adult reader, > to lose yourself in the story, or rather, she's intentionally > creating a tension between your desire to lose yourself > in the story and your desire to understand what's > going on. > > Consider an architect's model compared to the dollhouse. > > Imagine the dollhouse (I'm thinking of the stamped metal kind I > played with as a child.) It has two stories but no staircase > to connect them -- you have to pretend that it's there. > > Now it's not certain what the missing staircase means. Did the > architect hide it? Did the dollhouse maker leave it to your > imagination? Is it some kind of mistake? > > See, I think the confusion is inherent in the genre-bending > and it's part of the fun, but also part of the message. We > rely on convention and stereotype far more than we think, > just like the characters in the books. > Betsy Hp: I had a hard time snipping this because I didn't want to mangle your idea. And I *think* I get it. Basically JKR *wants* us to see the holes in order to sort of jump start our thinking about why we want those holes filled in? Or maybe allow us to write in our own reasons? The issue I have with that is, IMO, encapsulated by Ken's response to my rant on Draco's hand of glory: > >>Ken: > I think this aside from Besty illustrates perfectly why > Rowling's "maths" errors are serious enough to spawn, and then > sustain way beyond anything I could have expected, this thread. If > Rowling had taken the time to work out how many students and > teachers Hogwarts really needed to have, when full moons really > occur, what days of the week that months really start on, and all > the rest; if she then skillfully wove her story into this framework > that has real, satisfying heft; what would we think of the Hand of > Glory? > Most likely we would think that here is a careful story planner who > makes as few mistakes as is humanly possible. > > Even though we only saw the first and last steps in this > progression we would confidently fill in the details and think > nothing of the omission of the intermediate steps. > As it is we can't be sure with this author. Do we give her the > benefit of the doubt, or is this just more sloppy story planning? Betsy Hp: I've stopped giving JKR the benefit of the doubt. So rather than think JKR has purposefully set forth an exercise to get us to rethink *our* dependence on "convention and stereotype", I think *JKR* relied a bit too much on "convention and stereotype" instead of story planning or world building. It's interesting, your analogy got me thinking about Japanese literature. I've read and enjoyed some classic and well thought of novels from that country. And they definitely push anyone used to Western story-telling out of their comfort zone (at least they did me ). Large amount of meaning in say the fall of a petal that was easy to miss, an ending that just seems to... stop, really, rather than tie things up, leaving much to the reader to discern for themselves. But it was all very deliberate on the part of the author. The meaning was there, the ending was there. You figured out where the stairs were (or weren't) for yourself. I don't get that same sense from JKR. It's not that JKR has chosen not to show stairs for an aesthetic reason or in an attempt to examine or push reader expectations. I think it's more that she just forgot that there needed to be link between two floors. Or maybe didn't realize she was building a two story house. Or that's how I see it anyway. Honestly, I'd love it if you were right, Pippin. Betsy Hp From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 12 21:09:40 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:09:40 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning Message-ID: <27208296.1176412180195.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167432 From: Zara Here is the order of events as I see it: > >5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. > This occurs at roughly the same time as H&H leave the castle > for Hagrid's. We can deduce this both because they almost > certainly hear themselves in the hallway. Also because they > rescue Bucky before the axe falls. >6, 10) H&H save Buckbeak. (Why twice? We were only shown it once.) >1) Harry hears the axe fall. >2) Shrieking Shack incident. >3) Harry and Sirius meet the Dementors. >4) (deleted nonexistent event - please cite canon this happened, if I >am mistaken. You are *assuming* this, I believe. The assumption that >Harry was saved by himself is at least as correct as yours, we have >canon of Harry doing it.) >11), 7) Harry saves himself. (This only happens once, again). >12, 8) H&H save Sirius. (Again, only happens once). >13) Time marches on (If you insist; it always does). Here is the flaw: According to canon, Harry goes back in time AFTER he is saved from the Dementors. Except that it is an older Harry who saves a younger Harry. But, if older Harry is not around, then, if you assume nothing else, then younger Harry is pretty much dead, and there IS no older Harry to go back in time. So, the story conflicts with itself. Or, there's another part that is not told; younger Harry surviving, then going back into time, and saving his younger self, who, when he goes back in time, has slightly (but significantly) different memories. Let me put it another way: we will measure time by letters. The older Harry gets, the higher the letter in the alphabet attached to his name becomes. 1) Harry-a hears the axe fall (while Harry-f saves Buckbeak) 2) Harry-b is in Shrieking Shack scene 3) Harry-c meets Demontors. 4) Harry-d and Sirius are saved by Harry-g 5) Sirius and Buckbeak escape with the help of Harry-h 6) Harry-e goes back in time. 7) Harry-i continues on. But let's look at it from Harry's point of view: a) Harry hears the axe fall. b) Harry is in the shrieking shack scene c) Harry meets dementors. d) Harry and Sirius are saved from the dementors (Harry catches glimpse of his savior) e) Harry goes back in time f) Harry saves Buckbeak g) Harry saves Harry and Sirius from the dementors. h) Harry helps Sirius and Buckbeak escape. i) Harry continues on. Note that in Harry's line, if Harry-d does not survive the dementors without Harry-g's help, then Harry-e never goes back in time. Therefore, either Harry is NOT saved, and the whole thing doesn't happen, OR, there is an event that is wiped out in the process of making the loop that does not change the fact that Harry-e goes back in time. Now, since Harry has a memory of seeing SOMEONE saving him, that kind of narrows it down to two possibilities: Either the dementors would not have endangered Harry and Sirius if it weren't for Harry-g, or somehow they got saved by some other factor the first time around. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 21:09:05 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:09:05 -0000 Subject: Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167433 > >> Goddlefrood: > > I note there have been some few comments relative to the prank on > another thread recently ;). I do not propose to go there, but pick > up the story of Snape from the point where the prank is over and > Severus is being debriefed. You couldn't imagine he wasn't, after > what happened in the tunnel to the Shack, now could you? > > This is where he became good, Dumbledore's man, which he remains > and always will. The forgotten warrior for the Order, a man who, > at great personal risk became a Death Eater and fooled LV for, > well forever, since that time. > Betsy Hp: I agree with zgirnius's statement here: > >> zgirnius: > The question arises, what was he doing listening outside that > door? > Betsy Hp: If Snape reported the prophecy to Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders it would mean that (a) Snape would have no reason to feel any remorse, and (b) Harry will end the series hating Albus Dumbledore. (It would mean a bit more than just that actually, but I think those two are enough to be going on with. ) It would completely destroy any aspect of redemption within Snape's story. Snape would not need to be redemed because he did nothing wrong to begin with. Dumbledore would bear that particular burden, but he'd also die without redemption, forever passing the buck to poor Snape. I much prefer the idea of "disaffected youth"!Snape (aka punkrock! Snape ) with a simmering resentment of "Perfect Potter" and his goldenboy gang with their money and their blood and their poncy accents, becoming easy pickings for Voldemort and his Death Eaters. (Do I love the idea of "Northern mill-town"!Snape? Hell yeah.) An emotional boy who wore his heart on his sleeve, and who therefore made a horrible mistake. A mistake he's spending the rest of his life trying to amend. *That's* a character and a story-line I can get behind. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 12 21:26:51 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:26:51 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse)/The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167434 > Carol responds: > Harry and Hermione #1, who had already been saved by Harry #2 because > for this scene, time is circular and there is no alternate reality, > are taken to the hospital wing by Snape, for whom those three hours > only exist once. They are told by DD, who has somehow figured out what > happened, to use the Time-Turner to save "more than one innocent > life"--lives that have, in fact, already been saved because they have > *already* saved Buckbeak and been rescued by TT!Harry's Patronus or > Snape would have found only de-souled bodies to take to the hospital > wing. They go out, rescue Buckbeak, witness what they only heard an > misinterpreted the first time, Macnair furiously swinging his axe into > the fence and Hagrid crying out with joy, witness themselves, Lupin, > and Snape going into the Shrieking Shack, etc. Harry sees the > Dementors about to suck his and Sirius Black's souls, realizes that > the Patronus caster was himself and casts the Patronus that saves > them, he and Hermione rescue Black (who exists, like Snape and the > others, only in the linear time sequence) and return to the hospital > wing *just as HH#1 are becoming HH#2* (using the Time Turner to relive > those hours). Magpie: Yes, I completely understand how it happens in canon. But it's the loop that I'm talking about, that Harry and Hermione can not be saved unless they go back in time after they have been saved. I get that the way JKR writes it there is no alternate universe and that they have misinterpreted the stuff they saw the first time. I'm just saying that it creates a totally circular loop. Who saved Harry so that he could live to save himself in the future? Harry from the future. Carol: At the same time, the returning Harry and Hermione #2 > resume the normal time sequence and become, in effect, Harry and > Hermione #1. HH#2 have ceased to exist because the time during which > they were traveling back has ceased to exist. They have changed > nothing; they have only done what always happened. (But, of course, if > they *hadn't* traveled back, Buckbeak would be dead and Harry and > Sirius Black would be soulless bodies.) There is no gap ("unknown > pocket). Magpie: That's the unknown pocket I'm talking about--I realize that it doesn't exist in canon because Harry and Hermione #2 were "always" there in this sequence, but it's the alternate universe we don't see I'm wondering about, because Harry is saved by a version of himself that doesn't exist yet. Like, if I was going to be killed by something, even if I knew I could go back and change it later by my future self, I'd still have to wait to become my future self before I could save myself. I wouldn't remember waiting for it because my future self would appear in the past, but it doesn't fit the way I actually experience time. If I'm going to be saved at 3:00 by my 5:00 self, I would still be saved at 3:00 but I would have to wait two hours to become my 5:00 self, I would think. Carol: > If there were "an alternate universe where Harry #2 didn't go back in > time," Harry #1 would be soul-sucked and the WW doomed. Magpie: And perhaps that universe exists somewhere. Carol: > Does that make sense to you? I don't know; probably not. But it makes > sense to me. There's no gap; there's no change in what actually > happened. Only the perception of what happened has changed. Magpie: It does make sense--but that part always made sense to me. I'm not confused about exactly what happened in the story. This is all stuff in my head. Just like, for instance, I've got no problem understanding the Pensieve scenes but if I think about it I wonder how people remember things they didn't see the first time, and how memory is subjective etc. I think within the books it's just like you said--it's about revising your understanding of what you saw. The books aren't making a case for Time Travel, just using it the way they want for the plot. zgirnius: Assuming the 'time happens once and the past cannot be changed' paradigm of time-travel in the Potterverse Magpie: Hoping I'm not confusing myself further by repitition, but that's the loop. If Time can't be changed, what was Harry #2 going *back* in time to do? What didn't change was the experience of the characters. Harry's #1's experience did not change. He, and we readers, never experienced or read about him being soul sucked or Buckbeak being executed. But if Harry #2 had never traveled back in time, obviously those things would have happened (or something else entirely would have happened). Harry #2 was returning to a time that had already happened to interfere with it, iow, to interfere with the past. It's only at the moment that Harry #2 uses the Time Turner that what we saw becomes possible, right? It's not like Harry #2 would be able to say, "Oh, we were all saved, so there's no need to use the Time Turner" and still be saved. (At least not in the way it happens in the book.) When we say "time cannot be changed" what we mean is "the narrative cannot be changed." Time travel is possible. It is possible for a person in this universe to turn back time and spend an hour differently than they did the first time. Hermione can take an hour of arithmancy and an hour of Divination and experience them as two consecutive hours, both with the clock saying 10-11 am. What she can't change is the scene as described by Rowling the first time. zgirnius: It follows, if the paradigm is the correct one, that if someone went back in time to save Sirius at the MoM, nothing would change in the past. We know, as an objective fact, that Sirius fell through the Veil, so this is what happened, period. Magpie: Yes, but that means nobody went back and saved Sirius, not that nobody could, if they had a Time Turner that went back years, decide next week to go back and save Sirius, right? I mean, what would stop them? We know this *didn't* happen because we would have had to have seen it happen in OotP, not because it's impossible for a person in the present to travel to the past and affect it. zgirnius: He made his choice when we saw him make it, in the hospital wing after Dumbledore made is suggestion. If he had made a different choice, Sirius would have died shortly thereafter. And the escape of Bucky and the rescue of Harry and Sirius (neither of which was either known or explained at that point) would turn out to have had a different explanation. Dumbledore can't always be right. Magpie: But my point is, if you say a person can only make the decision to go back in time if they'd seen the results of going back in time, then when did they make the decision? That would be saying "I can't because I didn't, but if I had then I could." It's a loop. It's not that I'm confused about what happens as written, or how it would have to have been different if Harry hadn't traveled in time. Bart: The basic unaswered question in open time loops is how they started in the first place. Magpie: That sounds right. That's why I get confused, as I said, when people say Harry "can't" go back and save Sirius because it would "change time," as if he can only use a Time Turner when he has seen himself using the Time Turner...so when did he decide to use it? Bart: Now, for example, in Back to the Future, Marty does not belong in his family at first; it is only when he changes the past that his family appears to be the kind of family he came from. Therefore, one might assume that he didn't change time, but that some, previously unknown event had changed it, and he corrected it. Magpie: Whoa. Mind-blowing! Bart: Now, we can speculate in PoA how the time loop initiated. One way, for example,is for, in the pre-loop time, Harry somehow managed to create the Patronus on his own. Note that he DOES violate the rule of time travel by appearing to himself and visibly acting, albeit not clearly. Therefore, that makes it the likely candidate for the paradoxical moment. Magpie: I guess like Marty McFly watched the Professor get shot and was chased in the DeLorean in both versions of his life. (Though there's only one of him at a time.) Steve: There is no paradox in Harry potentially choosing not to go back because that choice is unthinkable. Magpie: That doesn't much change anything for me, I'm afraid. Anything is thinkable imo. It doesn't even have to come down to Harry's choice, since other things could have happened. THE DURSLEYS Bart: What I am speculating is that the Dursleys, as they appear in the novels, are not as they were originally envisioned, and that the difference was removed, possibly at the publisher's request, to avoid offending certain groups (and yes, I know that there are some who are offended by the Dursleys anyway). The evidence I give is that their hatred of magic is unbelievably out of proportion to the rest of their characters, as depicted. Magpie: I think I see what you mean. I just don't see any trace of this, or see their reaction to magic being OTT compared to the rest of them. I do think we've got secrets coming in DH about them, especially Petunia. But I think suggesting that they were ever meant as Christian satires in their hatred of magic seems to clash with the world entirely. The Dursleys aren't religious, and there's no hint of that view of magic in Rowling's universe. It doesn't really seem to be an issue for her when she was writing the books, though it was forced into an issue when they became popular. To me it seems to clash with their characters more to imagine their middle class devotion to the status quo, which is so strong in the book, as covering up a skewering of religious hypocrites. I honestly see no trace of that either in them or the books--it would really effect everything about them from the ground up if that was informing their view of magic, imo, where as Rowling's gone out of her way to push the view they do have. I would imagine them becoming uncomfortable at even having to deal with someone who was too outspokenly religious. It's another way of being not normal. It also actually sounds like a more American concern. Not that English Christians, English hypocrites, and English Christian hypocrites don't or can't exist, of course, but it still seems like something that's more a concern in the US. I know I've read discussions elsewhere, for instance, where people will explain exactly how the Dursleys go to church in terms of the "type" they are, only to be corrected by British readers on the subject. -m (agreeing that discussing Time Travel is always maddening and never ends in agreement, but can live with that more than people thinking she didn't get the plot of PoA!;-) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Apr 12 21:34:46 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:34:46 -0000 Subject: World Building & The Potterverse / some Jules Verne's spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > Ken: > > > > > > > The end of "Around The World In Eighty Days" has a delightful twist > > > because Jules Verne got it right. That is missing here in many > > > instances and while it does not ruin the books for me, it does > > grate. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > LOLOL. I am sorry but I do find Jules Verne example to be hilarious > > as > > example of someone who **got it right**. Okay, contrary to lovely > > Betsy who managed to touch Sarah Monette books without spoilering > > them, I am going to be discussing some spoilers here. But I will tie > > my comments with Potterverse, I hope. > > > > Ken: > > I didn't mean to say that Jules Verne gets things right more often > than JK Rowling. The Verne example I gave was just to illustrate how > getting the "maths" right can actively delight the average reader and > not just those who read with a slide rule in one hand and a perpetual > calendar in the other. Hickengruendler: The difference being, that it was crucial to the plot. The whole ending depended on it. The Jule Verne wasn't simply a minor detail, like two mondays in a row in GoF, but it was *the* most important twist of the whole story. Therefore I find this a rather bad example for a comparison, since of course Verne would pay detention to this. He plotted the whole storyline around this twist after all. This is not the case with the examples you gave regarding the errors in the Potter series. Even the inconcistencies regarding the full moon aren't really crucial. Therefore a fair comparison would be between similarly minor (or similarly major things), not between some random details of one book and the major plot twist of another. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Apr 12 21:38:22 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:38:22 -0000 Subject: Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167436 > > Betsy Hp: > I agree with zgirnius's statement here: > > > >> zgirnius: > > The question arises, what was he doing listening outside that > > door? > > > > Betsy Hp: > If Snape reported the prophecy to Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders it > would mean that (a) Snape would have no reason to feel any remorse, > and (b) Harry will end the series hating Albus Dumbledore. (It would > mean a bit more than just that actually, but I think those two are > enough to be going on with. ) > > It would completely destroy any aspect of redemption within Snape's > story. Snape would not need to be redemed because he did nothing > wrong to begin with. Dumbledore would bear that particular burden, > but he'd also die without redemption, forever passing the buck to > poor Snape. > > I much prefer the idea of "disaffected youth"!Snape (aka punkrock! > Snape ) with a simmering resentment of "Perfect Potter" and his > goldenboy gang with their money and their blood and their poncy > accents, becoming easy pickings for Voldemort and his Death Eaters. > (Do I love the idea of "Northern mill-town"!Snape? Hell yeah.) An > emotional boy who wore his heart on his sleeve, and who therefore > made a horrible mistake. A mistake he's spending the rest of his > life trying to amend. *That's* a character and a story-line I can > get behind. > wynnleaf I totally agree, Betsy! However, there is the question of why Snape went for many years without revealing Lupin's secret. When Snape was a loyal Death Eater, and Voldemort was recruiting werewolves even then, as well as supposedly dealing with people "defying" him like Order members, why wouldn't Snape have taken some opportunity to spread the news that Lupin was a werewolf? I realize that Dumbledore somehow got Snape to not reveal the secret while in school, and after Snape started working as Dumbledore's spy, he'd need to watch out about keeping Dumbledore's trust. But what about in between? Why not reveal Lupin's secret? Of course, it could be a plot hole. But are there any other reasons? wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 12 22:05:07 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:05:07 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <27208296.1176412180195.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167437 > Bart: > Here is the flaw: According to canon, Harry goes back in time AFTER he is saved from the Dementors. Except that it is an older Harry who saves a younger Harry. But, if older Harry is not around, then, if you assume nothing else, then younger Harry is pretty much dead, and there IS no older Harry to go back in time. So, the story conflicts with itself. zgirnius: The story would only conflict with itself if older Harry had not gone back in time. But he did, fortunately. > Bart: > 1) Harry-a hears the axe fall (while Harry-f saves Buckbeak) > 2) Harry-b is in Shrieking Shack scene > 3) Harry-c meets Demontors. > 4) Harry-d and Sirius are saved by Harry-g > 5) Sirius and Buckbeak escape with the help of Harry-h > 6) Harry-e goes back in time. > 7) Harry-i continues on. zgirnius: Exactly, and the later books continue the adventures of Harry-i (or j+, if you prefer). > Bart: > But let's look at it from Harry's point of view: > > a) Harry hears the axe fall. > b) Harry is in the shrieking shack scene > c) Harry meets dementors. > d) Harry and Sirius are saved from the dementors (Harry catches glimpse of his savior) > e) Harry goes back in time > f) Harry saves Buckbeak > g) Harry saves Harry and Sirius from the dementors. > h) Harry helps Sirius and Buckbeak escape. > i) Harry continues on. > > Note that in Harry's line, if Harry-d does not survive the dementors without Harry-g's help, then Harry-e never goes back in time. zgirnius: Right, but Harry's point of view is not reality. Reality is 1) through 7). Harry's experience is subjective. Unbeknownst to Harry d, it is Harry g that saved him. He *is* saved, so he can go on to become Harry g (speaking in terms of his subjective experience of time). > Bart: > Therefore, either Harry is NOT saved, and the whole thing doesn't happen, zgirnius: I would say, obviously not, we saw that it did. > Bart: > OR, there is an event that is wiped out in the process of making the loop that does not change the fact that Harry-e goes back in time. Now, since Harry has a memory of seeing SOMEONE saving him, that kind of narrows it down to two possibilities: > > Either the dementors would not have endangered Harry and Sirius if it weren't for Harry-g, or somehow they got saved by some other factor the first time around. zgirnius: There is no first time around as I see it. Hary has two different expriences, but *both* are of the first time around. First he experiences it as an almost-victim of the Dementors, second he expereinces it as the rescuer. This odd and seemingly illogical state of affairs is what the Time-Turner does - it allows Harry to relive the same section of time again, but does not alter that it is still the same section of time. As I see it, had you and I borrowed Moody's cloak and my father's Muggle binoculars, and snuck out to follow the Trio, and later Harry, through his adventures that night starting with the vitis to Hagrid, here is what we would have seen when Harry was attacked by the Dementors: Harry, rescued at the nick of time by a distant wizard which the binoculars would reveal to be...Harry. *We* would be seeing the real passage of time, since it is Harry, not we, who is messing with how he moves through time. From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu Apr 12 22:35:34 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:35:34 -0000 Subject: Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167438 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wynnleaf: I totally agree, Betsy! However, there is the question of why Snape went for many years without revealing Lupin's secret. When Snape was a loyal Death Eater, and Voldemort was recruiting werewolves even then, as well as supposedly dealing with people "defying" him like Order members, why wouldn't Snape have taken some opportunity to spread the news that Lupin was a werewolf? I realize that Dumbledore somehow got Snape to not reveal the secret while in school, and after Snape started working as Dumbledore's spy, he'd need to watch out about keeping Dumbledore's trust. But what about in between? Why not reveal Lupin's secret? Of course, it could be a plot hole. But are there any other reasons? ___ Inge: The reason I like best, would be if Snape has been Dumbledore's man all along. If Dumbledore recruited Snape first and talked him into joining Voldemort and become a Death Eater to spy for the Order... That would make a logical reason for Snape not reveal Lupin's secret. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 12 23:38:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:38:39 -0000 Subject: Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167439 > wynnleaf > I totally agree, Betsy! > > However, there is the question of why Snape went for many years > without revealing Lupin's secret. When Snape was a loyal Death > Eater, and Voldemort was recruiting werewolves even then, as well as > supposedly dealing with people "defying" him like Order members, why > wouldn't Snape have taken some opportunity to spread the news that > Lupin was a werewolf? I realize that Dumbledore somehow got Snape > to not reveal the secret while in school, and after Snape started > working as Dumbledore's spy, he'd need to watch out about keeping > Dumbledore's trust. But what about in between? Why not reveal > Lupin's secret? > Pippin: But it wasn't secret! He's been "shunned all my adult life, unable to find paid work because of what I am." Lupin also says that the staff know what he is, and we find out that he was hired with Fudge's permission, which probably means that anyone with Ministry connections would know. So really, it was only the kids who were out of the loop. If the Slytherins didn't know, my guess would be that Lucius Malfoy had his own reasons for not telling. So did Lupin really quit because shocked parents wouldn't stand for Dumbledore hiring a werewolf, or did he quit because shocked parents wouldn't stand for Dumbledore hiring a werewolf who had neglected to take his potion and run loose on the grounds? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 00:04:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:04:20 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <11572874.1176406733922.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167440 Bart wrote: > OK, here are a few key events on the "line", in order: > > 1) Harry hears the axe fall. > 2) Shrieking Shack incident. > 3) Harry & Sirius meet the Dementors. > 4) Harry and Sirius get their souls sucked. Carol responds: But they *don't* get their souls sucked. Time-Turned Harry prevents that from happening: "A paralyzing terror filled Harry so that he couldn't move or speak. His Patronus flickered and died. "White fog was blinding him. He had to fight . . . *expecto patronum* . . . he couldn't see . . . and in the distance he heard the familiar screaming . . . *expecto patronum* . . . he groped in the mist for Sirius, and found his arm . . . they weren't going to take him. "But a pair of strong, clammy hands suddenly attached themselves around Harry's neck. They were forcing his face upward . . . He could feel its breath . . . It was going to get rid of him first . . . He could feel its putrid breath . . . His mother was screaming . . . She was going to be the last thing he ever heard-- "And then, through the fog that was drowning him, he thought he saw a silvery light growing brighter and brighter . . . He flet himself fall forward onto the grass . . . . Facedown, too weak to move, sick and shaking, Harry opened his eyes. The dememtor must have released him. The blinding light was illuminating the grass around him. . . . The screaming had stopped, the cold was ebbing away . . . . "Something was driving the dementors back . . . . It was circling around him and Black and Hermione . . . . They were leaving. . . . The air was warm again . . . "With every ounce of strength he could muster, Harry raised his head a few inches and saw an animal galloping away. It was a bright as a unicorn. . . . Fighting to stay conscious, Harry watched it canter to a halt as it reached the oppposite shore. for a moment, Harry saw by its brightness someone welcoming it back Harry didn't understand. He couldn't think anymore. He flet the last of his strength leave him , and his head hit the ground as he fainted" (PoA 384-385). *Harry's soul has not been sucked.* A Dementor has come close enough to put its hands on his face and tilt his head back, and he's sick and weak, in about the same shape as Dudley is on Privet Drive in OoP. Nor has Sirius Black's soul been sucked: "It was going to get rid of him [Harry] first." Harry, Hermione, and Sirius Black have all fainted from the horror of the encounter of the encounter with the Dementors. (Ron is already unconscious from Pettigrew's spell.) Snape, who regains consciousness just as the Dementors are leaving, conjures stretchers for all of them and takes them back to the hospital wing. Had Time-Turned Harry not saved himself and Black (and Hermione), Snape would have found only soul-sucked bodies. At most, he could have rescued Ron. As it is, he takes all four back to Hogwarts, making it possible for Harry and Hermione to Time-Turn and rescue themselves. The whole scene only makes sense if everything happened once, simultaneously, even though Harry and Hermione experience it twice. I realize that the chapter title, "The Dementor's Kiss," is misleading, but the kiss doesn't happen, or Harry would have been in the same state as Barty Crouch Jr. Instead, he merely feels cold, hears screams, feels the dementor's putrid breath on his face, and thinks he's going to die, sees a bright light, watches the dementors retreat, sees the Patronus returning to someone, and faints. The first two steps in this process, and the faintness, exactly match every one of his other encounters with Dementors, even Boggart Dementors. The Dementor gets close, very close, but it never actually administers the kiss, either to him or to Black. *There is no alternate reality in which Harry is soul-sucked, no reversal of that state. It never happened.* Carol, wondering if Bart might be confused by the medium that must not be named, in which it does seem as if Black, at least, was soul-sucked and got his soul back (which does not happen in the book) From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Apr 13 00:05:54 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:05:54 -0000 Subject: Tobias and the Angel (The Good) - Snape Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167441 > > > wynnleaf > > I totally agree, Betsy! > > > > However, there is the question of why Snape went for many years > > without revealing Lupin's secret. When Snape was a loyal Death > > Eater, and Voldemort was recruiting werewolves even then, as well as > > supposedly dealing with people "defying" him like Order members, why > > wouldn't Snape have taken some opportunity to spread the news that > > Lupin was a werewolf? I realize that Dumbledore somehow got Snape > > to not reveal the secret while in school, and after Snape started > > working as Dumbledore's spy, he'd need to watch out about keeping > > Dumbledore's trust. But what about in between? Why not reveal > > Lupin's secret? > > > > Pippin: > But it wasn't secret! He's been "shunned all my adult life, unable to > find paid work because of what I am." Lupin also says that the staff > know what he is, and we find out that he was hired with Fudge's > permission, which probably means that anyone with Ministry > connections would know. So really, it was only the kids who > were out of the loop. If the Slytherins didn't know, my > guess would be that Lucius Malfoy had his own reasons for not > telling. > > So did Lupin really quit because shocked parents wouldn't stand for > Dumbledore hiring a werewolf, or did he quit because shocked > parents wouldn't stand for Dumbledore hiring a werewolf who > had neglected to take his potion and run loose on the grounds? wynnleaf Thanks for reminding me of that Pippin. You're right, if Lupin couldn't ever hold down a job because of being a werewolf -- meaning potential employers around the wizarding world knew he's a werewolf -- and all the staff knew as well as Fudge -- well, basically what that means is that it wasn't really much of a secret at all. Now as to why Lupin left? Here's my opinion. Take a good look at the *one and only* scene in all the HP series where Lupin and Dumbledore have any direct communication on the page. Lupin has just been having a nice long chat with Harry the morning after Sirius escaped. He told Harry that he had visited with Dumbledore that morning. We learn later that it was Sirius who told Dumbledore about the Marauders being animagi, and we learn in GOF that Dumbledore did not learn about the Marauders Map in POA. So Lupin didn't really volunteer any of his secrets to Dumbledore that morning. Yet they did have a discussion. Lupin and Harry talk and Lupin says that because of Snape's revealing his secret to the students, owl posts would shortly be arriving from angry parents and he wouldn't be able to stay. Oh really? Just because of being a werewolf? No. Dumbledore had no real problem keeping Hagrid the following year when parents found out he was a half-giant. Dumbledore would have kept Lupin as well, if it was only the knowledge of his being a werewolf that was the problem. To continue with the scene... Lupin and Harry talk and then Dumbledore comes to the door. Dumbledore tells Lupin that his carriage is waiting and Lupin asks Dumbledore not to accompany him to his carriage. At that point, Harry gets the impression that Lupin wants to leave as soon as possible. Why, after he'd just been engaged in a long chat with Harry? Dumbledore's arrival seems to spur Lupin to a desire to leave quickly and he doesn't want to talk further with Dumbledore. Dumbledore shakes Lupin's hand and tells him goodbye "soberly." That is the *only* descriptive adjective we ever get about Dumbledore's reactions to Lupin. JKR was being pretty noncommital about Dumbledore's attitude toward the situation wasn't she? And then Lupin leaves. Dumbledore goes on to have a long talk with Harry during which Dumbledore discusses Sirius quite a bit, some about James, and absolutely no remarks about Lupin. Okay... my theory and analysis. Dumbledore was highly displeased with Lupin, Lupin's year long deception, his higher regard for how people would think of him than the safety of Hogwart's students, and last, for forgetting his potion in a crisis. Lupin was asked to resign. That's why Lupin *had* to leave. That's why Lupin was so uncomfortable around Dumbledore. That's why Dumbledore didn't seem to have any regretful attitude toward Lupin's leaving. That's why Dumbledore didn't have anything to say to Harry about Lupin. Just my guess. And yes, Dumbledore gave his usual "second chance" a year later when he had Lupin rejoin the Order. wynnleaf From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 00:14:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:14:18 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <11572874.1176406733922.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: Steve > >Now the fallible loop aspect seems to be the fact > >that Harry could have chosen NOT to go back in time, > > ... In theory, that is true, but ...that it is his > > one and only chance to save Sirius. > > OK, here are a few key events on the "line", in order: > > 1) Harry hears the axe fall. > 2) Shrieking Shack incident. > 3) Harry & Sirius meet the Dementors. > 4) Harry and Sirius get their souls sucked. > 5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. > 6) Oops. > > The only explanation is not a line, but a loop; there's > the way the events go the "first time", and then the > way they go subsequent times: > > 1) Harry hears the axe fall. > 2) Shrieking Shack incident. > 3) Harry and Sirius meet the Dementors. > 4) Harry lives, but without help from his future self. > 5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. > 6) ...etc... > 11) Harry saves himself, realizing that this is how he > got saved the 1st (really 2nd) time. > 12) H&H save Sirius. > 13) Time marches on. > > It's a single loop, but it's a loop. > > Bart > bboyminn: Perspective plays a huge role in Time Turning. From Hermione's perspective, relative to classes, she is living a 32 hour day. She goes to class for an hour, then time turns back and goes to class another hour, then time turns back and goes to class still another hour. To Hermione, that is three consecutive hours, but to everyone else that is a single hour with Three Hermione's in it. In the incident in question, Harry and Hermione live three hours, then they live three more hours, but to the rest of the world that is the same three hours with TWO Harrys and TWO Hermiones in it. So the events are like this - 5:45pm time marches on, the Trio goes to the Entrance Hall 6:00pm The Trio hide in the closet until the Hall is clear. 6:01pm TT!Harry and TT!Hermione arrive in the Entrance Hall and hide in a different closet. The Trio hear them out in the Hall. 6:10pm the Trio run down to Hagrids. 6:12pm TT!Harry and TT!Hermione run out, take a different route, and head for the forest. 6:30pm The Trio arrive at Hagrids 7:00pm The Minister and Co arrive at the front door of Hagrid's as the Trio rushes out the backdoor. 7:15pm Ron is dragged into the Whomping Willow by Sirius, and Harry and Hermione follow. ...etc... 8:59:30pm Dumbledore tells the first Harry and Hermione to go back and take care of business. 9:00pm TT!Harry and TT!Hermione arrive back at the hospital, mission accomplished, 9:01pm life goes on. To the perspective of a non-time traveler, that is a linear sequence of events. To the perspective that the time travelers it is still a linear sequence of events. To the perspective of a non-time traveler, there were always two Harrys and two Hermiones there during that three hours. To the perspective of the time travelers, they lived that three hours twice, but that is only because the experience those three hours as six consecutive hours. To the rest of the world, those three hours happen only once, and there were always two Harrys and two Hermiones in it. Just as to the rest of the world, there were always three Hermiones sitting in three different classrooms. Yes, technically there is a loop or loop-ish events since the did go BACK in time. But in linear time, they arrived at 6:00pm and they were always there. Again, as to the question of whether Harry could have or would have changed his mind and not time traveled, that is theoretically possible, but it is not realistically possible because Harry would have done anything to be able to save Sirius. As I said in a previous post, arguing time travel is like arguing religion, there is simply no way to reach a firm mutually agreeable conclusion. But it is still a fun discussion. Time Happened Once = Bliss Time Happened Twice = Misery Take your pick. Steve/bboyminn From jceltchic at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 00:20:15 2007 From: jceltchic at yahoo.com (jceltchic) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:20:15 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: <27973066.1176405887323.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167443 > > Bart: > I still maintain there's a missing piece of the puzzle. Whether it's for revelation in book 7, or that it was taken out as an afterthought, we won't know until Book 7. > I agree here with Bart ... there is something that has yet to be revealed about Petunia. After all, what was her motivation to make an agreement with Dumbledore. Why would she take "magic" in to her house .. . What did she fear if she didn't? Let's just say it ... what is Petunia hiding??? jceltchic From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 00:58:33 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ghosts and Inferi ("Ghosts are transparent") Message-ID: <165421.53419.qm@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167444 In HBP Snape asks Harry to explain the difference between Ghosts and Inferi. And Harry;s infamous answer is that: "Ghosts are transparent." But why does JKR have Snape ask this seemingly bizaree question? Anyone have any ideas? My answer would be because both are 'reanimated dead'. But Ghosts are there by their choice. --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Apr 13 01:07:39 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:07:39 EDT Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167445 >zgirnius >I believe Dumbledore's cryptic remark about saving not one but two innocent lives, indicates Bucky always got away and is a clue that this is the right paradigm, in the sense that it is what Rowling intended. Nikkalmati I just want to comment on this remark of DD's. Who was saved? I count at least 3 innocent lives: Sirius, Buckbeak and Harry himself (and probably Hermione), so why does he say 2 lives? Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Apr 13 01:20:04 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:20:04 EDT Subject: The Dursleys: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167446 Magpie: >I can, yes. Easily. He's shown doing exactly that in canon so I rather >have to.:-) But I'm still not sure what the premise is that you're >getting at underneath. You started out talking about Fundamentalist >Christians and I'm not sure of the connection. Are you saying that >because you don't expect the canonical explanation about the Dursleys >and magic they must really be worried that Harry's magic is demonic? >Bart >What I am speculating is that the Dursleys, as they appear in the novels, are not as they were originally envisioned, and that the difference was removed, possibly at the publisher's request, to avoid offending certain groups (and yes, I know that there are some who are offended by the Dursleys anyway). The evidence I give is that their hatred of magic is unbelievably out of proportion to the rest of their characters, as depicted. Nikkalmati I'm not sure religious groups with this particular set of beliefs exist in the UK.- at least not since 1800 or so. If not, Dursleys as you envision them would be out of place. Comments from our friends across the Pond? Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 01:25:18 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:25:18 -0000 Subject: Ghosts and Inferi ("Ghosts are transparent") In-Reply-To: <165421.53419.qm@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167447 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, career advisor wrote: > > In HBP Snape asks Harry to explain the difference between Ghosts and Inferi. And Harry's infamous answer is that: "Ghosts are transparent." > > But why does JKR have Snape ask this seemingly bizarre question? > JW: On the most basic level, it is background info and foreshadowing for the later confrontation with the inferi in the cave. Anybody see anything deeper than that? From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 13 01:36:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:36:31 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167448 > Betsy Hp: > I had a hard time snipping this because I didn't want to mangle your > idea. And I *think* I get it. Basically JKR *wants* us to see the > holes in order to sort of jump start our thinking about why we want > those holes filled in? Or maybe allow us to write in our own reasons? > > The issue I have with that is, IMO, encapsulated by Ken's response to > my rant on Draco's hand of glory: > > > >>Ken: what would we think of the Hand of > > Glory? > > Most likely we would think that here is a careful story planner who > > makes as few mistakes as is humanly possible. > > > > Even though we only saw the first and last steps in this > > progression we would confidently fill in the details and think > > nothing of the omission of the intermediate steps. > > As it is we can't be sure with this author. Do we give her the > > benefit of the doubt, or is this just more sloppy story planning? Pippin: That's a good illustration of what I'm talking about . The Hand of Glory is *not* sloppy in the same sense that the number of students is. It doesn't violate the internal logic of the Potterverse. It's established that Draco wanted one when he was twelve, and though Daddy didn't buy him one at the time, (just like he didn't let first year Draco bully him into letting him take a broom to school) it's hardly inconsistent that by the time Draco 's seventeen, he's had one for a while. It's not like Hermione's laid down the law and said that Hands of Glory don't work at Hogwarts! IMO, the sense of violation comes from breaking the narrative convention that says a story is a chain of connected events with a beginning, a middle and an end. The end of the story isn't logically inconsistent with the beginning, but it's narratively deficient because we don't learn how the conflict between Draco and his father was resolved. In terms of the overall narrative this omission is probably no more significant than the omission of how Harry recovered the Marauders Map. We aren't likely going to need to understand that in order to understand how Harry defeats Voldemort. But there are many stories in the Potterverse with Missing Middles and some of them doubtless *are* significant. How can we tell which ones they are? We can only guess. Does it matter why Dumbledore trusted Snape or where Lupin spent the missing twelve years between Godric's Hollow and PoA? We don't *know* -- and that simultaneously builds reader interest in solving the puzzles and tempts us to presume it can't be done -- thus preserving the mysteries even though millions of readers are hunting for the answers and JKR has declared that all the clues are there. Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 01:42:46 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:42:46 -0000 Subject: Tobias & The Angel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167449 > Betsy Hp in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167433 > If Snape reported the prophecy to Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders it would mean that (a) Snape would have no reason to feel any remorse, Goddlefrood: Firstly let me emphasise, this is not the Snape I favour. On this point above I would simply enquire: "Do you honestly believe DD's story, as *inferred* by Harry, on his reason for trusting Severus?" I don't buy it at all, there must be something more to it. As I said in the original Tobias & the Angel post if Snape is DDM, which I don't believe, then my suggestion is that he was from the point of his debriefing after the Shriekiung Shack incident. Severus does not come across as a man who feels remorse, it seemed more like a cooked up story to me :) > Betsy Hp: > (b) Harry will end the series hating Albus Dumbledore. (It would mean a bit more than just that actually, but I think those two are enough to be going on with. ) Goddlefrood: He may end up this way, but has a forgiving nature, and would find a way to forgive DD his transgression. I hold a view, which may not be shared by many, that this matter may be one of the big mistakes to which DD himself has referred <:> > Betsy Hp: > It would completely destroy any aspect of redemption within Snape's story. Snape would not need to be redemed because he did nothing wrong to begin with. Goddlefrood: Yes, that interview statement is problematic, but its interpretation, IMO, is that she complimented the interviewer on the question without actually agreeing with it. My favoured view of Severus should be posted over the weekend, part 3 in the series :) It's shaping up quite nicely :> > wynleaf in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167436 > However, there is the question of why Snape went for many years without revealing Lupin's secret. Goddlefrood: This I have stated several times before on this list, the archives are there. It is hardly likely that Severus was unaware of Remus's role in spying on the werewolves. It appears he never reported this spy role to LV or the DEs. In fact this secret has not been revealed to date in canon. Remus was in the original Order and it is no stretch to then conclude that he was spying on the werewolves even back during the nauseatingly named "Voldwar1". IMO it is a strong ground for suspecting that Snape is far from being LV's man and lends support to him as either DDM or SLANOBANTITS :) The same reasoning would go to support wynleaf's wonderment over why Severus never seems to have mentioned that Remus was a werewolf, that is up to the point where he let his grudge get the better of him. I suggest that had rather more to do with Snape's loathing of Sirius than with Remus, however ;) Perhaps that would be sufficient? > Inge in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167438 > The reason I like best, would be if Snape has been Dumbledore's man all along. Goddlefrood: On that point we agree, it is how I would best like to see Snape turn out as DDM, which of course, he isn't ;) For what it may be worth I accept the simple explanation as to how Remus lost his job. Purely and simply it was due to concerns of parents, parents who had found out about his condition through Severus's less than tight lips. With the proviso as above that it was spite against Sirius rather than Lupin that led Snape to let slip Remus's condition towards the end of PoA. Goddlefrood, who once again clarifies that Tobias & the Angel is not the version of Severus I favour, but I could live with it if it is somewhere near the truth ;) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Apr 13 01:46:19 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:46:19 EDT Subject: The editor was sobbing/ JKR originality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167450 > > I have seen others state as though it was agreed that JKR's work is not > original. Although I am not a literary critic and I know at least one well-known > critic made this statement, I can't disagree more. JKR has built her world > with elements that are found frequently in legends, myths, and children's > stories, but in a unique way. She has followed the conventions of different > genres but she has woven them together and she still keeps us guessing as to > where she is going. I enjoy the stories because, IMHO, there is something > original (and often amusing) in almost every chapter. >Magpie: >So why are you claiming to disagree? You just said she's built her world with elements that are found frequently in legends, myths and children's stories, that she has followed the conventions of different genres--that'different genres--that's exactly what I s were so alien they couldn't be categorized and that's just plain silly, imo. It's not a choice between JKR not being original, creative or unique at all and JKR being so totally original she can't be spoken of as connected to any genre, tradition or recognizable style at all. You yourself just explained it--she takes familiar elements and weaves them together her own way...just as all the writers in those genres before her, if they were any good. If they were that alien they wouldn't be as enjoyable. The familiar is part of the appeal, and the reason we can even begin to guess what's going to happen next. There are lots of books that keep you guessing that are still firmly part of a genre or tradition. (I'm actually reading a kids' book now that's surprised me far more in the first 100 pages than HP because it actually is a bit more out there, but I still recognize plenty of genre elements in it.) Nikkalmati Ok, so we agree. I'm glad you so eloquently defended JKR's honor. On the other hand, there are some people out there, even some on this list, who have taken the other POV and have complained her work is not original and creative. I won't be disappointed, however, if no one wants to argue the point. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Apr 13 01:39:02 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:39:02 EDT Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167451 >bboyminn >the fallible loop aspect seems to be the fact that Harry could have chosen NOT to go back in time, thereby creating an unresolvable time paradox. In theory, that is true, but look at the circumstances. Even though he doesn't immediately understand the details of the plan, he does understand that it is his one and only chance to save Sirius. >Lots of things can happen /in theory/, lots of very crazy and unlikely things. I could win the Lottery, but the realistic odds are astronomically against it. In reality, despite infinite theoretical possibilities, we actually only have a limited set of choices. >Given who Harry was and what Harry knew, he could logically and realistically have made only one possible choice. So, the time paradox of Harry choosing to not go back in time, while having theoretical merit, has no real world merit. Nikkalmati Personally I hope Time turning does not return in book 7, it makes my head ache! I just wanted to point out it is Hermione who decides to go back, not Harry. Harry has no idea what is happening until they are hiding in the closet outside the Great Hall waiting for themselves to go on by. The decision Harry makes is to step out and cast the Patronus. That is the moment of truth, so to speak, and he almost doesn't do it, because he was under the mistaken impression that it was his father he saw! Close call there!. If he had waited a moment longer, he would have been killed. Was that a possibility in the world JKR has created? It looks like it was a possibility to me. I assume his future would have been wiped out and a new time-line created from that moment forward, one in which LV may succeed. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 01:52:12 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:52:12 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167452 > >zgirnius > >I believe Dumbledore's > cryptic remark about saving not one but two innocent lives, indicates > Bucky always got away and is a clue that this is the right paradigm, > in the sense that it is what Rowling intended. > > > Nikkalmati > > I just want to comment on this remark of DD's. Who was saved? I count at > least 3 innocent lives: Sirius, Buckbeak and Harry himself (and probably > Hermione), so why does he say 2 lives? > zgirnius: Sorry, I was almost as cryptic as Albus. It is my opinion that Bucky escaped, and Dumbledore, of course, knew about it before he saw Hermione and Harry in the hospital wing. I think he saw or heard something then that made him think Harry and Hermione were involved in Bucky's escape. Remember he accompanied Fudge and the headsman to the hut for the execution. But he also knew that they had no memory of having rescued him, or they would have mentioned it. He concluded that maybe they rescued Bucky in *their* (subjective) future, and suggested that they Time-Turn, since Bucky's rescue made him pretty sure they would, as they were present (he thought) to rescue Bucky. He *hoped* (did not know) that as a result of that Bucky rescue mission, they would also help Sirius escape before the Ministry representatives could carry out the sentence. That is the second innocent life, the life of Sirius, locked in a tower awaiting the Dementor's Kiss. If the 'past never changes, it happens only once' theory of time travel is true, (that is the theory I have been advocating in all my posts) Dumbledore would know Bucky would stay safe - he already escaped. He would also know that Harry and Sirius of the past who were almost Kissed would stay safe (they were already mysteriously rescued). The one life whose disposition he did not know was Sirius's, so it was possible that Time-Turned Harry and Hermione had just rescued him, and noone had noticed yet. He hoped that might be the case. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 13 02:30:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:30:22 -0000 Subject: Ghosts and Inferi ("Ghosts are transparent") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167453 Career Advisor: > > In HBP Snape asks Harry to explain the difference between Ghosts and > Inferi. And Harry's infamous answer is that: "Ghosts are transparent." > > > > But why does JKR have Snape ask this seemingly bizarre question? > > > > JW: > > On the most basic level, it is background info and foreshadowing for > the later confrontation with the inferi in the cave. Anybody see > anything deeper than that? > Pippin: It echoes Snape's question in PoA about how to tell the werewolf from the true wolf. Presumably the reason it's important to be able to tell the difference quickly is that one is far more dangerous to wizards than the other. Ghosts in the Potterverse are generally friendly and mostly harmless, as far as we've seen. If you allowed the Inferius of a newly dead acquaintance to approach you, mistaking (or hoping) that it was a ghost, it would probably be the last mistake you ever made. Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 13 02:40:07 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:40:07 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Yes, technically there is a loop or loop-ish events > since the did go BACK in time. But in linear time, > they arrived at 6:00pm and they were always there. > > Again, as to the question of whether Harry could have > or would have changed his mind and not time traveled, > that is theoretically possible, but it is not > realistically possible because Harry would have done > anything to be able to save Sirius. > > As I said in a previous post, arguing time travel is > like arguing religion, there is simply no way to reach > a firm mutually agreeable conclusion. But it is still > a fun discussion. > > Time Happened Once = Bliss > Time Happened Twice = Misery > I understand how this is not to be viewed as a loop but that still does not get me to bliss, I am forever mired in misery when I read this section of the story. Here's the problem. We are coming up to the point where Harry is about to get his first kiss (yuck! but that's right isn't it?). Because time travel exists in the Potterverse and conforms to the self-consistent, recursive causality model, a future Harry Potter either will come back and save the day or Harry's life will essentially be over, he will be a soulless hulk until the death of his physical body. The decision has to be made right now, not some time later by Dumbledore or Hermione in the hospital wing. Who or what decides or even causes the decision to be made? I don't think there is an answer. Recursive causality is a mumbo-jumbo answer, it is absurd. Harry's survival of this near kiss experience is unexplained, unexplainable, and therefore unsatisfying. The time travel mechanism Rowling employs does tell me HOW Harry was saved, it fails to tell me WHY Harry was saved. Harry saving himself by means of time travel is exactly as unsatisfying to me as if she had said "and then a miracle occurred and all the Dementors ran away for no reason that anyone could ever explain". Ken From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 13 02:43:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:43:27 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167455 > Nikkalmati > > Personally I hope Time turning does not return in book 7, it makes my head ache! If he had waited a moment longer, he would have been killed. Was that a possibility in the world JKR has created? It looks like it was a possibility to me. I assume his future would have been wiped out and a new time-line created from that moment forward, one in which LV may succeed. Pippin: Maybe at that point Harry#2 would have been trapped in a recursive traveling loop like the hummingbird or the cabinet of Time Turners at the MoM, as the magic of the TimeTurner continued to move him forward seeking a universe where no paradox existed. The key for me is Dumbledore's statement, "You must not be seen." No paradox can exist until it has been observed. Since nobody saw Harry get his soul sucked out by dementors and then return to save himself, it can't have happened. Until Harry#2 returned to save himself and collapse the probabilities, perhaps we observers outside the Potterverse have to consider that Harry#1 was in an indeterminate state, like Schroedinger's famous cat. Pippin who suspects that the baddies will try to mess with time in Book Seven From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 13 02:47:02 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:47:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461EEF26.2090903@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167456 justcarol67 wrote: > Carol, wondering if Bart might be confused by the medium that must not > be named, in which it does seem as if Black, at least, was soul-sucked > and got his soul back (which does not happen in the book) Bart: I made it as clear as I possibly could in a later post, but the point is that, although for everybody else, there is a loopback, for Harry, time is linear. His future self cannot come back unless he manages to survive WITHOUT his future self's help, first. Bart From random832 at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 03:11:51 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:11:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704122011l67fa7a29l4aca6cb7299493f0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167457 On 12 Apr 2007 19:42:41 -0700, Ken Hutchinson wrote: > Here's the problem. We are coming up to the point where > Harry is about to get his first kiss (yuck! but that's right > isn't it?). Because time travel exists in the Potterverse and > conforms to the self-consistent, recursive causality model, > a future Harry Potter either will come back and save the > day or Harry's life will essentially be over, he will be > a soulless hulk until the death of his physical body. > The decision has to be made right now, not some time > later by Dumbledore or Hermione in the hospital wing. > Who or what decides or even causes the decision to be > made? I don't think there is an answer. Recursive > causality is a mumbo-jumbo answer, it is absurd. I had an epiphany as to this very issue after writing my previous post. Now, ordinarily, the choice between two possible chains of events here is simply random, down to probability and quantum mechanics. Why choose one vs the other? Well, it's random. But if one has greater probability than the other, it is more likely to happen. Now, the Novikov self-consistency principle states that a chain of events that would lead to an inconsistency automatically has a probability of zero. From here an argument can be constructed. His falling to the dementors' kiss would have led to Hermione or Dumbledore or someone going back in time to try to save him, a move which would almost inevitably lead to an inconsistency. This tends to shove the probability of his demise down and make his saving himself the only possible outcome (other than the usual suspects like "earth spontaneously winks out of existence", etc lurking in the extreme-improbability background) From juli17 at aol.com Fri Apr 13 03:28:04 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:28:04 EDT Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167458 From: Zara Here is the order of events as I see it: > >5) Harry and Hermoine go back in time. > This occurs at roughly the same time as H&H leave the castle > for Hagrid's. We can deduce this both because they almost > certainly hear themselves in the hallway. Also because they > rescue Bucky before the axe falls. >6, 10) H&H save Buckbeak. (Why twice? We were only shown it once.) >1) Harry hears the axe fall. >2) Shrieking Shack incident. >3) Harry and Sirius meet the Dementors. >4) (deleted nonexistent event - please cite canon this happened, if I >am mistaken. You are *assuming* this, I believe. The assumption that >Harry was saved by himself is at least as correct as yours, we have >canon of Harry doing it.) >11), 7) Harry saves himself. (This only happens once, again). >12, 8) H&H save Sirius. (Again, only happens once). >13) Time marches on (If you insist; it always does). Bart: Here is the flaw: According to canon, Harry goes back in time AFTER he is saved from the Dementors. Except that it is an older Harry who saves a younger Harry. But, if older Harry is not around, then, if you assume nothing else, then younger Harry is pretty much dead, and there IS no older Harry to go back in time. So, the story conflicts with itself. Or, there's another part that is not told; younger Harry surviving, then going back into time, and saving his younger self, who, when he goes back in time, has slightly (but significantly) different memories. Let me put it another way: we will measure time by letters. The older Harry gets, the higher the letter in the alphabet attached to his name becomes. 1) Harry-a hears the axe fall (while Harry-f saves Buckbeak) 2) Harry-b is in Shrieking Shack scene 3) Harry-c meets Demontors. 4) Harry-d and Sirius are saved by Harry-g 5) Sirius and Buckbeak escape with the help of Harry-h 6) Harry-e goes back in time. 7) Harry-i continues on. But let's look at it from Harry's point of view: a) Harry hears the axe fall. b) Harry is in the shrieking shack scene c) Harry meets dementors. d) Harry and Sirius are saved from the dementors (Harry catches glimpse of his savior) e) Harry goes back in time f) Harry saves Buckbeak g) Harry saves Harry and Sirius from the dementors. h) Harry helps Sirius and Buckbeak escape. i) Harry continues on. Note that in Harry's line, if Harry-d does not survive the dementors without Harry-g's help, then Harry-e never goes back in time. Therefore, either Harry is NOT saved, and the whole thing doesn't happen, OR, there is an event that is wiped out in the process of making the loop that does not change the fact that Harry-e goes back in time. Now, since Harry has a memory of seeing SOMEONE saving him, that kind of narrows it down to two possibilities: Either the dementors would not have endangered Harry and Sirius if it weren't for Harry-g, or somehow they got saved by some other factor the first time around. Julie now: IMO the problem with your analysis is that you are looking at time LINEARLY. Harry-d must go through those three hours linearly to become Harry-g so Harry-g can go "back" and save Harry-d. But according to physics time is not linear. We only see it that way from our flawed and subjective perspective. In the most esoteric sense, there is no "before" or "earlier" Harry (Harry-d) nor does Harry-g really come "after" or "later" than Harry-d. They are both present at this same "point" in time simultaneously. I know that is confusing, and the human brain isn't supposed to understand it, as we can't experience time any way except linearly. And since I get most of my physics from books like Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" and Discover magazine, I'm not really able to make it more comprehensible! One just has to accept that time in fact isn't linear, that it can fold in on itself, and that past, present and future are constructs of the human mind rather than an objective characterization of Time. As for whether time travel is possible, it certain isn't conceivable to our human minds right now. I can accept that it might be conceivable and even doable to human (or whatever comes beyond human) minds of the future. And if it does become in some way possible, I do think JKR's version--that time isn't linear, but there is only one Time (past, present and future mixing in whatever "order" we still can't perceive--i.e. Time only happens once) makes more sense than multiple timelines branching off in a linear fashion (because Time ISN"T linear!), creating new universes each time a "time traveler" changes something in the past. At any rate, time travel is so incomprehensible to our minds at this point that that it isn't really distinguishable from magic, so I can't say it really bothers me at all to find it in novels that are specifically *about* magic! Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 13 03:50:11 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:50:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning References: Message-ID: <00c501c77d7e$d7d72160$309e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167459 Carol: > I realize that the chapter title, "The Dementor's Kiss," is > misleading, but the kiss doesn't happen, or Harry would have been in > the same state as Barty Crouch Jr. Instead, he merely feels cold, > hears screams, feels the dementor's putrid breath on his face, and > thinks he's going to die, sees a bright light, watches the dementors > retreat, sees the Patronus returning to someone, and faints. The first > two steps in this process, and the faintness, exactly match every one > of his other encounters with Dementors, even Boggart Dementors. The > Dementor gets close, very close, but it never actually administers the > kiss, either to him or to Black. *There is no alternate reality in > which Harry is soul-sucked, no reversal of that state. It never happened.* > > Carol, wondering if Bart might be confused by the medium that must not > be named, in which it does seem as if Black, at least, was soul-sucked > and got his soul back (which does not happen in the book) Magpie: I suspect Bart is looking at it more like I am. Perhaps it might be a good idea to stop discussing Harry's danger in PoA and instead look at another scene where someone is in danger of dying: Sirius' fall through the veil in OotP (to compare it). Why can't Sirius save himself from Bellatrix the way Harry saved himself from the Dementor? Harry saved himself by, three hours later, going back three hours and zapping the Dementor. The MoM has lots of Time Turners. Imagine one of them wasn't destroyed. There's one lying right there near Sirius. Can't he go back and save himself? After all, isn't he in exactly the same position that Harry was in? He's got something deadly confronting him, he's about to die by falling through the veil. He's got a Time Turner. So why can't his future self to save himself just like Harry's does? The most obvious answer is--because he's dead. He doesn't exist an hour later. In order to go back in time he has to live into the future and then travel backwards through time he's experienced once. He can't do that if he's dead, so he must not have died. That's what happened to Harry--he didn't die; he lived into the future. Only when we ask why he didn't die it's because...his future self saved him. How does that work? He can't save himself unless he's alive to save himself, and he can't be alive to save himself unless he saves himself. Julie: I know that is confusing, and the human brain isn't supposed to understand it, as we can't experience time any way except linearly. And since I get most of my physics from books like Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" and Discover magazine, I'm not really able to make it more comprehensible! One just has to accept that time in fact isn't linear, that it can fold in on itself, and that past, present and future are constructs of the human mind rather than an objective characterization of Time. Magpie: I've tried to make it work based on my own similar readings (remembering that I am probably barely understanding the stuff I've read), but still come back to the fact that Harry, being human, is experiencing time linearly, just as we do, making decisions on the linear cause and effect. The plot absolutely depends on Time being linear--if it's not nothing really means anything in the story. Even this incident is basically keeping time linear, except for one loop in the line. We're supposed to be able to follow it. (And of course we can follow it--the plot makes sense.) I have a feeling the kind of Time Travel that Harry is doing is impossible by scientific standards anyway, and probably brings up its own set of problems. I actually think the best way to understand the Time Turner is similar to a Pensieve. It doesn't hold up to all kinds of scrutiny. It's more the realization of thoughts most people have when they're young that say "Wouldn't it be great if..." Such as: I have a memory. I wish I could share it with you perfectly. It's almost like a movie in my head. Wouldn't it be great if I could show you the movie in my head, so that "memory" was a physical thing I could take out on its own and show you? And if you imagine "living" my memory you'd be like another person there and you could walk around. Or in this case: That's a terrible thing that happened. I wish we could have been there to stop it. Wouldn't it be great if we could turn back the clock three hours and then it would really be three hours ago only we'd know what was going to happen so we could fix it. I guess then there'd be, like, two of us, cause I was already there once. It's kind of very logical and very illogical at the same time. -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 03:52:21 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:52:21 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167460 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin > who suspects that the baddies will try to mess with time > in Book Seven > JW: DD had a TT watch. What happened to it? And Ron received a gift of a mysterious watch... I suspect that the good guys will traipse around the fourth dimension. Someone (good guy? bad guy? both?) will go back to GH to impact the fatal night. If so, that person's interference will explain a lot - he/she/they will cause the events that the WW had perceived 16 years before, but now we will get the "behind the scenes" story. DD might well do some (have done some?) time travel to advance the plot of DH despite his tumble off the tower in HBP. Perhaps this will explain his disappearences during HBP. From kernsac at earthlink.net Fri Apr 13 04:29:13 2007 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:29:13 -0700 Subject: Where was Hagrid? Message-ID: <00f501c77d84$4a96cb60$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 167461 Hi, all. Here's something I've often wondered about: In POA, at the Christmas dinner, Hagrid wasn't around. Nothing is said about why he wasn't there, and nobody seems to miss him. I wonder if this is an oversight on JKR's part, or if it's significant? Thoughts? Peggy http://kernsac.livejournal.com/ From kernsac at earthlink.net Fri Apr 13 04:33:57 2007 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:33:57 -0700 Subject: Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA Message-ID: <00f901c77d84$f4279ba0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 167462 Hi, all. I'm rereading Order of the Phoenix, and noticed something that doesn't seem logical to me. After the first DA meeting, when they left the Room of Requirement, it's mentioned that the door turns back into part of the wall when they leave. But after they've been warned by Dobby and they all run out of the room, the door is obviously still there, because Pansy goes in and finds the list of DA members. Why didn't the door disappear when they left this time? Also, if Cho's friend was off telling Umbridge about the group, didn't they realize she was missing and wonder why? She obviously couldn't have been at the meeting with "sneak" written on her face. Any ideas? Peggy http://kernsac.livejournal.com/ From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 04:38:25 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:38:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's With All The Bloodlust? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0704122138l7a374ec3ma1768c3c09f566ae@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167463 Eggplant: If Harry lives happily ever after you'll smile as you read the last page of the last book, but 48 hours later Harry will be completely out of your thoughts. Lynda: Absolutely, Positively untrue! I'll happily reread all the HP books many times over. Along with LOTR, the Narnia Books, the Deryni Books, along with many others not all of them fantasy. And I don't imagine I'm the only one... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Apr 13 04:49:28 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:49:28 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <00c501c77d7e$d7d72160$309e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167464 Magpie: > So why can't his future self to save himself just like Harry's > does? The most obvious answer is--because he's dead. He doesn't > exist an hour later. In order to go back in time he has to live > into the future and then travel backwards through time he's > experienced once. He can't do that if he's dead, so he must not > have died. That's what happened to Harry--he didn't die; he lived > into the future. Only when we ask why he didn't die it's > because...his future self saved him. How does that work? He can't > save himself unless he's alive to save himself, and he can't be > alive to save himself unless he saves himself. Julie: > I know that is confusing, and the human brain isn't supposed to > understand it, as we can't experience time any way except linearly. > And since I get most of my physics from books like Stephen > Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" and Discover magazine, I'm not > really able to make it more comprehensible! One just has to accept > that time in fact isn't linear, that it can fold in on itself, and > that past, present and future are constructs of the human mind > rather than an objective characterization of Time. Dana Now: No time isn't linear, time is relative; which means that every human being experiences time differently even when experienced at the same time. One hour to me can feel like 10 minutes while that same hour feels like eternity to someone else, just because we have a clock to tell us my 10 minutes was actually an hour does not mean it therefore was. It is just a human made law of what is perceived as time. To me there is totally no problem with the PoA story line because what Harry is experiencing the first time is both the first time and the second time rolled into one; meaning the end time. When Harry goes back in time and safes his past self the memory of Harry one and his perceptions of events are replaced by the end time and therefore he can only remember what has taken place when time 1 + time 2 fuse together and become the end time. It is irrelevant if Harry could have saved his past self or not. But if you want to be picky then the first dementor scene in OotP can give a very good explanation of what happened the first time without any inconstancies, Harry1 did conjure the patronus himself just as he did when he was about to be soul sucked in OotP. And when Harry2 did it the second time there was no need for Harry1 to do it and the memory is filled in with him seeing himself on the other side of the bank. The two times fuse as the end time but he actually did conjure the patronus at both times and therefore it was Harry and only Harry that saved himself and Sirius. The time travel story line was not about Harry saving himself and Sirius from the dementors but about setting Sirius free after he was taken to the castle. If Harry 2 had only traveled back in time to the moment of Snape bringing everyone to the castle then nothing would have changed about how Harry safed himself from the dementors, he only wouldn't have seen himself on the other side of the bank and he still would have conjured the patronus himself but Harry2 just changed the events by casting it first. There is no inconsistency at all, just human perception of what time is and how memories are made within that time frame. The end time replaces all memories of the first + the second and they become the end time even for the time traveler. Harry 1 only remembers his second self conjuring the patronus and so does Harry2 for the simple fact that Harry2 cast it first in the end time making it unnecessary for Harry1 to cast it and why the memory of it is no longer there. In the end time it didn't happen. Sirius (in OotP) could have saved himself only if he saved himself the first time but he doesn't, it is therefore irrelevant to compare these events. JMHO Dana From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 05:07:03 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:07:03 -0000 Subject: Tobias & The Angel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167465 zgirnius, embarking on post #5 for today... > Betsy Hp: > If Snape reported the prophecy to Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders it would mean that (a) Snape would have no reason to feel any remorse, and (b) Harry will end the series hating Albus Dumbledore. (It would mean a bit more than just that actually, but I think those two are enough to be going on with. ) zgirnius: I'm not a huge fan of the theory for the reasons I have stated. However, as DD said to Harry, Snape had no idea when he reported the prophecy who the nameless faceless kid and parents would be. He still bears responsibility for following the order, surely? Also, in the more usual DDM! theories - what do you expect Harry to make of Snape by the end of DH? I expect Snape to be forgiven by Harry, personally. The power of love, etc. There is of course the issue that Snape truly regrets his action in reporting the prophecy, and has/might still do things to atone which might smooth his path. On the other hand, if this theory is true, quite possibly all of the above is true of Dumbledore as well. His anguished words in the Cave could well express his feelings regarding the Potters, and his decision to die on the Tower could be his final act of atonement. If Harry can forgive Snape for these reasons, I don't see why he cannot forgive Dumbledore. > BetsyHP: > An emotional boy who wore his heart on his sleeve, and who therefore made a horrible mistake. A mistake he's spending the rest of his life trying to amend. *That's* a character and a story-line I can get behind. zgirnius: No question about the aesthetic preference re. Snape, here, I agree. However, you get a story you have not been expecting about Dumbledore in exchange. The cold, calculating chessmaster of the good guys, forgetting for a moment what it is that makes his side good, then coming to love, and eventually die for, the boy he helped to orphan. (Though, like I suppose Snape did, DUmbledore also tried to protect the Potters. He offered to be their Secret Keeper, for example). > wynnleaf: > I realize that Dumbledore somehow got Snape > to not reveal the secret while in school, and after Snape started > working as Dumbledore's spy, he'd need to watch out about keeping > Dumbledore's trust. But what about in between? Why not reveal > Lupin's secret? zgirnius: If Dumbledore was clever enough to get Snape to agree to keep Lupin's secret (rather than resorting to threats), I would expect Snape to keep it. He seems to follow some sort of code of honor. I don't think he would go back on his word lightgly. > Goddlefrood: > Firstly let me emphasise, this is not the Snape I favour. On this point above I would simply enquire: "Do you honestly believe DD's story, as *inferred* by Harry, on his reason for trusting Severus?" zgirnius: My answer is no, but Harry was obviously wrong based on things he himself knew. The remorse, if Dumbledore was not just giving a cover story, is something that happened before the Potters died. (As per Dumbledore's GoF Pensieve testimony). So the reason for trust would be first of all, that simply by admitting to what he had done and why it upset him, Snape was giving Dumbledore secret Death Eater information, and if Snape was at this point recruited as a spy by Dumbledore, he may have given useful and seemingly loyal service for quite some time in the first war. Both of these seem a reasonable starting point for trust. > Goddlefrood: > Severus does not come across as a man who feels remorse, it seemed more like a cooked up story to me :) zgirnius: Do you have an explanation for the scene in "Flight of the Prince" in which Snape is described as being in pain like the dog trapped in the burning house consistent with the Angel theory? That always looked like remorse to me. There's at least one other scene I would point to, but that one seems least ambiguous. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 06:01:28 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:01:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing/ JKR originality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0704122301h7a54e801i65cab7876880542a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167466 Magpie: So why are you claiming to disagree? You just said she's built her world with elements that are found frequently in legends, myths and children's stories, that she has followed the conventions of different genres--that'different genres--that's exactly what I s were so alien they couldn't be categorized and that's just plain silly, imo. It's not a choice between JKR not being original, creative or unique at all and JKR being so totally original she can't be spoken of as connected to any genre, tradition or recognizable style at all. You yourself just explained it Lynda: And explained it very well, too. As for originality, a case in point could be made for the way she uses perceptions. For instance, a pig flies in the HP books Pigwidgeon the owl. And then, there's the thing she does with names. Yes, other authors do similar things, but JKR has her own special take on this idea. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 07:28:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:28:33 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167467 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > Yes, technically there is a loop or loop-ish events > > since the did go BACK in time. But in linear time, > > they arrived at 6:00pm and they were always there. > > > > ... > > > > As I said in a previous post, arguing time travel is > > like arguing religion, there is simply no way to reach > > a firm mutually agreeable conclusion. But it is still > > a fun discussion. > > > > Time Happened Once = Bliss > > Time Happened Twice = Misery > > > Ken: > > ... > > ... We are coming up to the point where Harry is about > to get his first kiss .... Because time travel exists > in the Potterverse and conforms to the self-consistent > ... model, a future Harry Potter either will come back > and save the day or Harry's life will essentially be > over, ... The decision has to be made right now, not > some time later by Dumbledore or Hermione in the > hospital wing. Who or what decides or even causes the > decision to be made? I don't think there is an answer > .... > bboyminn: To your last point, you are totally right, there is no answer, at least not one that doesn't have some degree of inconsistency in it because that is the nature of ALL time travel, and here is why. In forward-moving-ONLY time, we have a Cause and Effect relationship. Something precipitates an event, then the event occurs. Part of your problem, in the example you give above, is that you are neither starting with the Cause nor the Effect, you are starting in the middle, and that is not the place to start. Because some aspect of time, or people in time, has moved backwards, we have Effect followed by Cause, and that is the great paradox of time travel. The Effect is Harry and Hermione arriving in the time line at 6:00pm. The Cause is them initiating time travel at 9:00pm later that evening. To the linear time line, the Cause is not as important as the Effect of them arriving at 6:00pm. By arriving at 6:00pm, they are there to witness and take part in the events as a second set of themselves. Like I said, one set of time with TWO Harrys and TWO Hermiones in it. Now, if you are looking for a way for this to make absolute sense, then I'm here to tell you it will never happen. Time Travel, under any circumstances, by any author, in any framework, using any time-travel model, doesn't make sense if you examine the logic outside the confines and parameters set within the story. It makes for great fantasy if you suspend a degree of disbelief, but it will never ever hold up to detailed investigation; never. Now perhaps I misspoke myself earlier when I equated 'Time Happens One' to 'Bliss'. It is not bliss to ponder this, it is a great big headache, so I now amend what I previously said - Time Happens Once = a big headache. Time Happens Twice = A headache so big no mortal can stand it. This is all quite understandable and consistent within the story as told, if you simply start at the beginning of time relative to this event. At 5:59pm the Trio rush into the Hall and hide in a closet. At 6:00pm TT!Harry and TT!Hermione arrive in the Hall and hide in another closet. The /clue/ JKR left to tell us that all five of them were always there is that the Trio hear TT!Duo moving around the Hall and hiding. The TT!Duo then hear the Trio leave to go down to Hagrid's hut. They heard each other, only we don't know that is what they heard until we see the event the second time and put the pieces together. There is no one for the Trio to hear if the TT!Duo are not there. Though I admit many fans never put those pieces together. Start at the beginning of time with the Effect, and Harry and Hermione will arrive at 6:00pm, follow the events through and at around 8:30, the second Harry saves the first Harry, then finally, the Cause, at about 9:00pm Harry and Hermione go back in time to take care of business. At about 9:01pm they return having taken care of all necessary business; mission accomplished. To view this any other way is to invite unnecessary and unresolvable misery. To accept this view, is to still be miserable, but at least resolvably miserable to the extent that any time travel story can be resolved. So- Time Happen Once = Misery, but resolvable misery. Time Happen Twice = guaranteed absolute unresolvable agonizing unrelenting misery. Once again, take your pick. Steve/bboyminn - who both loves and hates discussing time travel, which is itself a paradox. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 08:43:38 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:43:38 -0000 Subject: Tobias & The Angel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167468 > > Goddlefrood: > > Severus does not come across as a man who feels remorse, it seemed more like a cooked up story to me :) > zgirnius: > Do you have an explanation for the scene in "Flight of the Prince" in which Snape is described as being in pain like the dog trapped in the burning house consistent with the Angel theory? Goddlefrood: First, I'll insert the relevant portion: '"DON'T -" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them, "- CALL ME A COWARD!"' p. 564 - Bloomsbury Hardback Edition If it is accepted that Severus is DDM, which, in case anyone has not got this, I do not agree with, then this scene is relatively easy to reconcile with Snape not being overtly remorseful. Severus has, moments before, killed the man he had been working for, by my calculation of when Snape could have become DDM, for a little over 20 years by this point. He had taken many risks on his own account and on account of the Order with little if any praise whatsoever from other Order members, excluding the DD brothers. I say this because of my earlier statement that if Snape is to be DDM from the point of the aftermath of the prank, as I theorise, then Aberforth will be our informant. Severus, in his own mind, has done the single most courageous act of his life by killing Dumbledore, his friend and mentor. Perhaps the only man who had ever understood him as deeply as he himself did and does. Snape is now behind enemy lines, from his perspective, and he has never been one to take criticism easily, especially from the son of a man he hated. Severus has never shown any great fondness for Harry either, and, therefore, to be called a coward by this pestilential little blit would cause him considerable anger. It does not equate to remorse particularly, and I believe the foregoing is adequate explanation :). IOW not so very different from his expressions as noted in The Shrieking Shack back in PoA, and indeed his method of address during the course of the conversation between he and his old friends Sirius, Remus and HRH ;) Will this do? Goddlefrood From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 09:43:29 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:43:29 -0000 Subject: Where was Hagrid? In-Reply-To: <00f501c77d84$4a96cb60$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167469 > Peggy > Here's something I've often wondered about: In POA, at the Christmas dinner, Hagrid wasn't around. Nothing is said about why he wasn't there, and nobody seems to miss him. I wonder if this is an oversight on JKR's part, or if it's significant? Thoughts? Goddlefrood: It seems probable that Hagrid was not in a festive mood. He was mostly brooding over Buckbeak at that time and was not very good or cheerful company for anyone throughout the larger part of PoA as a result :( I don't think there was anything more sinister than that in it. Others may hold different views ;) Goddlefrood From dama.silmariel at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 11:16:09 2007 From: dama.silmariel at gmail.com (silmariel) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:16:09 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning/DH cover Message-ID: <56f2b65c0704130416uaec3014u27a3759dc75754ea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167470 On 13 Apr 2007 00:29:34 -0700, Steve wrote: > > > > > > > > Now perhaps I misspoke myself earlier when I equated > 'Time Happens One' to 'Bliss'. It is not bliss to > ponder this, it is a great big headache, so I now > amend what I previously said - > > Time Happens Once = a big headache. > > Time Happens Twice = A headache so big no mortal can > stand it. Silmariel: Lol. Time Happens Once = problem I have with this way of seeing it, is that requires me to think that a harry that had still not traveled in time and was about to be dead, somehow, I mean, because the author decides so, is alive. And I don't get why Hermione tells the bit about wizards going back in time and killing themselves: if time travel only can happen if it has already happened, there's no reason to worry, those wizards *had* to travel because the timeline can't change, so is fine. Time Happens Twice = not so much a headache, I only have to construct a sequence of events or changes in the timeline that get me finally to the events in the book. Not a new idea, I posted this a few years ago. My version of the lake scene is that Snape was not unconscious, and only had to wait for Harry to be distracted enough. As it reaches a point where Harry barely sees anything, he could have not notice. Snape saves Harry, H/H go to castle, there's still Sirius to be rescued, DD sends them and in the process Harry ends saving himself, maybe because he refuses to believe/accept that Snape has saved him. When I posted this Snape had not the reputation as superwizard that has know, and we didn't know he used a different method to handle dementors. Pick your own, really. If the jumps of faith time happening once requires don't bother you, it's an easier explanation. I prefer twice or trice. About the US DH cover, I really don't see the scar. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/gallery/picture/129927 (click to enlarge) Where is supposed to be? I have tried to imagine it beneath the hair, but it doesn't work. Though the absence is quite usual, if the DH are the lands behind the veil, scars dissapear, heals wound, and that doesn't happen to Voldie because it's his soul what is corrupted, not only his body. Silmariel From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 12:55:19 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:55:19 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167471 > jceltchic: > > I agree here with Bart ... there is something that has yet to be > revealed about Petunia. After all, what was her motivation to make an > agreement with Dumbledore. Why would she take "magic" in to her house > .. . What did she fear if she didn't? Let's just say it ... what is > Petunia hiding??? Finwitch: Indeed - very interesting. She took Harry in then - when he was so *very* young child. What ever else, NOT doing so would be criminal. (and not "normal" either). AND the neighbours would notice a crying child on a known housewife's doorstep... that could explain why she took him. She does have deeper motivation though - WHY did she argue the *year* when Harry would be grown enough to be on his own? Sure, that 'boy must stay' could be partly knowing the truth about the Dementor-incident (like a squib, she'd not SEE a Dementor, but she'd know the symptoms (and a Patronus for what it is, I think). And partly, that of Dumbledore's LAST letter to her (alone). I suppose Dumbledore told her about Sirius and Harry's Patronus in one of those letters (which Vernon did NOT know, obviously). BTW, do you think Petunia might get something like magical Mess- remover from Dumbledore? Or at least Dragon-blood to clean her oven with? All the references to her *spotless* house/spoiled Dudley eating in front of TV, hitting Harry (who must have *bled* a bit for it and blood *does* leave a stain...) - and certainly NOT bothering to wipe his shoes or step on newspapers... (Vernon might, Dudley wouldn't even THINK of it). Of course, she'll only get it while Harry stays in the house. Finwitch From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 13:51:57 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:51:57 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167472 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > So SSSusan suggests: > Well then, by golly, we MUST go back a step further, I say! The > blame *clearly* lies with Mr. & Mrs. Dumbledore. If they'd stopped > with Aberforth, never *had* Albus, then there would never have been > a DD to ignore Snape and Bella, to have hired Hagrid, to have > allowed him to have thestrals and to retrieve Grawpie, who > proceeded to bleed all over after those centaurs that Albus > obviously allowed to remain in the forest. > > Yes, I say it's all Mr. & Mrs. Dumbledore's fault! Well, that's fine with me. DD really IS such a contemptible and incompetent idiot at times, and does have such a high tolerance for Harry in particular being abused, that another Headmaster would have been hard put to have messed things up any worse. Even Voldums could have been trusted to be more consistent and believable to character. But, to get to the heart of the matter, how do you draw chains of causation? If the history of Snape and the Marauders is in some way a prime causal factor in present events, how can Dumbledore NOT in some way be blamed? Or is there a statute of limitations on causation, that things can be traced back only X number of steps and not any more? Legally there are various mechanisms. One could argue, for instance, that "causation" requires results to be foreseeable in order for blame to accrue. But that gives people too easy of an out, as they can always claim "But I couldn't have KNOWN X would happen!" It also ignores a very important point made in the movie "V" (one of the few good points in the whole wretched thing) where "V" tells someone "This isn't about what you meant to do. It's about what you did." On the other hand, its true that after a while chains of causation get rather silly and unsupportable, at least in the moral sense. That is the fatal weakness of utilitarian thinking -- if you press it even moderately hard, everything ends up fraught with deep moral consequence, including how you tie your shoe-laces on a given morning. JKR isn't very consistent or clear about this, as with so much else. My sense is she doesn't want blame traced to DD, not because of any deep thinking about the morality involved, which would be refreshing when it comes to DD, but largely for the arbitrary reason that she wants his character viewed in a particular way, thank you very much. Similarly, she short circuits the "causation" of Voldie's evil with another arbitrary device -- the kid was flawed and evil from birth, product of a poisoned bloodline and therefore something akin to a living cancer or a sentient tornado, an evil in and of himself but not something whose origin can be linked in any real way to moral actions on someone else's part. So, was Snape in part responsible for what happened to Sirius? Sure he was, as was Dumbledore (self-admittedly, in this case). DD tries to short circuit causation in this instance by taking it all on himself, but I'm not really sure that move is any more legitimate than any of the others. And I think that JKR in her heart knows it's a weak move -- hence the failure of Harry, inexplicably, to press the issue. Lupinlore From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 14:14:57 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:14:57 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167473 Ken: > Harry's survival of this near kiss experience is unexplained, > unexplainable, and therefore unsatisfying. The time travel > mechanism Rowling employs does tell me HOW Harry was > saved, it fails to tell me WHY Harry was saved. Harry saving > himself by means of time travel is exactly as unsatisfying > to me as if she had said "and then a miracle occurred and > all the Dementors ran away for no reason that anyone could > ever explain". Finwitch: Decicion 1: Hermione signed up for all classes. Result: Time-turner comes to her posession. (so NOT exactly deus-ex-machina, Ron&Harry knew all along Hermione *somehow* took 3 classes at once). Another, very specific time-related event: Divination/Prophecy. It was, I believe, briefly before TT!Harry&Hermione appear. Harry 'divined' with the crystal ball a free, flying Buckbeak (despite of Trelawney telling him it wasn't LIKELY to happen). Next, Trelawney is in trance, prophecying PP's escape. (A decision made by Harry in SS (life) and later TT-way by Hermione. (don't interfere, we musn't change the past...)) I think that a *true* prophecy (as rare as they are), is the sort *Result* first, *Reason* later. (that's why logical Hermione couldn't stand divination ;-). Normally you can't make an absolute true prophecy - much like Muggle quantum physics principle of uncertainty - exactness in one aspect lessens it in others. (Which is, more or less, a point Firenze tried to get across). Like Trelawney's favourites: you die. She never did say when, where or how that certainty would happen, did she? (apart from 'ripe old age with 12 children' after Harry's interview in the Quibbler. If, say, Harry would die 700 years after, of old age, it would not change the *Certainty* of his death. (and that's certain because Harry would NEVER do something so disgusting as a horcrux/drink unicorn blood - or even make a philosopher's stone after the trouble Nicolas' version got him to... no, Harry will stay human and mortal until he dies...) Her other predictions: "Beware of the redhaired man" - Did she mean Percy the HeadBoy/Ministry official possibly spotting her doing something not really allowed? Or Ron's request giving bad dates for both her and her twin? Finwitch From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 14:08:24 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:08:24 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167474 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > I don't get that same sense from JKR. It's not that JKR has chosen > not to show stairs for an aesthetic reason or in an attempt to > examine or push reader expectations. I think it's more that she just > forgot that there needed to be link between two floors. Or maybe > didn't realize she was building a two story house. > Well, I guess some would say that she's operating on some sort of deep subconcious or alchemical plane in which the melding of the text with the processes of our minds draw forth deep insights and conclusions just as the mysterious workings of the philosopher's stone transmutes lead into gold. Out of the seeming incompatibility with logical minds and symbolic text comes something transcendant speaking to eternal processes of growth, transformation, and spiritual evolution. Then again, maybe she's just not very good at certain things. Consistency and believability of world and character are at the top of the "needs improvement" list. I don't actually think it's JUST a matter of there not being stairs or JKR forgetting there is a second story, although I hasten to say that a lot of times I think she DOES forget and a lot of times I think there really AREN'T stairs. Sometimes, however, particularly with regard to character motivation, I think the stairs are there and the second story is there, but she forgets that WE can't see the stairs. After all, she has lived with some of these characters in her head for, oh, close on 16 years now. The reasons for there actions, the meanings behind there words, the stories freighted in their crypticism and ellipses, are perfectly clear to her. She often forgets that they are most certainly NOT perfectly clear to anybody else. Often when a mystery arises it isn't that JKR is being clever or mysterious or conducting an alchemical experiment or laying the groundwork of plot or anything else, its that she honestly thinks she's "dropping anvil sized hints" and just doesn't understand why they seem to be bouncing off everyone's umbrellas. Lupinlore From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 13 14:27:08 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:27:08 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167475 So SSSusan suggested: > > Yes, I say it's all Mr. & Mrs. Dumbledore's fault! Lupinlore: > Well, that's fine with me. DD really IS such a contemptible and > incompetent idiot at times, and does have such a high tolerance for > Harry in particular being abused, that another Headmaster would have > been hard put to have messed things up any worse. Even Voldums > could have been trusted to be more consistent and believable to > character. SSSusan: Erm... in your *opinion,* of course. Lupinlore: > But, to get to the heart of the matter, how do you draw chains of > causation? If the history of Snape and the Marauders is in some > way a prime causal factor in present events, how can Dumbledore NOT > in some way be blamed? Or is there a statute of limitations on > causation, that things can be traced back only X number of steps > and not any more? > On the other hand, its true that after a while chains of causation > get rather silly and unsupportable, at least in the moral sense. SSSusan: Well, yeah. That was rather our point, I do believe -- it was a joke. Poking a little fun at those who perhaps take the chain of causation a wee bit too seriously in some people's opinions. :) I mean, it's rather like the old "For lack of a nail, a kingdom was lost," no? While that chain is TRUE, it does get a little silly at some point. So where *is* it "okay" or "right" to stop in that chain? We each make our own judgments on that; there is no universal "right" place. Personally, I liked Kathy's pointing to Grawp. Heh. Siriusly Snapey Susan From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 13 14:49:41 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:49:41 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167476 Dana: > Sirius (in OotP) could have saved himself only if he saved himself > the first time but he doesn't, it is therefore irrelevant to compare > these events. JMHO Magpie: But I don't think it's irrelevent given the context I brought that up, which was in response to the opposite of what you're explaining here. Others are claiming that Harry was saved him his future self, period. You seem to be saying that time did indeed happen twice, and that the first time Harry #1 did save himself. Iow, he didn't really need his future self to save him, he only remembers being saved by his future self because the two times melded and he therefore forgot the version where it was not his future self that saved him. But either way you're creating a solution where Harry #1 did something to save himself that did not involve Harry #2 so that he could be alive to become Harry #2. When you say Sirius "didn't save himself" you are saying that, just as we see, Sirius #1 didn't save himself. Only if Sirius #1 saved himself on his own could there have been a Sirius #2 to come back in time and save him a different way. You are choosing "Time happened twice but we only remember it once" and not "Time happened once." Harry may only remember Time happening once, but it happened twice. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 13 14:51:45 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:51:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning Message-ID: <19916158.1176475905605.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167477 From: juli17 at aol.com Julie now: >IMO the problem with your analysis is that you are looking at time LINEARLY. Bart: No, I am looking at Harry-time linearly, and real-time recursively. Of course, in the Potterverse, there may be total predestination, where all events are happening simultaneously and time and free will are both illusions. Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 15:20:00 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:20:00 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <00c501c77d7e$d7d72160$309e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167478 > Magpie: > I suspect Bart is looking at it more like I am. Perhaps it might be a good > idea to stop discussing Harry's danger in PoA and instead look at another > scene where someone is in danger of dying: Sirius' fall through the veil in > OotP (to compare it). Why can't Sirius save himself from Bellatrix the way > Harry saved himself from the Dementor? zgirnius: As I understand Potterverse time-travel, Sirius cannot save himself, because the past *only happens once*. As OotP was written, we were told by the narrator that a certain specific event *happened*, namely, Sirius fell behind the Veil. An event that really happened, is written in stone. Nothing can change it. It is a fact. The situation is different in PoA, because Harry did not die or become a soulless husk. On the contrary, it is a fact we were shown that he did *not*. So his survival is what was written in stone. > Magpie: > Harry saved himself by, three hours later, going back three hours and > zapping the Dementor. The MoM has lots of Time Turners. Imagine one of them > wasn't destroyed. There's one lying right there near Sirius. Can't he go > back and save himself? After all, isn't he in exactly the same position that > Harry was in? He's got something deadly confronting him, he's about to die > by falling through the veil. He's got a Time Turner. zgirnius: If Sirius had grabbed a Time Turner and used it during his duel with Bella, his future self could have saved him if it was Rowling's desire to take the story in that direction, yes. (Obviously, it was not, he *had* to die for reasons I suspect will be clearer on July 21). But then we would never have seen Sirius fall through the Veil, because it would never have happened. And anything that happened in the MoM in the chapters preceding the scene in the Veil Room would remain unchanged, because if future Sirius was around and about following Bella around in Order to prevent her killing him, he was *always* there. > Magpie: > Or in this case: That's a terrible thing that happened. I wish we could have > been there to stop it. Wouldn't it be great if we could turn back the clock > three hours and then it would really be three hours ago only we'd know what > was going to happen so we could fix it. I guess then there'd be, like, two > of us, cause I was already there once. > > It's kind of very logical and very illogical at the same time. zgirnius: It is my contention that time travel as described in the Potterverse is precisely *NOT* this kind of time travel. Harry did not change anything that we were explicitly shown in PoA "the second time around" (to use a phrase that I consider totally misleading). He averted potential disasters that *might* have happened had he not Time Turned, but *nothing* that *really* happened, changed. To take the most dramatic hypothetical example I have ever come across, I have seen it speculated, both here (apologies to the poster who suggested it, I *know* I read this here, but I can't recall who wrote it) and elsewhere that the reason Dumbledore knows so much about what happened in GH is that he Time Turned in order to be an invisible witness. How could he?!!! You ask. How could he stand by and let Lily and James be killed? If my interpretation of the rules of time travel in the Potterverse are correct, the answer would be, "Because, as a very learned wizard, Dumbledore knew that it was *impossible* to change what he could clearly see (from the corpses abd rubble littering the scene) had already happened." Which is also an answer to the question "why bother to invent time travel if it cannot change anything?" If nothing else, it is a way to learn what really happened in the past, in a place one's past self was not present at the moment of interest. Knowledge that might be used to affect the future in a positive way. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 13 15:16:55 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:16:55 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning Message-ID: <4834928.1176477415517.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167479 From: Dana >No time isn't linear, time is relative; The two are not mutually exlusive. Time can very well be a vector, which makes it linear AND relative. At least, that's how it works in Einsteinian physics. >which means that every human >being experiences time differently even when experienced at the same >time. One hour to me can feel like 10 minutes while that same hour >feels like eternity to someone else, just because we have a clock to >tell us my 10 minutes was actually an hour does not mean it therefore >was. It is just a human made law of what is perceived as time. That has NOTHING to do with time being relative; in fact, the effects of relativity in time are sufficiently small for humans that the wavelength is smaller than our senses' minimum bandwidth. >But if you want to be picky then the first dementor scene in OotP can >give a very good explanation of what happened the first time without >any inconstancies, Harry1 did conjure the patronus himself just as he >did when he was about to be soul sucked in OotP. And when Harry2 did >it the second time there was no need for Harry1 to do it and the >memory is filled in with him seeing himself on the other side of the >bank. The two times fuse as the end time but he actually did conjure >the patronus at both times and therefore it was Harry and only Harry >that saved himself and Sirius. That's one of the two most likely explanations. Bart From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Apr 13 16:40:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:40:53 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167480 Dana before: > > Sirius (in OotP) could have saved himself only if he saved > > himself the first time but he doesn't, it is therefore irrelevant > > to compare these events. JMHO Magpie: > But I don't think it's irrelevant given the context I brought that > up, which was in response to the opposite of what you're explaining > here. Others are claiming that Harry was saved him his future self, > period. You seem to be saying that time did indeed happen twice, > and that the first time Harry #1 did save himself. Iow, he didn't > really need his future self to save him, he only remembers being > saved by his future self because the two times melded and he > therefore forgot the version where it was not his future self that > saved him. Okay let me get one thing straight first, Harry1 survived because otherwise he could not go back in time, period. The problem is that everybody reads the events of Harry1 as first time and Harry2 as second time but that is not how it is written. JKR only writes the end time and shows us events from Harry's perspective; from both of the Harry's. Harry1 did not need saving from Harry2, because Harry2 would not have been there if Harry1 hadn't survived (I think you are with me so far, right?) but JKR wants it to be Harry2 who saves Harry1, or to be more clear she wants Prongs to safe Harry and Sirius. The moment Harry2 conjures the patronus, history changed and it was only him who saved Harry1 because all events and memories of the first time are replaced by this action. So when Harry2 saves his past self, his memory chances at the same time because for Harry1 the events have already taken place and this is why Harry is able to realize, he did not see his dad but himself. The moment Harry2 changed history, the first time becomes non- existent and therefore irrelevant. So even if it was Snape who saved Harry1 then Snape's memory of it was erased the moment Harry2 changed history and it became non-existent and therefore it never happened. Snape would never be able to remember, he had anything to do with Harry's survival, not even if he would take Harry's memory and look at it in a pencieve because Harry's memory would not contain a record of it because Harry2 changed events *before* a different survival scenario could have played out. So for the storyline it is absolutely irrelevant how Harry1 survived because at the end of the day it was Harry2 and no one else because time 1 + time 2 = end time and the only time left standing. In case of Sirius; Sirius could not safe himself because he falls through the veil but if someone else would go back in time and chains Sirius to the bed so he could not go to the DoM, then yes Sirius would still be alive and no one would have a memory of him ever being there. That is why JKR destroys the timeturners just before Sirius falls through the veil. Not because it is not possible to change events but because it would disrupt the storyline to much and therefore it is irrelevant and you cannot compare the two events. Changing history by changing random events would change the lives of to many people and why JKR just doesn't go there, besides bringing back Harry's parents or killing LV before he can do harm by means of timeturning, would make the story of Harry irrelevant and thus not much fun at all. It does not mean it would not be possible. Dana From va32h at comcast.net Fri Apr 13 16:56:43 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:56:43 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA In-Reply-To: <00f901c77d84$f4279ba0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Kern" wrote: > > Hi, all. I'm rereading Order of the Phoenix, and noticed something >that doesn't seem logical to me. After the first DA meeting, when >they left the Room of Requirement, it's mentioned that the door ? >turns back into part of the wall when they leave. But after they've >been warned by Dobby and they all run out of the room, the door is >obviously still there, because Pansy goes in and finds the list of >DA members. Why didn't the door disappear > when they left this time? Also, if Cho's friend was off telling >Umbridge about the group, didn't they realize she was missing and >wonder why? She obviously couldn't have been at the meeting >with "sneak" written on her face. Any ideas? va32h: Some characters may have noticed Marietta's absence (certainly Cho would have) but thought she was not feeling well or had to study or some other inocuous reason. People do miss club meetings from time to time. As for Pansy Parkinson being able to enter the room - once the Inquisitorial Squad knew what to ask the Room to become (i.e. "I need to find the headquarters of the DA") then they could find it. va32h From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Apr 13 17:17:01 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:17:01 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <4834928.1176477415517.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167482 Dana before: > >No time isn't linear, time is relative; Bart: > The two are not mutually exclusive. Time can very well be a vector, which makes it linear AND relative. At least, that's how it works in Einsteinian physics. > That has NOTHING to do with time being relative; in fact, the effects of relativity in time are sufficiently small for humans that the wavelength is smaller than our senses' minimum bandwidth. That is not what Einstein said he never said time is linear, he said time is relative. This is his perception on time travel: "The relativistic analogy can be carried to its logical end. Since time begins to slow down with higher speeds, it can be shown that at the speed of light it stops totally and beyond that begins to run backwards". That is why how one perceives time is relevant because the clock is not what makes time move, it is the speed of the earth in relation to space. Most of you live in America but I live in the Netherlands and therefore someone living in New York is 6 hours behind me in time. Does this mean someone living in New York lives in my past? No, it doesn't and when I would travel to New York would this mean I can relive the same time twice? No it doesn't not even when I chance my clock to local time, it just means I can enjoy a longer day because the Sun will set 6 hours later from the place I started from but if I do not adjust my clock then it still is the same time. Why is this relevant to the story because the perception of time by the reader and the way he or she lives with time messes with the logic of the timeturning in the story. We think we cannot change time once the clock has passed a certain point and events therefore can't be changed but time is relative meaning that every action the timetraveler takes will effect the same time the original person was living in. It is not a linear line time follows therefore there is no time loop. It is not time that travels back but the person and he perceives the same timeframe at the same moment. When the timetraveler goes back in time he does not take the time with him, it is not a parallel universe he just co-exists with his past self (or at least in the Potterverse) A paradox would only occur if you would change history to much because every event that occurred because of these events will change the future. People will vanish as the event could have been the reason their parents met, people suddenly be alive because the events was the cause for their deaths. If you change too much you find yourself in an entire new world right after you changed the events. Therefore time isn't linear it is relative and events are not linked to time. People link events to time. Time actually does not exist, it is only events that exist and events CAN be changed if you would be able to go to a point before the event takes place. That is also why time travel (in the Potterverse) is dangerous because if wizard2 kills his first self then he stops to exist at the same moment because if the first can't live to the jump point, then the second self cannot exist either and if wizard1 kills his second self, he has no future because his first self, jumps back in time every time he reaches that point, he would therefore just experience the same time over and over again, with no chance to get passed that point. Only when both, the original and the time traveller, come to that specific point in time, can they both pass the point as one again. Both Harry's can change things within the same time frame and both have effect on the end time and thus why Harry2's actions change the end time not because it is a new time but because it takes place in the same timeframe. Harry1 just can't change what has not yet happened while Harry2 can because he has more knowledge then Harry1 not because he is living on a separate time line. Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 17:17:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:17:33 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167483 zgirnius: > As I understand Potterverse time-travel, Sirius cannot save himself, > because the past *only happens once*. As OotP was written, we were > told by the narrator that a certain specific event *happened*, > namely, Sirius fell behind the Veil. An event that really happened, > is written in stone. Nothing can change it. It is a fact. Carol responds: Exactly. If he were going to save himself, he'd have to have already done so, somehow presciently known that Bellatrix was going to kill him, snatched up a Time-Turner and put it in the pocket of his robes so that his future self could come back and save him and then, erm, what? If he'd fallen through the Veil, anyway, he would be dead and his future self couldn't come back. If he had used common sense and stayed away from the Veil instead of (*cough*) *fighting on the dais with his back to the Veil* he would not have died and there would have been no need to come back. At best, he would probably have given HRH the Time-Turner to replace the old one. And HRH can't come back to save him because he's already dead. If they were going to save him, it would already have happened, a deus ex machina with Invisible Time-Turned Harry pushing him out of the way, changing time, creating a whole different set of events that we didn't see. (No sulky resentment of Snape for goading Black to his death because Black didn't die, for one.) But it didn't happen that way. Dead is dead, but I do think Harry will meet Black beyond the Veil, which is why he had to die in that particular way. > zgirnius: > The situation is different in PoA, because Harry did not die or become a soulless husk. On the contrary, it is a fact we were shown that he did *not*. So his survival is what was written in stone. Carol: Exactly. We can go by the canon I cited in a previous post, willingly suspending our disbelief as to whether Time Travel, if it really existed, would work as JKR depicts it, or we can let logic and a knowledge of physics get in our way. We have to suspend our disbelief to believe in magic in the first place, in spells or potions or magical creatures or Time Turners, so why not suspend it a little further and let it work as JKR says it does? (Not quite as *Hermione* thinks, though--obviously, your future self can't kill your past self or there would be no future self in the first place. What matters is not that they don't take action, thinking that they are *changing* the past when they are actually *creating* that past, but that they not be seen by anyone--except for Dumbledore, who seems to have been aware of two Harrys and two Hermiones and given them a little nudge out the hospital wing door so that events could take shape as he knew they had already done, with the exception, as you said earlier, of Sirius Black, whose fate he did not know--which explains "more than one innocent life may be spared"--he knew that Buckbeak had been saved and hoped that Black might be as well.) Magpie: > > Or in this case: That's a terrible thing that happened. I wish we could have been there to stop it. Wouldn't it be great if we could turn back the clock three hours and then it would really be three hours ago only we'd know what was going to happen so we could fix it. I guess then there'd be, like, two of us, cause I was already there once. > zgirnius: > It is my contention that time travel as described in the Potterverse > is precisely *NOT* this kind of time travel. Harry did not change > anything that we were explicitly shown in PoA "the second time > around" (to use a phrase that I consider totally misleading). He > averted potential disasters that *might* have happened had he not > Time Turned, but *nothing* that *really* happened, changed. Carol: Exactly. That may be why the only Time Turner we've seen works in hour-long increments, as well. That way, people aren't coming back ten years or one hundred years later and altering time. Even "It's a Wonderful Life," in which the alternate reality is only an illusion, shows that one life makes a difference, and one event that happened a different way or didn't happen at all has all sorts of consequences. And the consequences, intended and unintended, of the characters' actions, their *choices*, are a hugely important theme in these books. Harry can't say, oh, I made a terrible mistake preventing Lupin and Sirius from killing Wormtail and go back and change that (Hermione prevents him from doing that, in any case). The present reality is what it is, and any Time-Turning is part of that reality, taking place in both the present and the future at the same time. Past mistakes can't be remedied through Time-Turning. Buckbeak and Black and Harry himself were saved specifically because they didn't realize what they were doing. They didn't know that they were creating the reality that they had already lived only a few hours before. We can think about what might have happened or would have happened had Hermione not had a Time Turner and DD not figured out that she had one, but it's best not to think about it. That alternate reality *did not happen*. If it had, there would be no Harry Potter to save the WW. > zgirnius: > To take the most dramatic hypothetical example I have ever come across, I have seen it speculated, both here (apologies to the poster who suggested it, I *know* I read this here, but I can't recall who wrote it) and elsewhere that the reason Dumbledore knows so much about what happened in GH is that he Time Turned in order to be an invisible witness. > > How could he?!!! You ask. How could he stand by and let Lily and James be killed? If my interpretation of the rules of time travel in the Potterverse are correct, the answer would be, "Because, as a very learned wizard, Dumbledore knew that it was *impossible* to change what he could clearly see (from the corpses abd rubble littering the scene) had already happened." Carol responds: Or, if not impossible, extremely unwise because of the consequences that arise from every action. If DD saved the Potters, particularly Lily, Harry would not have become the Chosen One, "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord." At most, he could have vaporized Voldemort himself, delaying his return, but he would not have enabled Voldemort to make the Prophecy true, to create his own powerful enemy. Terrible as they are, the events at Godric's Hollow had to happen, just as the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus had to occur for the Resurrection to happen. Or, to return to HP, Wormtail had to escape and restore Voldemort so that Harry could ultimately destroy Voldemort permanently. Evil comes out of good (saving Wormtail), but good also comes out of evil (Godric's Hollow and, I hope, the tower), and good, if given a chance to operate on its own through the choices of the protagonists, without interference from well-intentioned meddlers from the future, will ultimately triumph. > zgirnius: > Which is also an answer to the question "why bother to invent time travel if it cannot change anything?" If nothing else, it is a way to learn what really happened in the past, in a place one's past self was not present at the moment of interest. Knowledge that might be used to affect the future in a positive way. > Carol: Of course, Pensieve memories can be used in much the same way without the temptation of meddling with the past, and I think they're a much safer way to go back in time. Yes, it's the future that matters, but the past must be understood before the right choices can be made. The past that we've seen in the books *happened*, and no Time-Turner is going to change it, I'm pretty sure. But it may well have been misread (as we see Harry doing time and again, particularly with regard to Snape). Again, the PoA Time-Turning scene primarily illustrates, at least in my view, that perception (particularly Harry's perception) is not reality. We've seen that time and time again in the HP books. I rather think that we'll see it one more time with regard to a certain former Hogwarts teacher in DH. We can like or dislike JKR's handling of Time-turning. We can complain that it's illogical, that it violates the laws of physics, that it's just pure fantasy (rather like Felix Felicis and Blast-Ended skrewts and giants marrying wizards), but in the end, it's the canon that matters. Harry saved himself because he saved himself. It's circular logic, I realize, but, as Mrs. Figg said at Harry's trial, "That's what happened." And, had it not happened that way, Harry, Sirius Black, and perhaps Hermione would have had their souls sucked out. Unless, of course, HRH had stayed in their rooms like good children, in which case, Peter Pettigrew would have been killed. Now there's an alternate reality that would have changed the whole HP series. Carol, satisfied that she understands the mechanics of Time-Turning in the HP books, "realistic" or not, logical or not, but hoping not to see it again in the last book because it does seem like a deus ex machina From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Apr 13 17:20:59 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:20:59 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167484 Dana before: So when Harry2 saves his past self, his memory chances at the same time because for Harry1 the events have already taken place and this is why Harry is able to realize, he did not see his dad but himself. Dana now: This should read: So when Harry2 saves his past self, his memory chances at the same time because for *Harry2* the events have already taken place and this is why Harry is able to realize, he did not see his dad but himself. When Harry1 sees himself and sees the patronus it registers as a memory for Harry2 Dana From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 13 17:24:09 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: Message-ID: <23070133.1176485049536.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167485 From: finwitch >> I agree here with Bart ... there is something that has yet to be >> revealed about Petunia. After all, what was her motivation to make an >> agreement with Dumbledore. Why would she take "magic" in to her house >> .. . What did she fear if she didn't? Let's just say it ... what is >> Petunia hiding??? >Indeed - very interesting. She took Harry in then - when he was so >*very* young child. What ever else, NOT doing so would be criminal. >(and not "normal" either). AND the neighbours would notice a crying >child on a known housewife's doorstep... that could explain why she >took him. Finally, especially in PS/SS, it seems that the Dursleys aren't trying to keep Harry away from his birthright as much as they are trying to SHIELD him from magic. That is the reason why I think that the Dursleys, as conceived, had some other factor going, which did not show up in print. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 17:54:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:54:06 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: <23070133.1176485049536.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167486 Bart wrote: > Finally, especially in PS/SS, it seems that the Dursleys aren't trying to keep Harry away from his birthright as much as they are trying to SHIELD him from magic. That is the reason why I think that the Dursleys, as conceived, had some other factor going, which did not show up in print. Carol responds: Like knowing that the Potters were killed by a Dark wizard who blew up their house? That seems to be the way the Dursleys read the events. They don't want any Dark wizards coming after *them,* or coming after Harry and endangering them in the process, or having Harry turn into a dangerous Dark wizard himself. Best to stamp the magic out of Harry and make him "normal" like themselves. Of course, Petunia seems to know a bit more about Harry's real circumstances than Vernon, the arch-Muggle, as I've already said in another post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167423 It isn't that they're Fundamentalists who view magic as dangerous, for which we have no evidence whatever. And it isn't *just* that they view magic as "abnormal" and therefore embarrassing to be associated with (Harry's perception of the Dursleys' view of witches and wizards as weirdos and "freaks" whom they don't want showing up on their doorstep). The Dursleys, and especially Petunia, know that magic can be very, very dangerous and that they, as Muggles, are helpless against it--a view that Dudley shares to a lesser extent, having himself been the butt of wizards' "jokes" and very nearly desouled by a terrifying magical being whose powers he doesn't fully understand). Carol, who thinks that Petunia is secretly grateful to Harry for saving Dudley from the Dementors and that we'll see a new understanding develop between her and her nephew in DH (Specialis Revelio, Petunia!) From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 13 17:53:21 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:53:21 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167487 > > Magpie: > > I suspect Bart is looking at it more like I am. Perhaps it might be > a good > > idea to stop discussing Harry's danger in PoA and instead look at > another > > scene where someone is in danger of dying: Sirius' fall through the > veil in > > OotP (to compare it). Why can't Sirius save himself from Bellatrix > the way > > Harry saved himself from the Dementor? > > zgirnius: > As I understand Potterverse time-travel, Sirius cannot save himself, > because the past *only happens once*. As OotP was written, we were > told by the narrator that a certain specific event *happened*, > namely, Sirius fell behind the Veil. An event that really happened, > is written in stone. Nothing can change it. It is a fact. > > The situation is different in PoA, because Harry did not die or > become a soulless husk. On the contrary, it is a fact we were shown > that he did *not*. So his survival is what was written in stone. Magpie: Yes, but that's a different thing that I was talking about. There's two different things here, there's how "time" is working within canon, as if canon is real. Then there's the fact that canon is actually words on a page. We know that JKR *writes* the story according to a certain rule. If Sirius were to save himself we would have to see it the first time, just as we did with Harry (although we didn't realize that was what we were seeing when we first read it). JKR does not write her story like Back to the Future where we see or hear about one version of events, and then we see Marty change them, and then we're told there's a different version of events. At the beginning of Back to the Future Marty's parents had one history that did not include a guy named Marty. Then he went back and changed that. There are two "versions" of their courtship. This is not the case in HP. There are no two versions of what happened, just the same version from different perspectives. So we know that in the Potterverse JKR will not be changing the narrative. She didn't in PoA. But leave aside for the moment that there's any author of this universe. Imagine we can't argue it from that angle and say "this is the way JKR writes it" or even "this is the way we would have experienced it if it were true." Just think Sirius is a man confronted by a deadly curtain and his cousin, about to fall through it. Just as Harry was a boy confronted by a deadly Dementor about to kiss him. For either of them to travel from their own future, they need to live into that future to do it. Harry did, Sirius didn't. Sirius fell through the veil. Harry...well, how did he live to become his future self that did not yet exist at that moment? > zgirnius: > If Sirius had grabbed a Time Turner and used it during his duel with > Bella, his future self could have saved him if it was Rowling's > desire to take the story in that direction, yes. Magpie: But he would have had to have been alive to have done so, right? He would have to have used it before he got pushed through the curtain, and then his future!self could have done something to save his past self like push him out of the way of the hex or block it or something. Once his past self was through the curtain there would be no possibility for a future self to save him. Harry doesn't use his Time Turner until after his encounter with the Dementors. He can do that because the Dementors didn't kill him--but he was saved by his future self. So how did he live to have a future self? That's why Sirius would have had to have used his Time Turner before he died in order to save himself. I'm not questioning how the story would have *gone* in that scenario. I understand how JKR is writing it and get it from her pov. Whatever happens, Time Travel-wise, I know will be present in the narrative I am reading. But from the characters pov that doesn't work, because JKR herself doesn't exist in their world. > > Magpie: > > Or in this case: That's a terrible thing that happened. I wish we > could have > > been there to stop it. Wouldn't it be great if we could turn back > the clock > > three hours and then it would really be three hours ago only we'd > know what > > was going to happen so we could fix it. I guess then there'd be, > like, two > > of us, cause I was already there once. > > > > It's kind of very logical and very illogical at the same time. > > zgirnius: > It is my contention that time travel as described in the Potterverse > is precisely *NOT* this kind of time travel. Harry did not change > anything that we were explicitly shown in PoA "the second time > around" (to use a phrase that I consider totally misleading). He > averted potential disasters that *might* have happened had he not > Time Turned, but *nothing* that *really* happened, changed. Magpie: But that's still talking about how it's written and now how it happens. If there was nothing to be changed, Harry would have no reason to go back in time. Had he just realized that Buckbeak wasn't really killed etc., and so he had no reason to go back in time and therefore not done it, he could not have saved himself. His future self is affecting the past, obviously. We know that his future self will not be able to affect the *narrative* at all. And anything his future self does will already have been experienced by his past self and be remembered by him. But he still has to exist into the future in order to be in the future to travel back, and that creates an endless loop with no beginning that I can see--unless we assume, as Dana does, that he was "originally" saved from the Dementors by something else. He can't live to save himself unless he lives to save himself. We know that Sirius didn't save himself because we saw him die and whatever happens the narrative won't change, but Sirius doesn't know he's in a narrative. As an individual he's just as free as Harry and Hermione were to say "Hey, here's a Time Turner I can use!" The reason *he* can't use a Time Turner to go back and save himself, beside the fact that he can't get his hands on a Time Turner and go back to save himself is that he is dead. Likewise, Harry will not, in DH, go back in time to save James and Lily being killed at Godric's Hollow because they are dead now. But if there was a Time Turner that went back years, there would be nothing physically keeping him from turning it backwards enough times to go there. He won't do that, we know, because of the narrative, but he himself can't make decisions based on the way JKR wrote something because JKR doesn't exist in his world. James and Lily, otoh, have another reason for not being able to, in Deathly Hallows, go back in time to save themselves from dying. They can't do anything with a Time Turner because they are dead. There's nothing confusing about Time Travel in terms of understanding what happened. We know that Sirius didn't go back in time to save himself. We know that no one can in later books decide to Time Travel in such a way that will change a single word of what's already been written. But nevertheless characters can choose to Time Travel. Dana: Okay let me get one thing straight first, Harry1 survived because otherwise he could not go back in time, period. Magpie: Yes. Dana: The problem is that everybody reads the events of Harry1 as first time and Harry2 as second time but that is not how it is written. JKR only writes the end time and shows us events from Harry's perspective; from both of the Harry's. Magpie: Right. Dana: Harry1 did not need saving from Harry2, because Harry2 would not have been there if Harry1 hadn't survived (I think you are with me so far, right?) but JKR wants it to be Harry2 who saves Harry1, or to be more clear she wants Prongs to safe Harry and Sirius. The moment Harry2 conjures the patronus, history changed and it was only him who saved Harry1 because all events and memories of the first time are replaced by this action. Magpie: That's the way you are assuming it happened, and that makes sense to me. But you are also assuming that even if Harry had never gone back in time Harry1 would have been saved, either by himself or by some other unknown thing, because otherwise he would not have been alive to become Harry2. Dana: So when Harry2 saves his past self, his memory chances at the same time because for Harry1 the events have already taken place and this is why Harry is able to realize, he did not see his dad but himself.The moment Harry2 changed history, the first time becomes non-existent and therefore irrelevant. Magpie: I think this is what people would describe as "time happening twice," however, because it assumes that there was originally some other sequence of events that Harry and the reader are just not privvy to--events that led to Harry1 being saved in some other way in order to become Harry2 and save himself the way Harry ultimately remembers being saved when the two times become one. In this version there are two times. We just only remember or read about one time that's a combination of the two. Time did happen twice, it just seemed to happen once. There is something to be erased or changed. Dana: So for the storyline it is absolutely irrelevant how Harry1 survived because at the end of the day it was Harry2 and no one else because time 1 + time 2 = end time and the only time left standing. Magpie: Irrelevent, perhaps, but it still must have happened in some way in your version. We don't know about it, but it happened--and the proof that it happened is that Harry2 was existing and could go back and overwrite history with the version we know. Dana: In case of Sirius; Sirius could not safe himself because he falls through the veil but if someone else would go back in time and chains Sirius to the bed so he could not go to the DoM, then yes Sirius would still be alive and no one would have a memory of him ever being there. That is why JKR destroys the timeturners just before Sirius falls through the veil. Not because it is not possible to change events but because it would disrupt the storyline to much and therefore it is irrelevant and you cannot compare the two events. Magpie: Right--because Sirius himself can't go back in time and save himself once he is dead. Which is why in your interpretation Harry did not die from the Dementor attack due to some unknown reason, then a few hours later went back in time and saved himself with the Prongs Patronus, overwriting the original version and erasing any memory or trace of the original version for Harry and the reader. Time did happen twice, but we only experienced it once as a combination of two times. But Harry could not have died. Carol responds: If he were going to save himself, he'd have to have already done so, somehow presciently known that Bellatrix was going to kill him, snatched up a Time-Turner and put it in the pocket of his robes so that his future self could come back and save him and then, erm, what? If he'd fallen through the Veil, anyway, he would be dead and his future self couldn't come back. Magpie: You can't have a future self if you're dead, yes. So it would be impossible for a future self to save a person who would die if not for his future self saving him. I'm not talking about why Sirius can't be saved within the narrative. I know that I can only read about one, consistent stream of time. I'm not confused about what I read or why Sirius, from the pov of a person reading the book, can't come back and save himself. I'm saying that a person who dies obviously has no future self to send to the past to save himself. Carol: We can think about what might have happened or would have happened had Hermione not had a Time Turner and DD not figured out that she had one, but it's best not to think about it. That alternate reality *did not happen*. If it had, there would be no Harry Potter to save the WW. Magpie: But isn't it the nature of an alternate reality that it didn't happen in one particular reality only? What happened before Harry2 existed to act? Dana compared it to being in a different time zone, but Harry2 doesn't live in a different time zone. He lives in the same time zone as Harry1. They are the same person. Harry2 remembers things he has not yet done. She has two different things happening, but only one thing being remembered, while the other one is erased. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 13 18:10:22 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning Message-ID: <3379206.1176487823021.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167488 From: Dana >That is not what Einstein said he never said time is linear, he said >time is relative. > >This is his perception on time travel: > >"The relativistic analogy can be carried to its logical end. Since >time begins to slow down with higher speeds, it can be shown that at >the speed of light it stops totally and beyond that begins to run >backwards". Which is a description of a VECTOR, as I stated, and was taught to me when I took astrophysics in college. >That is why how one perceives time is relevant because the clock is >not what makes time move, it is the speed of the earth in relation to >space. Relative speed affects passage of time. You are looking at a part of the piece, and not the whole thing. Yes, according to the equations, if we reach the speed of light, time will stop. However, the same equations show that it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the accelerate to speed of light (or, if one is going faster than the speed of light, to decelerate to it). >Most of you live in America but I live in the Netherlands and >therefore someone living in New York is 6 hours behind me in time. >Does this mean someone living in New York lives in my past? No, it >doesn't and when I would travel to New York would this mean I can >relive the same time twice? No it doesn't not even when I chance my >clock to local time, it just means I can enjoy a longer day because >the Sun will set 6 hours later from the place I started from but if I >do not adjust my clock then it still is the same time. That is sort of like saying that we live closer to you than you do to us, because we measure in miles instead of kilometers. You are confusing arbitrary units with absolute ones. Bart From djmitt at pa.net Fri Apr 13 17:53:36 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:53:36 -0000 Subject: Image on Deathly Hallows book cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167489 richandlaura1 wrote: > This image reminds me of the old Highlights Mag. for children and of > course the best part of that magazine was the hidden picture puzzle. > If you look at this image you will see things hidden in it like a > dragon, a sorcerer's stone (looks like Hermione just dropped > it),Griffindor's sword, and other pictures I can't remember right now. Now you have to ask yourself, is this a picture of highlights of the former six books and has nothing to do with the seventh book or a puzzle showing all the pertinent highlights from the former books that has everything to do with the seventh book? Have fun hunting. Donna From davep747 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Apr 13 18:09:47 2007 From: davep747 at yahoo.co.uk (davep747) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:09:47 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167490 Peggy Kern: > > I'm rereading Order of the Phoenix, and noticed something > > that doesn't seem logical to me. After the first DA meeting, > > when they left the Room of Requirement, it's mentioned that the > > door ? turns back into part of the wall when they leave. But > > after they've been warned by Dobby and they all run out of the > > room, the door is obviously still there, because Pansy goes in > > and finds the list of DA members. Why didn't the door disappear > > when they left this time? va32h: > As for Pansy Parkinson being able to enter the room - once the > Inquisitorial Squad knew what to ask the Room to become (i.e. "I > need to find the headquarters of the DA") then they could find it. Also, the room was not empty. Harry was on his way out when he was discovered. The door would still have been there. Since it changes into what people need, I am guessing that it can only be one thing at a time. Later it is used by Draco to store the closet. I'm still wondering how he got the closet to the school. Davep747 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 18:54:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:54:06 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167491 --- "va32h" wrote: > > --- "Peggy Kern" > wrote: > > > > ... Order of the Phoenix, ... After the first DA > > meeting, when they left the Room of Requirement, > > ...the door turns back into ... wall when they > > leave. But after they've been warned by Dobby and > > they all run out of the room, the door is obviously > > still there, because Pansy goes in and finds the > > list of DA members. Why didn't the door disappear > > when they left this time? ... > > > va32h: > > ... > > As for Pansy Parkinson being able to enter the room > - once the Inquisitorial Squad knew what to ask the > Room to become (i.e. "I need to find the headquarters > of the DA") then they could find it. > > va32h > bboyminn: I think VA23H has the right idea. I think this aspect of the event was intentionally constructed to contrast with Harry's later attempts to find Draco in the Room. Draco and his gang knew exactly what to look for and what to ask for to get that specific room to appear. Harry on the other hand only had a general idea of what Draco was doing, and therefore couldn't make a specific enough request. So, I go along with that idea, but I'm wondering if there is another aspect to it. I'm drawn back to my previous discussion of the Unbreakable Vow and who or what is the final arbiter of the Vow. With respect to the Room, the Room disappears when it is no longer needed, but who or what decides when it is truly no longer needed? I ponder the possibility that they may have rushed out of the Room so fast that no one remembered to /Close The Door/. If the door remained opened that implied that someone was going to return, therefore the Room would continue to remain accessible. Both are possible, and though the second is the first thing that jumped into my mind. I think the first suggestion by VA32H is probably more likely. Just rambling on. Steve/bboyminn From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 18:30:04 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:30:04 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > Dana: > > Harry1 survived because otherwise he could not go back in time, > period. > > JKR only writes the end time and shows us events from Harry's > perspective. > > Harry1 did not need saving BY Harry2, because Harry2 would not have > been there if Harry1 hadn't survived. However, JKR wants Prongs to > SAVE Harry and Sirius. The moment Harry2 conjures the patronus, > history changed and it was only HARRY2 who saved Harry1 because all > events and memories of the ORIGINAL SITUATION are replaced by this > action. The ORIGINAL SITUATION becomes non-existent. So even if it > was Snape who saved Harry1 then Snape's memory of it was erased the > moment Harry2 changed history. . > > It is absolutely irrelevant how Harry1 survived because at the end > of the day it was Harry2 and no one else because time 1 + time 2 = > end time and the only time left standing. > > Sirius could not save himself because he falls through the veil but > if someone else would go back in time and chain Sirius to the bed > so he could not go to the DoM, then Sirius would still be alive and > no one would have a memory of him ever being there. That is why JKR > destroys the timeturners just before Sirius falls through the > veil. > > Changing history by changing random events would change the lives > of too many people. ***JKR doesn't go there. It does not mean it > would not be possible.*** JW: I believe Dana is validly invoking Shesezso in the last paragraph above. What if JKR's DH were to apply a different Shesezso? The following is an attempt to apply Dana's reasoning in a radically different possibility for how the series could possibly end. Please note this is NOT a prediction, nor even wishful thinking - merely an attempt to utilize Dana's logic, but with a different hypothetical Shesezso. Briefly, let us assume that some time turners still exist. DD had one. Perhaps HP's parents had another. Let us further imagine HP (plus others, as necessary) TT back to the fateful night at GH. However, the events of that night unfold differently from our established canon. HP (and cohorts) are participants, unseen by LV and the Potters (invisibility cloaks and charms used here - even an improved version of the Weasely invisibility hat would work). This time, LV is destroyed completely - the horcruxes were successfully destroyed previously. The Potters live. HP is scarless. He is raised by his parents; he never lives with the Dursleys. He is a "normal" young wizard in a peaceful WW. He isn't even a parselmouth. He attends Hogwarts. There is no curse on the DADA teachers. Quirrel has no turban - no LV exists to hide under it. No Snapish ambiguities. Peter never blew up the street. Sirius never goes to Azkaban, and does not die at the DoM. No reason for HP to participate in the TWT. Cedric does not die. No reason for Umbridge to be a DADA teacher or Inquisitor. No reason for those special lessons from Snape. There is no thestral ride to the MoM; the battle never happens. DD never has to give private lessons to HP. DD is not killed - the scene on the tower does not exist. Malfoy has no reason to try to kill DD - LV was completely destroyed forever 15 years before. And because the end-time has been a peaceful and LV-free world, nobody remembers ANY of the original events as documented in the septology. (Analogy - Wizard of Oz, with Dorothy not remembering her bizarre dream.) The epilogue describing the future lives of the characters relates completely to the end-time scenario. HP lives a long life with Ginny or Cho or [insert name here] and they have children like rabbits have bunnies. We readers are left holding (literally as well as figuratively) the only proof that the story as we understood it ever happened - it has become a parallel universe within an alternative universe, replaced because of a change in a single event. We keep this knowledge because we are outside viewers, not inside participants, of the WW. We had a window into the WW but were not a part of it. Our septologies, movies, web sites, chat rooms etc. are not impacted by the change in history in the WW. Of course, we are left debating events that never happened, not even in the fictional world in which we thought they happened. And everybody lives happily ever after - except for us. Again, the ABOVE is NOT the OPINION of yours truly. This was NOT a prediction, merely a what-if exercise. Thank you for your patience. JW From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Fri Apr 13 19:16:32 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:16:32 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167493 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmwcfo" wrote: > JW said: Briefly, let us assume that some time turners still exist. DD had one. Perhaps HP's parents had another. Let us further imagine HP (plus others, as necessary) TT back to the fateful night at GH. However, the events of that night unfold differently from our established canon. HP (and cohorts) are participants, unseen by LV and the Potters (invisibility cloaks and charms used here - even an improved version of the Weasely invisibility hat would work). This time, LV is destroyed completely - the horcruxes were successfully destroyed previously. The Potters live. HP is scarless. He is raised by his parents; he never lives with the Dursleys. He is a "normal" young wizard in a peaceful WW. He isn't even a parselmouth. He attends Hogwarts. There is no curse on the DADA teachers. Quirrel has no turban - no LV exists to hide under it. No Snapish ambiguities. Peter never blew up the street. Sirius never goes to Azkaban, and does not die at the DoM. No reason for HP to participate in the TWT. Cedric does not die. No reason for Umbridge to be a DADA teacher or Inquisitor. No reason for those special lessons from Snape. There is no thestral ride to the MoM; the battle never happens. DD never has to give private lessons to HP. DD is not killed - the scene on the tower does not exist. Malfoy has no reason to try to kill DD - LV was completely destroyed forever 15 years before. And because the end-time has been a peaceful and LV-free world, nobody remembers ANY of the original events as documented in the septology. (Analogy - Wizard of Oz, with Dorothy not remembering her bizarre dream.) The epilogue describing the future lives of the characters relates completely to the end-time scenario. HP lives a long life with Ginny or Cho or [insert name here] and they have children like rabbits have bunnies. We readers are left holding (literally as well as figuratively) the only proof that the story as we understood it ever happened - it has become a parallel universe within an alternative universe, replaced because of a change in a single event. We keep this knowledge because we are outside viewers, not inside participants, of the WW. We had a window into the WW but were not a part of it. Our septologies, movies, web sites, chat rooms etc. are not impacted by the change in history in the WW. Of course, we are left debating events that never happened, not even in the fictional world in which we thought they happened. And everybody lives happily ever after - except for us. Again, the ABOVE is NOT the OPINION of yours truly. This was NOT a prediction, merely a what-if exercise. ____________ Inge now: Enjoyed reading your "what-if" post - and I will agree with you, that things might happen like that "if" so-and-so... But!In your scenario Harry goes back as a 17 year old boy and does not suddenly become an infant again just because LV is destroyed "this time around". Harry will still be 17 years old. And!Even IF Harry turned 1? years old again - what would happen when 15 years have passed and Harry reaches the time when he Time-Turned? Will he not simply get back into - and rejoin - the world he left? Because everyone else who didn't Time-Turn with him, would still be living as if Harry never Time-Turned.... or? From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 13 19:33:04 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: No More Stories Message-ID: <28992231.1176492784529.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167494 JW: >And everybody lives happily ever after - except for us. > >Again, the ABOVE is NOT the OPINION of yours truly. This was NOT a >prediction, merely a what-if exercise. > >Thank you for your patience. "Hello, hello, hello Is there anybody home? I've only called to say I'm sorry. The drums are in the dawn, and all the voices gone. And it seems that there are no more songs." -Phil Ochs JKR has made it absolutely clear: no sequels, no prequels, no continuation of the WW universe after volume 7. There is an implication that a continuation would not even be possible. This means that she won't fall into the MZB fanfiction trap (where Marion Zimmer Bradley allowed free use of her Darkover settings and characters for fan fiction, and was rewarded by having a fan threaten to sue her for plagarism, which, in turn, kept one of her novels from being published). Now, let's say that JKR means that the series will end with a finality that means that future novels are impossible. How do you think she will do it? Now, there's the way the TV series, CHARMED, was ended, by having several flash-forwards into a relatively uneventful future. There's the way JW mentioned, where time has been altered so that the whole series never takes place, except to our eyes. There's the way I mentioned, with the end of the WW (or, at least, a Lord of the Rings-style beginning of the end). Without a definitive ending, I'm certain there would be a market for, "B&F Weasley, Cursebreakers" or "Lupin: Werewolf for Hire". So, how do you think JKR will close off the possibility of new stories? Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 19:47:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:47:41 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167495 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Dana: > > Sirius (in OotP) could have saved himself only if > > he saved himself the first time but he doesn't, it > > is therefore irrelevant to compare these events. > > JMHO > > Magpie: > But I don't think it's irrelevent given the context I > brought that up, which was in response to the opposite > of what you're explaining here. Others are claiming > that Harry was saved him his future self, period. > You seem to be saying that time did indeed happen > twice, and that the first time Harry #1 did save > himself. Iow, he didn't really need his future self to > save him, he only remembers being saved by his future > self because the two times melded and he therefore > forgot the version where it was not his future self > that saved him. > bboyminn: Certainly we are all arguing valid theories of Time Travel, but really which is easier and which makes the most sense? That multiple divergent inconsistent time-lines are spawned that eventually collapsing back on themselves and merge into a whole new consistent time-line, or that the Time Travelers simple arrived at 6:00pm and were always there? There is a scientific corollary that says, the simplest solution is probably the correct solution. Again, and this is important, all the versions of time travel that have been discussed here are valid and have been discussed by scientists, philosophers, and barroom patrons since the concept of time travel was first conceived, and with roughly the same results we are having. But, there is a flow to this story that isolates one particular theory of time travel. There are clues dropped to re-enforce that THIS is the model of time travel that is being used. That flow, those clues, this model are the 'Time Only Happens Once' model. Discussing it from other perspectives is certainly valid as a point of interest, but the selected model seems crystal clear to me in the books. When we see the events from the perspective of the normal!Harry, someone IS THERE to save him, and that /someone/ looks a lot like Harry. Harry's logical mind, assuming he can't be in two places at once, would have constructed a more logical alternate explanation. The only other person that Harry knows that looks like him is his father, so in that moment of confusion, he reasonably concludes that it is his father. That is the /first/ account of the events as they actually occur. Someone who looks like Harry saved Harry. No alternate time-line, no alternate mystery savior, no alternate series of events, just Harry being saved by someone who looks surprisingly like /HARRY/. If, in what others are calling the first time-line, Harry is saved by someone who looks like Harry, then all these other mysterious and unlikely time-lines become very far fetched, especially when we see the same events from the perspective of the Time Traveling Harry, and discover, lo and behold, it was Harry who saved Harry. No wonder the savior looked so much like Harry. Discussing all the alternate theories while fun clearly goes against what JKR tried to make clear in the story. That the Time Travelers arrived at 6:00pm. They were there because Harry/Ron/Hermione heard them moving around the Entrance Hall during the /first/ account of the events. Now, as to how this effects Sirius. If Sirius wasn't saved then he can't be saved at that time and place. I'm not ruling out him being saved at some other later time and place, but that is another subject. Using the model that JKR clearly seems to be using, if someone was there to save Sirius, they would have arrived in the past, and been lurking in the shadows to intervene in the duel between Sirius and Bellatrix, or possibly intervene at some earlier time. But since no one did intervene, then the only logical conclusion is the no one traveled back in time to save the day. Cause dictates Effect independent of the order of the occurrence of Cause and Effect. The Effect is whether or not Sirius was saved, the Cause is whether or not someone time traveled. Since the Effect did not occur, we can only conclude that there was no Cause to precipitate the Effect; that is, NO ONE time traveled. To the last and final point, from the Time Travel Model JKR has laid out, it is clear that time/history SHOULD NOT be changed, but it is not crystal clear that it CAN NOT be changed. Nor is it clear what the consequences of changing history would be. We see in many time travel movies such as 'Back to the Future' or 'Time Cop' or the TV shows like 'Quantum Leap', that it is the job of the hero to do just that, change time. We see from 'Back to the Future' that not all changes are good; in fact, some are disastrous. In the Potterverse model, it seems that if history had been changed, we would already know about it. If Sirius or anyone, had traveled back in time to save Sirius, then that would already be a historical fact, but since it is not, they did not. Steve/bboyminn - who wishes he could travel forward in time and find out the winning lottery numbers. From va32h at comcast.net Fri Apr 13 19:50:51 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:50:51 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davep747" wrote: > Also, the room was not empty. Harry was on his way out when he was > discovered. The door would still have been there. Since it changes > into what people need, I am guessing that it can only be one thing at > a time. Later it is used by Draco to store the closet. I'm still > wondering how he got the closet to the school. va32h here: You mean the Vanishing Cabinet? It's already at Hogwarts. Nearly Headless Nick broke it way back in Chamber of Secrets, and Filch just stuck it in some storeroom where, presumably, it sat until Fred and George stuffed Montague into it. Draco would have only needed to move it from its location within Hogwarts to the RoR. And in fact - it may have already *been* in the RoR, in that room's capacity as "a place to hide things". Certainly when the castle was being prepped for the Tri-Wizard Tournament, Filch would have wanted to hide any broken or damaged objects from the guest schools. The other cabinet either stayed at Bourgin and Burkes or was moved to some location outside of Hogwarts, where the DEs could access it. va32h From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 19:51:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:51:42 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167497 > Magpie: > Yes, but that's a different thing that I was talking about. There's > two different things here, there's how "time" is working within > canon, as if canon is real. Then there's the fact that canon is > actually words on a page. > She didn't in PoA. But leave aside for the moment that there's any > author of this universe. Imagine we can't argue it from that angle > and say "this is the way JKR writes it" or even "this is the way we > would have experienced it if it were true." > > Just think Sirius is a man confronted by a deadly curtain and his > cousin, about to fall through it. Just as Harry was a boy confronted > by a deadly Dementor about to kiss him. For either of them to travel > from their own future, they need to live into that future to do it. > Harry did, Sirius didn't. Sirius fell through the veil. > Harry...well, how did he live to become his future self that did not > yet exist at that moment? zgirnius: I disagree that one can consider time travel in the Potterverse without considering how it was written. It is a universe endowed with certain laws by its creatrix, which govern, among other things, how time travel works. I guess we agree on what those laws are, something I had failed to understand from your earlier posts. The point you seem to want to discuss is how time travel *really* would work, logically, in our world, supposing it was actually possible, and someone invented it. Am I understanding your point correctly? If so, these laws are not known for our own world; they are a subject of disagreement among experts in the field of theoretical physics. I have sufficient familiarity with the esoterica of theoretical physics to have an opinion (I essentially completed a physics major, including a full-year course on quantum mechanics) before deciding to go to grad school in pure math), though not one I would assert with any authority. Until someone builds a time machine, I would say it is up in the air, my preference is based on the subjective criterion of what makes the most sense to me. There are different interpretations of quantum mechanics acccepted by different experts in the field, and they yield mutually contradictory conclusions about the likely nature of real-life time travel. The 'many worlds' interpretation would suggest that time travel would permit us to "change the past" with explanations about alternate timelines and universes existing. The 'consistent histories' interpretation (on which the Novikov Consistency Principle formulated and popularized by the Soviet physicist Igor Novikov and already mentioned in this thread is based) would suggest that we cannot change the past, as it seems is the case in the Potterverse. FWIW, I side with Novikov and believe Rowling got it right, though I very much doubt it is due to her familiarity with theoretical physics. It is after all one of two choices she could have made. I think it was what made the most sense to her, as it does to a certain proportion of the posters who have weighed in, myself included. (Steve/bboyminn, once *is* bliss!). --zgirnius, who has just now for the first time wondered whether Apparition constitutes a violation of Special Relativity. From va32h at comcast.net Fri Apr 13 19:57:30 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:57:30 -0000 Subject: No More Stories In-Reply-To: <28992231.1176492784529.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > So, how do you think JKR will close off the possibility of new stories? va32h here: With lawyers? Honestly, I don't see how it is possible. Even if she kills off every character, there could still be stories of Harry in the afterlife, or "pre-quels" with the Marauders. Even if she ends the story by saying that none of it ever happened - that Harry Potter was a normal boy who had a psychotic break on his 11th birthday and hallucinated this entire world (perhaps based on a castle figurine inside a snowglobe ;) -- the determined and enterprising fan can simply dismiss all that and come up with an alternate ending. And HP fans are nothing if not determined. The tenacity with which people cling to theories, even when JK herself has shot them down, is proof enough of that. I think JK is being optimistic when she says that there will be no further need for more stories. She is done telling the story *she* wants to tell, but for those who want to imagine more - there is no end in sight. va32h From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Apr 13 21:07:19 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:07:19 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167499 Nikkalmati: > Personally I hope Time turning does not return in book 7, it makes my head ache! Close call there!. If he had waited a moment longer, he would have been killed. Was that a possibility in the world JKR has created? It looks like it was a possibility to me. I assume his future would have been wiped out and a new time-line created from that moment forward, one in which LV may succeed. Ceridwen: Personally, I can see this as a good reason for DD to send Harry and Hermione back in time, but it makes my head hurt, too, like thinking about the Big Bang and the future Big Shrink. So, I think that, to begin the loop, Harry didn't die. He blacked out, the Dementors inspected him and found that he wasn't what they wanted (or, for Horcrux!Harry people, they sucked LV's soul-bit out of him and left Harry's inocent soul intact), and left him alone. Snape conjured stretchers, brought the soulless Sirius and unconscious Harry etc. back to the castle, and Dumbledore decides to send Harry and Hermione back in time. So, the looping sequence begins with Dumbledore conceiving to send Harry and Hermione back to change things. The first time around, Buckbeak did die in the first time around, Sirius lost his soul, Harry did not see anyone casting a Patronus unless Snape originally cast one. He only remembers seeing someone cast it because, to his future memory, the event had already happened. They changed the timeline so that the new information would already be in their memories since it had "already happened" the minute DD conceived of sending them back. Yes, I am suggesting another ancient, and very deep, magical contract sort-of thingie. *whew!* And the danger of Time Travel, and of seeing your future self, is demonstrated by Harry's newly-implanted memory of "seeing his father" and almost not acting soon enough to make the trip worthwhile. Hermione said dire things might happen, though she didn't have any concrete example, just vague notions. Of course, he might have had a feverish sort of recollection of Snape casting a Patronus (and not using his alternate method for one reason or another), and imagining his father at that point due to being nearly unconscious. I favor a memory changing when DD decides to send them back. Ceridwen. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 21:12:39 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:12:39 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167500 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I had a hard time snipping this because I didn't want to mangle > > your idea. And I *think* I get it. Basically JKR *wants* us to > > see the holes in order to sort of jump start our thinking about > > why we want those holes filled in? Or maybe allow us to write in > > our own reasons? > > The issue I have with that is, IMO, encapsulated by Ken's > > response to my rant on Draco's hand of glory: > >>Ken: > > > > As it is we can't be sure with this author. Do we give her > > the benefit of the doubt, or is this just more sloppy story > > planning? > >>Pippin: > That's a good illustration of what I'm talking about . The > Hand of Glory is *not* sloppy in the same sense that the > number of students is. It doesn't violate the internal logic > of the Potterverse. > > IMO, the sense of violation comes from breaking the narrative > convention that says a story is a chain of connected events with > a beginning, a middle and an end. The end of the story isn't > logically inconsistent with the beginning, but it's narratively > deficient because we don't learn how the conflict between Draco > and his father was resolved. Betsy Hp: Yes, I agree that it's a different sort of mistake. But, as Ken points out, it's the sheer number of a variety of types of mistakes that have started making me a bit nervous about JKR's ability to steer her ship. I get the impression that you think JKR has *chosen* to make these mistakes, that's it's all part of keeping alive a mystery or a brave aesthetic choice. I'm having a *really* hard time keeping that sort of hope alive. There are *so many* mistakes on *so many* different levels it starts looking less like a cunning choice and more like sloppiness. > >>Pippin: > In terms of the overall narrative this omission is probably no more > significant than the omission of how Harry recovered the Marauders > Map. We aren't likely going to need to understand that in order to > understand how Harry defeats Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Well, no. But it certainly plays havoc with our ability to understand Draco as a character. There's a tension between Draco and his father. It's hinted at in PS/SS, exemplified in CoS, and bungled in HBP (at the same time Draco is going through massive growing pains and re-examining his relationship with his father). How Harry gets his map back is a technical issue. How Draco got his hand of glory is a wasted chance to show us something. Did his father surprise Draco with it for Christmas? Did his mother secretly include it in one of her many gift baskets? Did Draco buy it for himself while at B&B's at the beginning of HBP? Each choice brings something a bit different to the table. But JKR decided to waste the opportunity. (Though honestly, I think it was merely a stupid continuity error on her part.) > >>Pippin: > But there are many stories in the Potterverse with Missing > Middles and some of them doubtless *are* significant. How can > we tell which ones they are? We can only guess. Does it > matter why Dumbledore trusted Snape or where Lupin spent the > missing twelve years between Godric's Hollow and PoA? We don't > *know* -- and that simultaneously builds reader interest in solving > the puzzles and tempts us to presume it can't be done -- thus > preserving the mysteries even though millions of readers are > hunting for the answers and JKR has declared that all the clues are > there. Betsy Hp: Which is why I'm still holding out for DH. But I will admit I'm not too hopeful. At this point I'm just hoping the main characters stay semi-recognizable (and the trio become a little less cruel). I have a feeling most middle missing stories will remain unfinished, unrealized, mishandled stories. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 13 21:23:10 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:23:10 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167501 > > Magpie: > > But I don't think it's irrelevent given the context I > > brought that up, which was in response to the opposite > > of what you're explaining here. Others are claiming > > that Harry was saved him his future self, period. > > You seem to be saying that time did indeed happen > > twice, and that the first time Harry #1 did save > > himself. Iow, he didn't really need his future self to > > save him, he only remembers being saved by his future > > self because the two times melded and he therefore > > forgot the version where it was not his future self > > that saved him. > > > > bboyminn: > > Certainly we are all arguing valid theories of Time > Travel, but really which is easier and which makes > the most sense? That multiple divergent inconsistent > time-lines are spawned that eventually collapsing back > on themselves and merge into a whole new consistent > time-line, or that the Time Travelers simple arrived > at 6:00pm and were always there? There is a scientific > corollary that says, the simplest solution is probably > the correct solution. Magpie: I'd say it seems that it depends on the person which is more "simple" or correct. You keep claiming that Time happened once is easier, but to some of us that seems far more complicated. So we should probably all just understand it the best way we can. If one person finds it necessary to imagine a version where Harry escaped some other way that was then erased so that we didn't see it or whatever, that's probably the simplest way for them and none of us are helping the other by trying to argue another understanding.:-) Steve: > But, there is a flow to this story that isolates one > particular theory of time travel. There are clues > dropped to re-enforce that THIS is the model of time > travel that is being used. That flow, those clues, > this model are the 'Time Only Happens Once' model. > Discussing it from other perspectives is certainly > valid as a point of interest, but the selected model > seems crystal clear to me in the books. Magpie: Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I feel like people keep thinking I need to have explained to me what happened in the book rather than thinking about the logical implications of what I know happened. I didn't miss the clues about what was going on in the book. I get that it's all happening at once in terms of what's happening in the narrative. I'm not trying to find some way that Hagrid's yell, when first heard by Harry and Hermione, was actually despair, and that the first thud of the axe was really hitting Buckbeak. I know that when Harry thinks he sees his father he's really seeing himself. It's very clear to me that nothing changed except Harry's perspective there. We're reading the story the same way. We only disagree when it comes to--completely outside the story--trying to work out the logic of it. That's where your easy solution seems the more complicated to me. Obviously you think that saying that "no alternative series of events" makes everything easier, but for some of us, that's not making anything simpler. I mean, we know there is no alternative series of events within canon. That doesn't change the paradoxes of Time Travel--which, as you've said, is impossible to talk about without getting tied up in knots. Steve: > If, in what others are calling the first time-line, > Harry is saved by someone who looks like Harry, then > all these other mysterious and unlikely time-lines > become very far fetched, especially when we see the > same events from the perspective of the Time Traveling > Harry, and discover, lo and behold, it was Harry who > saved Harry. No wonder the savior looked so much like > Harry. Magpie: I don't think anything is particularly far-fetched compared to Harry being saved by a version of himself, which is exactly what happened. But again, when people talk about first-time Harry being saved they are *not* saying that he was saved by someone who looked like Harry. They know that the person who looked like Harry was none other than Harry from the future. They're just saying that in order for Harry to be living in the future, they think something else must explain how he was alive in the future, something else that *there is no trace of in canon at all.* So they're not trying to fit this mystery scenario into the narrative we read. It was, in Dana's words, "erased." Steve: > Cause dictates Effect independent of the order of the > occurrence of Cause and Effect. The Effect is whether > or not Sirius was saved, the Cause is whether or not > someone time traveled. Since the Effect did not occur, > we can only conclude that there was no Cause to > precipitate the Effect; that is, NO ONE time traveled. Magpie: Yes, but that's never been questioned. That was in my original point when I brought up Sirius: we know no one Time Traveled to save Sirius because Sirius was not saved by a Time Traveler. It may be perfectly true in the Potterverse that you can't change the past, but of course, that's why Harry and Hermione had to not know that rule in order to go back in time to attempt to change the past. They ultimately both did and did not do what they set out to do. They went back because they wanted to change what happened the first time, and then discovered they didn't change what happened the first time. They also went back because it was, they felt, the only way to save Buckbeak. And it was how Buckbeak was saved. If they had not gone back, thinking they couldn't change the past, the past would have happened differently. zgirnius: I disagree that one can consider time travel in the Potterverse without considering how it was written. It is a universe endowed with certain laws by its creatrix, which govern, among other things, how time travel works. I guess we agree on what those laws are, something I had failed to understand from your earlier posts. Magpie: I agree that any discussion of Time Travel in the HP-verse is going to include how it is written, and the rules the author sets down. But at the same time the characters aren't consciously following those rules. They don't know their world is neatly arranged by an author. Harry and Hermione think Buckbeak was executed and that they are going to change it. zgirnius: The point you seem to want to discuss is how time travel *really* would work, logically, in our world, supposing it was actually possible, and someone invented it. Am I understanding your point correctly? If so, these laws are not known for our own world; they are a subject of disagreement among experts in the field of theoretical physics. Magpie: I guess it's yes and no what I want to discuss. Time Travel, as you say, does not exist in our world, so we don't know how it would work here. What I think I'm doing is taking logic that exists in both worlds and trying to apply it where I think it applies. However Time Travel "works" in the WW, we all agree that once you are dead you can not Time Travel, which means Harry can not die and then Time Travel afterwards any more than Sirius could. We can all agree that Harry's experience in PoA was that he was being attacked by a Dementor, but was then saved by something he thought to be his father but was really himself from the future. But we're all probably going to privately work out the logic for that to our own personal satisfaction. The fact that Harry's past does not change, since things done by his future self in his own time are part of his experience and therefore his memory, is not something I have a problem with. Dana doesn't have a problem with it either, as far as I can tell, but she sees another version of time being erased rather than never having existed. That seems to be the way Ceridwen explains it to herself as well. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 22:07:25 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:07:25 -0000 Subject: Tobias & The Angel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167502 > >>Betsy Hp in: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167433 > > If Snape reported the prophecy to Voldemort on Dumbledore's > > orders it would mean that (a) Snape would have no reason to feel > > any remorse, > >>Goddlefrood: > Firstly let me emphasise, this is not the Snape I favour. On this > point above I would simply enquire: "Do you honestly believe DD's > story, as *inferred* by Harry, on his reason for trusting > Severus?" > Betsy Hp: Yes. Especially since Harry so badly misinterpreted it and mangled the time line. (That sort of mistake strikes me as a neon sign from JKR: "important information enclosed within".) I think there's probably a bit *more* to the story, but I think it's correct in essentials. Snape was working for Voldemort, overheard the prophecy, reported it to Voldemort, and was horrified with the result. Works for me. > >>Goddlefrood: > Severus does not come across as a man who feels remorse, it > seemed more like a cooked up story to me :) Betsy Hp: Hee! And to me, Snape has been *aching* with remorse from the moment we first meet him. His zealous protection of Harry, his constantly putting himself on the front line, his absolute rage at Sirius (someone who shared Snape's guilt) in PoA all speak to me of a character who is trying to gain forgiveness for the unforgivable. (I think Snape is harder on himself than he probably needs to be, but that goes with his character type. They will gnash and wail and wander the wind swept moors. Or, you know, go for a punishing cross country run with the Clash blaring on their ipod. ) > >>Betsy Hp: > > (b) Harry will end the series hating Albus Dumbledore. > > > >>Goddlefrood: > He may end up this way, but has a forgiving nature, and would > find a way to forgive DD his transgression. > Betsy Hp: I... Wait -- what? Harry has a forgiving nature? I... I'm going to need some canon, sorry. This is a side of Harry I'm afraid I just haven't seen. > >>zgirnius: > > On the other hand, if this theory is true, quite possibly all of > the above is true of Dumbledore as well. His anguished words in > the Cave could well express his feelings regarding the Potters, > and his decision to die on the Tower could be his final act > of atonement. If Harry can forgive Snape for these reasons, I > don't see why he cannot forgive Dumbledore. Betsy Hp: Because Harry will forgive Snape *only* by seeing the amount of effort and pain Snape has put into trying to redeem himself. And frankly, I think it'll be Snape's certainty that he *cannot* be redeemed that will win Harry over in the end. Dumbledore has not gone through that sort of soul-searching pain. A few moments babble under the influence of some potion won't do it for our young Harry. Which is part of the reason I cannot see Snape suddenly *becoming* DDM in the very last book and Harry agreeing with it. There needs to be a long trail of bloody footprints to wash away this particular sin. Or at least, that's how I see it. (And I think that's how both Snape and Harry would see it too. Huh, I suspect Dumbledore would feel similarly, though I think he'd bicker about the actual *length* of trail needed.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > It would completely destroy any aspect of redemption within > > Snape's story. Snape would not need to be redemed because he did > > nothing wrong to begin with. > >>Goddlefrood: > Yes, that interview statement is problematic, but its > interpretation, IMO, is that she complimented the interviewer on > the question without actually agreeing with it. Betsy Hp: Oh, none of the above is at all based on any sort of interview question or answer. I'm familiar with the one you're speaking of, but I agree that JKR hasn't answered (and shouldn't, IMO) any important character question. No, I'm going by my sense of the story- arch and character-arch. It's all my opinion of course, but as stated in another post, this is one of which I'm smugly certain. > >>Betsy Hp: > > An emotional boy who wore his heart on his sleeve, and who > > therefore made a horrible mistake. A mistake he's spending the > > rest of his life trying to amend. *That's* a character and a > > story-line I can get behind. > >>zgirnius: > No question about the aesthetic preference re. Snape, here, I > agree. However, you get a story you have not been expecting > about Dumbledore in exchange. The cold, calculating chessmaster > of the good guys, forgetting for a moment what it is that makes > his side good, then coming to love, and eventually die for, the > boy he helped to orphan. (Though, like I suppose Snape did, > DUmbledore also tried to protect the Potters. He offered to be their > Secret Keeper, for example). Betsy Hp: IOWs, "Ender's Game" re-told? Blech, I hope not. For one, there's the frustration of Harry finding all of this out and not getting a chance to confront Dumbledore. Plus, it means the entire Snape story was a red-herring. All in all, I think it'd be a bit rude on JKR's part. A bit too gimicky and gotcha-y. Right up there with Hadrian Potsherd from Ravenclaw taking Voldemort down in the end (because it was a *twist*! Get it!! Harry was a decoy all along!!). There's been too much emotion put into Harry's relationship with Snape for it to all fizzle out in the end, I think. > >>wynleaf in: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167436 > > However, there is the question of why Snape went for many years > > without revealing Lupin's secret. > >>Goddlefrood: > > IMO it is a strong ground for suspecting that Snape is far from > being LV's man and lends support to him as either DDM or > SLANOBANTITS :) Betsy Hp: Well, as Pippin points out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167441 > >>Pippin: > But it wasn't secret! He's been "shunned all my adult life, unable > to find paid work because of what I am." Lupin also says that the > staff know what he is, and we find out that he was hired with > Fudge's permission, which probably means that anyone with Ministry > connections would know. So really, it was only the kids who > were out of the loop. > Betsy Hp: So if Lupin being a werewolf is not a secret kept by Snape all these years, then there's no reason to suspect that Snape would also know that Lupin was both in the Order and a spy (if Lupin even was at that time). Not until Snape actually joined the Order himself (sometime after the first prophecy), though possibly not even then. > >>Goddlefrood: > > For what it may be worth I accept the simple explanation as to > how Remus lost his job. Purely and simply it was due to concerns > of parents, parents who had found out about his condition > through Severus's less than tight lips. With the proviso as above > that it was spite against Sirius rather than Lupin that led Snape > to let slip Remus's condition towards the end of PoA. Betsy Hp: I think Wynnleaf has the simplier answer, given all the players and their various actions throughout the series: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167441 > >>wynnleaf: > > Okay... my theory and analysis. Dumbledore was highly displeased > with Lupin, Lupin's year long deception, his higher regard for how > people would think of him than the safety of Hogwart's students, > and last, for forgetting his potion in a crisis. Lupin was asked to > resign. That's why Lupin *had* to leave. That's why Lupin was so > uncomfortable around Dumbledore. That's why Dumbledore didn't seem > to have any regretful attitude toward Lupin's leaving. That's why > Dumbledore didn't have anything to say to Harry about Lupin. Betsy Hp: It makes Lupin feel better to blame Snape, but it was his fault in the end. Betsy Hp From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 22:00:17 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:00:17 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167503 > Nikkalmati: > > Personally I hope Time turning does not return in book 7, it makes my head ache! Goddlefrood: Mine too, it may still have a part to play, but like you I hope not :) > Ceridwen: > And the danger of Time Travel, and of seeing your future self, is demonstrated by Harry's newly-implanted memory of "seeing his father" and almost not acting soon enough to make the trip worthwhile. Goddlefrood: Goddlefrood: I pretend no expertise in time travel, let's face it, the concept remains theoretical and there is no empirical evidence of it. Here's an explanation that may be of interest, I wish I could have written this :): "One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broadminded and well adjusted family can't cope with. There is also no problem about changing the course of history - the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end. The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult this matter is Dr Dan Streementioner's Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations ... Most readers get as far at the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later editions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on pronting costs." Later on: On Milliway's (The Restaurant at the End of the Universe): "You can arrive (mayan arrivan on-when) for any sitting you like without prior (late fore-when) reservtion because you can book retrospectively, as it were when you return to your own time. (you can have on-book haventa forewhen presooning returningwenta retrohome). This is, many would now insist, absolutely impossible." All from Chapter 15 of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams. Make sense of it what you will, there really is little sense in time travel at all. Goddlefrood, backing fromto the pastwhen. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 13 22:24:42 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:24:42 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Was: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Magpie: > > In PoA it seems like the only difference is a different gimmick. JKR > chooses to show the version where Harry #1 sees Harry #2 come back in > time, only she hides it so he doesn't know that's what he's seeing. If > there was an alternate universe where Harry #2 didn't go back in time, > it's lost to Harry's experience. > > I always think of that with PoA because so often I've heard it > explained that the only reason Harry is able to go back in time is > because he already did it, and that this somehow makes the time travel > in PoA more logical than in another story, and that I don't get. Carol: > Does that make sense to you? I don't know; probably not. But it makes > sense to me. There's no gap; there's no change in what actually > happened. Only the perception of what happened has changed. And, for > me, that's what the HP books are about, in large measure, the > perception of reality as opposed to what really happened. look at > "Snape" plotting to steal the Sorceror's Stone. Look at Harry > "attacking" Justin with the snake. Look at Sirius Black "murdering" > Pettigrew and the Muggles and breaking into Hogwarts to murder > "Harry." Look at Macnair "executing" Buckbeak and "James" casting the > Patronus. Look at what happened on the tower. . . . > > Carol, who is not arguing that time travel is in any way involved in > those other events, only that what the characters interpret as reality > is not necessarily reality within the books, regardless of whether > time travel is involved Geoff: I've snipped this post massively because I just wanted to pick up on some of Carol's comments and direct her attention to previous posts on this rather convoluted event. There was a lot of speculation about the time loops back in pre-HBP days and one longish thread which might - might not(!) - help was one entitled "That Time Turner" which kicked off at message 122866. This might help to focus some of our thinking about this topic of how the two Harrys and two Hermiones interacted. Geoff Not for the first time do I quote Miles O'Brien from "Star Trek: DS9" who, in one episode meets his future self and, at one point, they sit down side by side and say together "I hate temporal mechanics." From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 13 22:42:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:42:49 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167505 > Betsy Hp: > Yes, I agree that it's a different sort of mistake. But, as Ken > points out, it's the sheer number of a variety of types of mistakes > that have started making me a bit nervous about JKR's ability to > steer her ship. > > I get the impression that you think JKR has *chosen* to make these > mistakes, that's it's all part of keeping alive a mystery or a brave > aesthetic choice. I'm having a *really* hard time keeping that sort > of hope alive. There are *so many* mistakes on *so many* different > levels it starts looking less like a cunning choice and more like > sloppiness. Pippin: Anyone who decides to create a work of such size and complexity has chosen to make mistakes. Errors of logic and continuity are inevitable -- or at least the probability that they will be introduced is far greater than zero, no matter how carefully the author plans ahead. It amuses me that Tolkien is cited as the gold standard. It seems to be forgotten that he substantially rewrote The Hobbit to make it mesh with LOTR, and as for continuity between LOTR and The Silmarillion, fugeddaboutit. If he's the ideal, JKR has *nothing* to worry about. In any case, the probability that corrections will also contain errors is also greater than zero, so no matter how carefully one edits a text, perfection cannot be guaranteed. Knowing this, I think JKR decided have some fun with it. As I've said before there are several examples in PSS where things read like mistakes in continuity or sloppy narrative technique but turn out to be information from an unreliable source or stylistic trickery, such as the narrator's unqualified statement that Harry's parents died in a car crash, Scabbers falling asleep immediately after attacking Goyle (which makes no sense until we learn that he is not only not a real rat but a "sleeper") and the switch in PoV which allows JKR to omit any information about when Harry regained control of his broom in relation to Hermione's attack on Snape. I think these examples set the tone for the series. Alongside randomly occurring errors in 'maths' and continuity and post-publication revisions like the prefects badge makeover, we will find apparent 'mistakes' that JKR has planned from the beginning which will turn out to be part of the plot. > Betsy Hp: > Well, no. But it certainly plays havoc with our ability to > understand Draco as a character. How Harry gets > his map back is a technical issue. How Draco got his hand of glory > is a wasted chance to show us something. Pippin: But how Draco gets the HoG is a technical issue too -- there's nothing in the text to indicate that the tension between Draco and his father had to be resolved in order for him to obtain it. We can assume that the tension still exists. It's heightened, since we now know that Draco and his family care for one another despite the conflicts between them. It does indicate that the relationship between Draco and Lucius may have started to alter before Voldemort put his hand in -- you're wondering whether Lucius changed his mind or Draco achieved some independence, and that, IMO, is just what JKR wants. As Lucius is still in jail and Draco's fate is uncertain, their story cannot be over, so the *real* narrative mistake, IMO, would be to resolve the tension before it is. Pippin From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 22:57:51 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:57:51 -0000 Subject: No More Stories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167507 I wouldn't put much stock in Rowling's assertion that there won't be anymore Potterverse stories. She's been working on these for quite a long time, but she's still a relatively young woman. She thinks now that there won't be any more, but as time goes by she will miss it, and want to return. No one from HP even needs to be in any new creation--she could merely situate it in the wizarding world. I personally can't believe she'll never write about it again. Not possible. It would be like abandoning a beautiful house just because the owners have died. She'll write about the wizarding world again at least. That's the real genius of her books--not this particular story of this particular boy but the universe that story inhabits. Still, I'm interested to see what she's going to do next. I can't see her not writing, so I want to know where she'll go from here. > > va32h here: > > With lawyers? Honestly, I don't see how it is possible. Even if she > kills off every character, there could still be stories of Harry in > the afterlife, or "pre-quels" with the Marauders. Even if she ends > the story by saying that none of it ever happened - that Harry Potter > was a normal boy who had a psychotic break on his 11th birthday and > hallucinated this entire world (perhaps based on a castle figurine > inside a snowglobe ;) -- the determined and enterprising fan can > simply dismiss all that and come up with an alternate ending. > > And HP fans are nothing if not determined. The tenacity with which > people cling to theories, even when JK herself has shot them down, is > proof enough of that. > > I think JK is being optimistic when she says that there will be no > further need for more stories. She is done telling the story *she* > wants to tell, but for those who want to imagine more - there is no > end in sight. > > va32h > From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Apr 13 23:15:38 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:15:38 -0400 Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167508 Doug: ...Or, this story we read *is* the second time through... ___ __ From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 13 23:48:53 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:48:53 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167509 > Magpie: > I agree that any discussion of Time Travel in the HP-verse is going > to include how it is written, and the rules the author sets down. > But at the same time the characters aren't consciously following > those rules. They don't know their world is neatly arranged by an > author. Harry and Hermione think Buckbeak was executed and that they > are going to change it. zgirnius: Harry and Hermione are unaware of the rules, yes. This is not because they do not realize they are fictional characters. It is because they are residents of the Potterverse who happen not to know (or fully understand) all of the natural/magical laws that govern that universe. I would venture a guess that Dumbledore, on the other hand, does know how time travel works in his universe (although this too is irrelevant to how it actually does). He also does not attribute its workings to Rowling, naturally. Whether the laws of nature are neatly arranged by an author, as in HP, or by (insert deity of choice or appropriate atheistic opinion here) as in our world, they are the rules. The opinions of the residents of these worlds do not change them. Though, considering what the characters know about their world, it does seem to me that Hermione may have an inkling about time travel, presumably having read/received some information about it along with her Time Turner. There is a scene in PoA where Harry and Ron comment that she has missed a class, and her reaction is distress that she missed it. I always took that to mean that she realizes (because it is in the past, an accomplished fact) that she *cannot* use the Time Turner to make that class up, hence her distress. Otherwise, she could just Time Turn and catch the class after all. Her opinion that Bucky was dead but saveable would then indicate she was not thinking clearly at the time, or had an incomplete grasp of the concepts. . From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sat Apr 14 00:07:32 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:07:32 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: <23070133.1176485049536.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167510 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: finwitch > >> I agree here with Bart ... there is something that has yet to be > >> revealed about Petunia. After all, what was her motivation to make an > >> agreement with Dumbledore. Why would she take "magic" in to her house > >> .. . What did she fear if she didn't? Let's just say it ... what is > >> Petunia hiding??? > > >Indeed - very interesting. She took Harry in then - when he was so > >*very* young child. What ever else, NOT doing so would be criminal. > >(and not "normal" either). AND the neighbours would notice a crying > >child on a known housewife's doorstep... that could explain why she > >took him. > > Finally, especially in PS/SS, it seems that the Dursleys aren't trying to keep Harry away from his birthright as much as they are trying to SHIELD him from magic. That is the reason why I think that the Dursleys, as conceived, had some other factor going, which did not show up in print. > > Bart Quick_Silver: I agree that there's more to Petunia then meets the eye. As to the Dursley's as a whole I think part of the reason there exists a slight disconnect is that there's a shift in their purpose especially between the first book and the rest of the series. In PS/SS there's a lot of emphasis on the difference between the "normal" world and the "magic" world with Uncle Vernon calling the Potters weirdoes and mixing with the wrong crowd. This divide is further highlighted by Hermione stating that many a great wizard was terrible at logic. In comparison the rest of the series doesn't really play up the uniqueness of the magic world over the mundane one. In fact it goes the opposite rout...the magic world becomes increasingly mundane and populated by paper pushing bureaucrats. Quick_Silver From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 14 02:06:26 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:06:26 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167511 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > Ken: > > > > ... > > > > ... We are coming up to the point where Harry is about > > to get his first kiss .... Because time travel exists > > in the Potterverse and conforms to the self-consistent > > ... model, a future Harry Potter either will come back > > and save the day or Harry's life will essentially be > > over, ... The decision has to be made right now, not > > some time later by Dumbledore or Hermione in the > > hospital wing. Who or what decides or even causes the > > decision to be made? I don't think there is an answer > > .... > > > > bboyminn: > > To your last point, you are totally right, there is no > answer, at least not one that doesn't have some degree > of inconsistency in it because that is the nature of > ALL time travel, and here is why. > Ken: With all the words that have been written here about this in the last few days it is obvious that either there is no way to make time travel consistent, as you say, or else know one here knows how to explain it. I don't see any way to resolve all the paradoxes. Fixing one just creates another or two if you are unlucky. And that is my objection. There is *no reason* to have time travel in POA. It is gratuitous. Rewriting the plot to eliminate it would hardly change anything. A story that embraces time travel fully and lives or dies by it has at least a chance of impressing me. If it is part of the Potterverse then it is and it should be used every single time it would be useful. Throwing it in once to impress me does not impress me. At this point the only possible reason to have time travel in POA is that it is needed in DH. I pray not but the ink is on the paper and won't be changed now so prayer is as useless as a time turner at this point. Magic aside the Potterverse seems familiar and normal. You can find real prototypes for just about every non- magical element and character in it. Even the magic is almost normal. Reading the Potterverse is a bit like watching the Flintstones, they have everything we do except their version depends on magic/little dinosaurs. Time travel always introduces an element of absurdity. If there was a point to the absurdity it would be acceptable as in absurdist theater. In this story the absurdity is just ignored, it signifies nothing, it accomplishes nothing, it has no place being there at all. The only thing that can change this is the text of DH and all I can say about that is if time travel is a feature of DH it had better be good. Much better than POA. Ken From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 14 03:03:05 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 03:03:05 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > Yes, I agree that it's a different sort of mistake. But, as Ken > > points out, it's the sheer number of a variety of types of mistakes > > that have started making me a bit nervous about JKR's ability to > > steer her ship. > > > > I get the impression that you think JKR has *chosen* to make these > > mistakes, that's it's all part of keeping alive a mystery or a brave > > aesthetic choice. I'm having a *really* hard time keeping that sort > > of hope alive. There are *so many* mistakes on *so many* different > > levels it starts looking less like a cunning choice and more like > > sloppiness. > > Pippin: > > Anyone who decides to create a work of such size and complexity > has chosen to make mistakes. Errors of logic and continuity are > inevitable -- or at least the probability that they will be introduced > is far greater than zero, no matter how carefully the author plans > ahead. It amuses me that Tolkien is cited as the gold standard. > It seems to be forgotten that he substantially rewrote > The Hobbit to make it mesh with LOTR, and as for continuity between > LOTR and The Silmarillion, fugeddaboutit. If he's the > ideal, JKR has *nothing* to worry about. > Ken: I cannot believe that JKR chose to make these mistakes. A certain number of mistakes are unavoidable and we would not criticize her for a normal amount of mistakes. The quantity and kind of mistakes are jarring. Not killing but jarring. Many of the mistakes are the kind that *could* have been avoided if the timeline had been as carefully planned out as she claims the plot was. I don't think that Tolkien expected The Hobbit to go anywhere. It wasn't volume 1 of 7. If anything he hoped its success would help him to sell a publisher on the idea of The Silmarillion. The Silimarllion was not what the publisher wanted as a follow on to The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings then was Alternate Plan B. He took a long time writing a relatively short work (compared to Harry Potter). On the other hand it was written during a major upheaval in the 20th Century. It is not surprising that an old work that was never intended to be a prequel to the new work would have to be rewritten to mesh with it. Constant revision was Tolkien's style anyway, not that this is unusual among artists. There is no point in criticizing the Silmarillion, Tolkien never finished it. Even so I am not aware of major discrepencies between the two. It functions as the lost legendary past of the Third Age and as is common with legends we don't expect it to be consistent anyway. Incorporating it as is in Lord Of The Rings adds to the realism. It is consistent enough to convey a sense of having an historical basis, spotty enough to seem plausible as millenia old oral tradition. It really adds to the depth of the story for most readers. Actually reading the Silmarillion is not a step to be taken lightly as it forces you to examine the bones the soup was made from, in Tolkien's own words. If Rowling publishes *her* notes some day Harry Potter fans will have the same choice to make. I have a friend who is an English professor at a local community college and a huge Toliken fan. She's read Lord Of The Rings close to 150 times, way more than me. We've both read the Silmarillion the same number of times, 4. It is a rewarding but a very different sort of book than most you are likely to read. If JKR had a Silmarillion in her back pocket to serve as the source story for Harry Potter the latter might be more consistent than it is but I doubt it because I think this inattentiveness to "maths" is a personal characteristic that the author would have trouble overcoming. If, in a few years she wants to write in this universe again, writing a prequel could be rewarding for author and fans alike. I'd vote that she write it in a period well removed from the time period that characters in the present series lived in though. Ken From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Apr 14 03:42:47 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:42:47 EDT Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167514 >Carol: >Exactly. We can go by the canon I cited in a previous post, willingly suspending our disbelief as to whether Time Travel, if it really existed, would work as JKR depicts it, or we can let logic and a knowledge of physics get in our way. We have to suspend our disbelief to believe in magic in the first place, in spells or potions or magical creatures or Time Turners, so why not suspend it a little further and let it work as JKR says it does? (Not quite as *Hermione* thinks, though--obviously, your future self can't kill your past self or there would be no future self in the first place. What matters is not that they don't take action, thinking that they are *changing* the past when they are actually *creating* that past, but that they not be seen by anyone--except for Dumbledore, who seems to have been aware of two Harrys and two Hermiones and given them a little nudge out the hospital wing door so that events could take shape as he knew they had already done, with the exception, as you said earlier, of Sirius Black, whose fate he did not know--which explains "more than one innocent life may be spared"--he knew that Buckbeak had been saved and hoped that Black might be as well.) Nikkalmati So when DD sent H/H out to go back in time how much did he know? He witnessed that Buckbeak was not killed. He had seen that Sirius, Harry and Hermione had been brought back from the lake by SS, after having survived the mysterious gathering and disappearance of the dementors. He was worried that Sirius was about to be de-souled. So what did he think the kids would do and how many would be saved? Hermione only figured out they were to save Buckbeak when she saw that they had gone back to just before his execution. They winged it from there. They intervened to save dog-Sirius from the werewolf and then followed the dementors to the lake and Harry ended up saving himself. If DD knew H/H had been in danger by the lake, why didn't he hint that they were to save themselves? That seems pretty important to leave to chance. OTOH, was he not concerned because H/H had clearly been saved already and time could not be changed? Was he primarily concerned that Sirius have been saved in the previous 10 minutes? Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Apr 14 04:16:25 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:16:25 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167515 >> Magpie: >> I agree that any discussion of Time Travel in the HP-verse is going >> to include how it is written, and the rules the author sets down. >> But at the same time the characters aren't consciously following >> those rules. They don't know their world is neatly arranged by an >> author. Harry and Hermione think Buckbeak was executed and that > they >> are going to change it. > zgirnius: > Harry and Hermione are unaware of the rules, yes. This is not because > they do not realize they are fictional characters. It is because they > are residents of the Potterverse who happen not to know (or fully > understand) all of the natural/magical laws that govern that > universe. Magpie: Yes, that too. But if they had known the rules of the universe and so thought they couldn't change anything, and had not gone back in time because of that, they would not have been there to save anyone. Similarly, on the days Hermione forgets to use the Time Turner to attend a class, she has skipped that class for the day. She's got to spin it to be in it.:-) However you look at it, at some point you have to decide to interfere with the past to use the Time Turner. If everyone just said "we can't ever change the past" there would be no use for Time Turners. The people who really believe you can't change the past are Muggles. Wizards seem to kind of say that, but sometimes interfere with the past while calling it not changing the past because eventually it will all be remembered as one time stream. Zara: Her opinion that > Bucky was dead but saveable would then indicate she was not thinking > clearly at the time, or had an incomplete grasp of the concepts. Magpie: Odd, given this was Hermione, though. Especially because she's not exactly wrong. I mean, Buckbeak is savable if she uses the Time Turner to save him. If she doesn't use the Time Turner to save him, there's a good chance to be dead. Buckbeak is saved only when Hermione takes action with the Time Turner, which she does with the intention of saving Buckbeak, which is also what Dumbledore (who surely knows these rules) wants her to do. Ken: With all the words that have been written here about this in the last few days it is obvious that either there is no way to make time travel consistent, as you say, or else know one here knows how to explain it. I don't see any way to resolve all the paradoxes. Fixing one just creates another or two if you are unlucky. Magpie: True dat!!! Ken: The only thing that can change this is the text of DH and all I can say about that is if time travel is a feature of DH it had better be good. Much better than POA. Magpie: This is the funny thing about PoA for me. It's so many peoples' favorite book of the series, but it contains some of my least favorite things--along with some of my favorite. I think the revelation of Scabbers being Peter, and the entire Sirius/Lupin/Peter/Snape/Harry storyline is fantastic and probably the reason the book is so well-regarded. Harry thinking he was saved by his father when he was saved by himself is a nice thematic idea with the Patronus. But a lot of the actual kid storyline in PoA contains some of my least favorite things in the series. The Buckbeak storyline being the main thing that bothers me for one reason, and the Time Travel being the other. It's not that I always dislike Time Travel in stories, but Time Travel used to fix things (which it *is* being used for here, even if the twist is that the thing was always fixed) is a huge thing to drop into a series--it's so powerful it kind of blows everything apart. That's probably why it works so well for comedy, because it so quickly becomes absurd. If you can change the past once you know better, why not do that for something more important than taking an extra class and keeping an animal alive? JKR's style of writing it gives us a fictional reason it can't be done (we know the narrative can't change, so any Time Travel story has to at least on the surface look exactly the same) but no reason for the characters not to do it. They can always roll the dice and figure they just misunderstood the first time, as Harry and Hermione did. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 05:13:03 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:13:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Last? (Was Re: The Dursleys:) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167516 > Quick_Silver: > I agree that there's more to Petunia then meets the eye. > Goddlefrood: I have to agree here, as JKR herself has told us this. > Quick_Silver: > As to the Dursley's as a whole I think part of the reason there exists a slight disconnect is that there's a shift in their purpose especially between the first book and the rest of the series. Goddlefrood: I also agree that this is a fair assessment of the Dursleys in the series to date. This is no "I agree" post, however, I believe I may have divined the significance of one of Dumbledore's letters. It came to me out of the Pensieve when cobbling together some matters for a more substantive post that will appear later on this weekend (I hope) on an unrelated to the Dursleys issue. My contribution to this discussion: In CoS there is this: "I will be writing to both your families tonight" p. 64 - Bloomsbury Paperback Edition. Dumbledore is speaking to Harry and Ron between the two lectures, first from Severus and later from Minerva. I contend that DD would have written to the Dursleys. This may seem illogical, but consider: Vernon by that stage was already displaying signs of wishing Harry out of the magical world (think the whole bars on the window thing). If DD, shortly after that, had written to the Dursleys and Vernon had seen it, does it seem likely that Vernon would not have used that against Harry to fulfil his desire to: (i) Make Harry suffer (ii) Sever further connections to the WW. I predict this letter will be of some importance and will almost certainly come up in DH during the traditional Dursley sequence. This would account for what JKR says in this: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=55 Obviously based on the contents of this link it will also be of great significance exactly what DD said in the letter left on the Dursley's doorstep. It will also be intriguing to find out why DD had communicated with Petunia before Harry was ever left in her care :) Personally I always quite liked Petunia, and if it were not for her clear influence on Vernon Harry would most probably have not stayed at the Dursleys terribly long at all. As to what Dumbledore may have written, well, I'll leave that to others who may be interested. Afraid to say that other things press the mind currently ;) Goddlefrood From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 04:42:43 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:42:43 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Which is why I'm still holding out for DH. But I will admit I'm > not too hopeful. At this point I'm just hoping the main characters > stay semi-recognizable (and the trio become a little less cruel). I > have a feeling most middle missing stories will remain unfinished, > unrealized, mishandled stories. > Well, after OOTP and HBP, I wouldn't hang my hat on any characters acting in believable or consistent ways, particularly if there is emotion involved. JKR's characters seem to vary between volcanic and reptilian, with little in-between. To make matters worse, they are volcanic when they should be reptilian (or at least subdued) and reptilian when they should be volcanic (or at least emotive). As for the trio becoming less "cruel," well, I think as long as child- abusing Snapey-poo is not clearly punished and has not offered a sincere and humble apology, any move to "correct" the trio's behavior would indicated severe moral derangement on JKR's part. And as long as Umbridge is still unchastened, dealing with the trio's moral "defects" would represent a move on JKR's part for which I would recommend heavy psychoactive medication. It seems inevitable that many of the stories will remain, as you say, unfinished and mishandled. JKR has spun her wheels for about 1200 pages over the last two books. She doesn't have time or room to make up all that wasted opportunity now, more's the pity. But on the brigher side, she has given a nice little boost to GDP. Lupinlore From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 06:45:41 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA Message-ID: <106582.47473.qm@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167518 Peggy Kern said: Hi, all. I'm rereading Order of the Phoenix, and noticed something that doesn't seem logical to me. After the first DA meeting, when they left the Room of Requirement, it's mentioned that the door turns back into part of the wall when they leave. But after they've been warned by Dobby and they all run out of the room, the door is obviously still there, because Pansy goes in and finds the list of DA members. Why didn't the door disappear when they left this time? ------------------------------------------------------------- DA Jones Here: Pansy saw the door closing and ran in just before it closed perhaps. We don't know how quickly it closes. Or perhaps because Marietta was still standing outside. Or Harry has to comciously close the room. He didn't this time because he panicked. You might just have to suspend your disbelief on this one -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peggy kern: Also, if Cho's friend was off telling Umbridge about the group, didn't they realize she was missing and wonder why? She obviously couldn't have been at the meeting with "sneak" written on her face. Any ideas? _____________________________ Marietta is the shy, quiet friend of a boisterous popular girl. To be frank she is never noticed. I think she might have one line in OOP. There are also about 28 members. It might be easy to miss one. I don't remember if Harry or Hermione take attendence. But Marietta could have easily given Cho an excuse. She's a Ravenclaw, so she could have told Marietta she wanted to study. Or that she was sick. Cho seemed to only want Marietta to come for moral support and seemed to know that Marietta was trepiditious about the meetings, so she wouldn't have pushed hard for Marietta to come. Especially since she didn't need her help facing Harry anymore. Her swan patronus just befofre they are discovered is perhaps proof that she might finally be over her grief. There are all sorts of reasons you could speculate on. This is why HP stuff is fun. The sneak mark IIRC didn't occur untill after she began talking to Umbridge. So that wasn't a problem. I'll always wonder though why JKR didn't go for the obvious inside joke and have her marked with "snitch" instead of "sneak." Sneak doesn't even fit the situation. Da Jones --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Apr 14 08:43:49 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:43:49 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167519 bboyminn: > Certainly we are all arguing valid theories of Time > Travel, but really which is easier and which makes > the most sense? That multiple divergent inconsistent > time-lines are spawned that eventually collapsing back > on themselves and merge into a whole new consistent > time-line, or that the Time Travelers simple arrived > at 6:00pm and were always there? There is a scientific > corollary that says, the simplest solution is probably > the correct solution. Dana: To some level I agree because in the book, JKR actually writes what I consider the end time and thus where we see Harry1 and Harry2 being in that part of space at the same time but to say it therefore means they where always there, to fit time travel into the story is not very logical to me. >From here I will refer to Harry before the time travel as Harry0, Harry1 is the past Harry (living in the same time as the time- traveller) and Harry2 the time-travelling Harry. Your theory seems to imply that Harry2 came out of no where before Harry0 was able to time travel (because you say time happens only once and all events happen within it, that is what you are suggesting right?). In order for Harry2 to actually exist the events must already have taken place once because if they didn't he wouldn't be there. If you look at the story of Hermione taking her classes then the second Hermione did not come out of no where. Hermione0 takes the first class and then after she is finished, goes back in time to become Hermione2 and re-live the same hour again and takes a different class. When they come back together she has the memory of both classes. Hermione1 is not actually re-living the hour she is just there at the same time Hermione2 is re-living the hour. Hermione2 does change the past because if she didn't Hermione (afterwards) would not have the knowledge of the class Hermione2 was taking. Hermione2's actions are still actively changing the present by changing the past. Just because her time travel does not affect other events around her does not mean her actions changed nothing. If Hermione0 would time travel before her first class starts then Hermione2 would not be able to attend the second class ever, because they occur at the same time and there would be no past to travel to or at least not in relation to taking classes at the same time. Hermione2 would stop to exist the moment Hermione0 goes back in time and therefore would never be able to attend the class if Hermione0 didn't lived through the hour herself first. Your theory is flawed because if the past has not yet occurred then there is no timeframe to travel back to from a future point. Therefore time can't happen only once and they weren't always there. JKR just hasn't written down the first time creating that specific past she wanted to have Harry change later. She only writes the narrative from Harry1 and then after the jump point from Harry2 perspective but leaves Harry0's actions out of the story for dramatic effect not because the past did not yet unfold entirely as you want to imply. I am not sure where the idea of history can't be changed came from because almost everything in the Potterverse is something that can't happen in real life. When was the last time any of you saw someone waving a wand (and successfully do magic with it LOL), conjuring patroni (?) or apperate from one point to the next? The entire story is based on great imagination. Time travel is one of them but just because in real live we can't time travel in the way it was used in the Potterverse does not mean therefore the story is inconsistent. And maybe I missed something but no where is it implied that you CAN'T change the past just that you SHOULD not change the past because it is dangerous and there is a simple reason; you can't control the effects your changes of the past will have on the events that already occurred; meaning the present. For instance if Harry would have burst into Hagrid's hut and killed the rat, then the Shrieking Shack scene would never happen and Harry would suddenly not know Sirius is innocent and he would not have a reason to set the man free and at the same time Sirius would not have been captured at all. That is why you shouldn't mess with things that already happened; one little change can have great consequences. In this case Harry2 did not cause Harry1's survival because he already survived, the only thing Harry2 did was change the WAY Harry1 survived because it makes the story of the marauders complete by having Prongs actively participate in an event of that night. All JMHO Dana From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 15:42:09 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:42:09 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167520 > >>Pippin: > Anyone who decides to create a work of such size and complexity > has chosen to make mistakes. Errors of logic and continuity are > inevitable -- or at least the probability that they will be > introduced is far greater than zero, no matter how carefully the > author plans ahead. > Betsy Hp: Well yes, of course. But again, *so* many mistakes on *so* many different levels. It speaks to a not so careful planning. Which is bothersome, IMO. > >>Pippin: > In any case, the probability that corrections will also contain > errors is also greater than zero, so no matter how carefully one > edits a text, perfection cannot be guaranteed. Knowing this, I > think JKR decided have some fun with it. > Betsy Hp: I really, really don't get the idea that JKR is making continuity errors (or character inconsistencies or math holes or world building contradictions) for the *fun* of it. I mean, this would mean you'd have to accept the idea that Dumbledore's still flowing blood in HBP was a "fun" mistake on JKR's part to send readers harrying of in a "he took a while to die!" direction. Wouldn't that annoy you if in DH it turns out that no, Dumbledore was dead the second he was blasted off the tower, and JKR just stuck in strangely behaving blood as a clever use of the sort of mistakes authors will make? > >>Pippin: > But how Draco gets the HoG is a technical issue too -- there's > nothing in the text to indicate that the tension between Draco and > his father had to be resolved in order for him to obtain it. We can > assume that the tension still exists. It's heightened, since we > now know that Draco and his family care for one another despite > the conflicts between them. It does indicate that the relationship > between Draco and Lucius may have started to alter before Voldemort > put his hand in -- you're wondering whether Lucius changed his > mind or Draco achieved some independence, and that, IMO, is > just what JKR wants. As Lucius is still in jail and Draco's fate is > uncertain, their story cannot be over, so the *real* narrative > mistake, IMO, would be to resolve the tension before it is. Betsy Hp: So JKR purposefully planned on her reader getting jerked out of the story in HBP? She's going to bring up that whole Hand of Glory issue in DH (along with a myriad of other issues) to show us what the real state of Draco's relationship with his father was back in HBP? (Or, more properly, back in an earlier book, since it seems Draco had had the hand for a little while there). I'm sorry, but that seems a particularly ridiculous way of keeping a secret from the readers. And if JKR was honestly wanting to go in that sort of direction she should have put a tag on the incident by having Harry remember that as far as he knew Draco never had the Hand, either at the point it's brought up in HBP or when Draco actually got the thing and that fact made the rumor mills (because I'm still curious as to how *Ron* of all people knew about it). Then the actual *method* of Draco getting the Hand remains a narrative mystery to be concluded in the grand finale. Honestly though, I doubt the fact that Draco's got his hand of glory is all that important to the overall story. So I doubt it'll ever be addressed again. Which means it was a moment of sloppiness on JKR's part. One, unfortunately, of many. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Which is why I'm still holding out for DH. But I will admit > > I'm not too hopeful. At this point I'm just hoping the main > > characters stay semi-recognizable (and the trio become a little > > less cruel). > > > >>Lupinlore: > Well, after OOTP and HBP, I wouldn't hang my hat on any characters > acting in believable or consistent ways, particularly if there is > emotion involved. JKR's characters seem to vary between volcanic and > reptilian, with little in-between. > Betsy Hp: They do tend to, I agree. Though I think that's been fairly consistent with JKR's style throughout. And I'm all for consistentcy. I do think Dumbledore was badly mishandled. (frex: While I can accept that magically there was no surer way to protect Harry than sticking him with the Dursleys, that oddly rude little lecture Dumbledore gave the Dursleys in HBP shook my acceptence that any sort of wizard interference would have put Harry on the street. It was an odd choice on JKR's part, IMO.) But I think Dumbledore was a sort of dues ex machina (always arriving in the nick of time to save the day, but missing for long enough for things to get really tense first) so I'm not sure JKR really thought too much about his characterization beyond a unique quirk or two. > >>Lupinlore: > As for the trio becoming less "cruel," well, I think as long as > child-abusing Snapey-poo is not clearly punished and has not > offered a sincere and humble apology, any move to "correct" the > trio's behavior would indicated severe moral derangement on JKR's > part. And as long as Umbridge is still unchastened, dealing with > the trio's moral "defects" would represent a move on JKR's part for > which I would recommend heavy psychoactive medication. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, while I know we'll never agree on how to look at Snape, I do think there's a difference between say Hermione remaining cruel and Umbridge remaining cruel. Umbridge is a villain. The reader, knowing this, hisses at her when she walks on stage and cheers when the Centaurs cart her off to do JKR knows what with her. If Umbridge never changes she's still seen as a bad egg. It doesn't matter if Umbridge admits to being bad or not. She is what she is. But we're supposed to (I think, anyway) *like* the Trio, cheer for them, etc. That I don't really like them all that much at the moment takes away from my enjoyment of the story. So if Hermione remains as cruel as she's been in DH, and never changes, does that mean I was supposed to like it? That I was supposed to cheer on her moments of cruelty and admire it? That's where the dissonance comes in for me. It's easy and right to hiss the villain, but one really shouldn't be hissing the hero. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 14 18:32:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:32:15 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167521 > Ken: > > I cannot believe that JKR chose to make these mistakes. A certain > number of mistakes are unavoidable and we would not criticize > her for a normal amount of mistakes. The quantity and kind of mistakes > are jarring. Not killing but jarring. Many of the mistakes are the > kind that *could* have been avoided if the timeline had been as > carefully planned out as she claims the plot was. > > I don't think that Tolkien expected The Hobbit to go anywhere. Pippin: We can make allowances for JKR's circumstances too. She says that she set aside a certain amount of time to plan her saga and bring it to market. If she didn't succeed in that time she was going to give up. Like Harry, she was living on the deeply begrudged generosity of the ratepaying class. You can imagine what Vernon would think of his tax money going to pay some flighty divorcee to make up stories about wizards and dragons instead of holding down a real job. She couldn't afford an infinite amount of time to search for errors, nor hire someone to do it, nor was there at that time an obsessed fanbase who would have bid on the privelege of doing it for nothing. I never noticed a problem with Charlie Weasley's age until it was pointed out to me -- so it's no surprise to me that JKR didn't spot it. Some people notice stuff like that immediately -- they probably got a higher score on the math portion of their SAT than I did. Good for them, but we're not all so gifted. Somebody who's good at math not only makes fewer errors than I do, he finds and corrects them more quickly. I can be just as careful in terms of the time and attention I devote to math, and still get poorer results. Ken: > There is no point in criticizing the Silmarillion, Tolkien never > finished it Pippin: If there's no point in criticizing the Silmarillion because it's not finished, how can there be any point in criticizing the Harry Potter saga, which isn't finished either? Most likely the time travel is there because it's thematically important -- Harry learns that he can't change the past but he can reinterpret it if he can only let go of his destructive memories. If that plays havoc with the wish to assume the Harry Potter world is a real place governed by consistent physical laws -- well, JKR never said it was. And the wisest of its inhabitants doesn't believe it is either. Dumbledore says there is a power greater than nature's at work in the Potterverse. It saved Harry at Godric's Hollow. It saved him in PoA, IMO, and d'oh, it'll save Harry again in DH or I'm a Hobbit. Betsy: Betsy Hp: I really, really don't get the idea that JKR is making continuity errors (or character inconsistencies or math holes or world building contradictions) for the *fun* of it. Pippin: I didn't mean she was making mistakes for the fun of it. I mean, she knew that the circumstances in which she was writing would force her to produce errors in the text, just like GM knows that its business model will force the production of a certain number of defective cars. Knowing that, IMO, she invented a style in which some apparent mistakes by the author would turn out to be misinterpretations by the characters or tricks on the reader, tricks which would be obvious except that they're concealed by the overall pulpiness. I've already pointed out the examples in PS/SS -- are you saying these aren't stylistic tricks but are pure coincidence? I find that *very* hard to believe. You're saying she changed the narrative voice in chapter eleven naively, not knowing that this is considered an elementary mistake in style, and then unintentionally it worked out to conceal some crucial elements of the plot which she actually meant to tell us about? We were supposed to know whether Harry's broom stopped bucking before Hermione reached Snape? ::blinks:: Betsy Hp: So JKR purposefully planned on her reader getting jerked out of the story in HBP? She's going to bring up that whole Hand of Glory issue in DH (along with a myriad of other issues) to show us what the real state of Draco's relationship with his father was back in HBP? (Or, more properly, back in an earlier book, since it seems Draco had had the hand for a little while there). Pippin: How jerked out are you? You still want to read DH, despite your fear that it might disappoint you, right? And so do about a zillion other people. It does jar -- but just enough to make you aware that you had some preconceptions about how Draco's story was going to go -- and I think she did that on purpose. She wants you to see that your preconceptions about Draco failed to predict what he was capable of. It makes Dumbledore's error in failing to imagine that Draco could smuggle in DE's more credible, no? IMO, she hasn't got to resolve the technical issue of how Draco got the hand. She just has to resolve the state of things between Draco and his father, and then it won't matter, any more than it matters how he got the Peruvian Darkness Powder, or how the Twins got their hands on contraband before they met Mundungus. It might make an intriguing bit of fan fiction, but there's no thematic necessity for this info, IMO. We don't, er, need to know. Betsy HP: I do think Dumbledore was badly mishandled. (frex: While I can accept that magically there was no surer way to protect Harry than sticking him with the Dursleys, that oddly rude little lecture Dumbledore gave the Dursleys in HBP shook my acceptence that any sort of wizard interference would have put Harry on the street. It was an odd choice on JKR's part, IMO.) Pippin: The point is, Dumbledore couldn't *know* how much wizard interference it would take to put Harry in the street. He'd be guessing, and he knows as well as we do that some of his guesses are wrong. The Dursleys may be stultified members of the middle class, but they aren't Bagginses after all -- you *can't* tell what they'll do or say without the bother of asking them and neither can Dumbledore. He'd be gambling with Harry's remaining protection (which the Dursleys did threaten to withdraw in PoA) and he apparently didn't think it was worth the risk until there was so little protection remaining that a bit of moral support for Harry seemed a fair trade. Is a live Harry, troubled by depression and anger, worth less than a dead Harry and the serene belief that he'd done all he could to change the Dursleys ways, so it's their fault if they kicked Harry out and let him get killed? Should Dumbledore wallow in sad memories and might have beens? If he buried himself in regret for every evil that he failed to prevent, what use would he be to anyone? It's discomforting to have Dumbledore act in ways that make it plain that his nobility is of a human order, a fragile and difficult choice, not a given like Gandalf's, but does it detract from him as a character? I don't think so. It does make it harder to treat the books as chicken soup for the soul. I don't, I can't, read the books for comfort any more. Umbridge, and Sirius's death took that away. DH may bring it back, or not. I think that tension has been created purposefully too. I'm not so sure JKR wants us to be able to lose ourselves in these books -- read them, learn from them, enjoy them, yes, but use them as mental comfort food? "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live, remember that." Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 14 18:37:41 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:37:41 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse (Harry's disinterest in parents In-Reply-To: <93638.11793.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Don Elsenheimer wrote: > > ...when JKR keeps accentuating orphan's misery throughout the series, Harry's > unnatural inactivity in that sense contradicts her portrayal of > Harry as a bright child longing for loving relatives. > > This is particularly relevant given what Harry saw in the Mirror of Erised in PS. And even if Harry is bright (but rather incurious), Hermione isn't, and I can't imagine someone like her not taking the initiative to track down this information for her best friend. > > A scrapbook with wizard photos and memories written down by those who knew Lily and James would have made a heck of a Christmas present, don't you think? Geoff: Don't forget that Harry /did/ get a book very like that...... 'Hagrid wiped his nose on the back of his hand and said, "That reminds me. I've got yeh a present." "It's not a stoat sandwich, is it?" said Harry anxiously and at last Hagrid gave a weak chuckle. "Nah. Dumbledore gave me the day off yesterday ter fix it. Course, he shoulda sacked me instead - anyway. got yeh this..." It seemed to be a handsome, leather-covered book. Harry opened it curiously. It was full of wizard photographs. Smilign and waving at him from every page were his mother and father. "Sent owls off ter all yer parents' old school friends. askin' fer photos... Knew yeh didn't have any... D'yeh like it?" Harry couldn't speak but Hagrid understood.' (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.220 UK edition) I get the impression that this meant a lot to Harry. Although we aren't told this directly in canon, his reaction to the gift suggests that it would be looked at and appreciated very much. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 18:48:01 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:48:01 -0000 Subject: Ghosts/ Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > Peeves is insubstantial enough to walk through walls. > Yet he can also be solid enough to drop objects. zanooda: Are you sure that Peeves can walk through walls? Others already pointed out that he is not a ghost, but this is not the point. Peeves can be visible or invisible at will, and he can Apparate ("Elf Tails"), but I was sure that he can't walk through walls, at least we were never shown this. Can you give an example, I can't find any. You can do it off-list, if you don't want to spend an entire post on this. Thanks! I'm just curious. > bboyminn wrote: > I ponder the possibility that they may have rushed out > of the Room so fast that no one remembered to close > the door. zanooda: Harry is mentioned "slamming the door behind him" as he leaves the Room (p.608, US hardback). I think you (and va32h) are correct in assuming that RoR was reopened by IS members, because thanks to Marietta they knew exactly what to ask the Room to become. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sat Apr 14 18:58:42 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:58:42 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: References: <20950964.1176389216890.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <004701c77ec6$ecc13d60$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 167524 > From: aceworker > >I always thought that JKR was always just trying to portray the > >Dursley's as fearful and materialisitic people. JKR finds this > >contemptable as 'courage' she has said is her highest value. > > Bart: > Because the way they are portrayed, especially in the earlier books, they actually seem to believe that keeping Harry away from magic is good for HIM. Combine this with their obvious greed, and you get a situation that does not make sense. They clearly don't want "normal"; they want to be better than everybody else, their neighbors in particular. Look at what Dursley puts his family through to impress a potential client (and note that none of the efforts shown are an attempt to show the good points of his drills). Can you picture such a man to be unwilling to use magic if it will make him an extra quid or two? Shelley: Actually, I don't see the contrast, I see the consistency. I see Dursley correctly assessing that anyone is his business rhelm would be scared off by anything wizarding or magical. I don't think Dursley thinks of magic as producing any good- Vernon's not seen good things come out of the wizarding world- Harry's gold, for example. Harry correctly assesses that if the Dursleys knew of his fortune, and put together magic with wealth, they'd be having him do magic all the time just so they could get rich. He'd be USED by them, and he doesn't want that. He might be used as a circus freak, he might be used in other way to rob people. They might get the wrong impression that wizards create a potion or device that turns ordinary objects into gold. Harry would be at their becon and call, forever a slave to them for their own gain. Harry doesn't want to be used like that, and so he makes no effort what-so-ever to correct Vernon's misconceptions about the Wizarding world. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sat Apr 14 19:01:36 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:01:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: References: Message-ID: <009701c77ec7$53c4b320$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 167525 > > Bart: > > I still maintain there's a missing piece of the puzzle. Whether it's > for revelation in book 7, or that it was taken out as an afterthought, > we won't know until Book 7. > > jceltchic > I agree here with Bart ... there is something that has yet to be > revealed about Petunia. After all, what was her motivation to make an > agreement with Dumbledore. Why would she take "magic" in to her house > .. . What did she fear if she didn't? Let's just say it ... what is > Petunia hiding??? Shelley: I simply think she is a witch that has refused witchhood. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 20:21:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:21:05 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167526 Dana: > To some level I agree because in the book, JKR actually writes what I consider the end time and thus where we see Harry1 and Harry2 being in that part of space at the same time but to say it therefore means they where always there, to fit time travel into the story is not very logical to me. Carol responds: First, a quick question for you, Dana. Is "end time" your own term or is it commonly used in scifi works relating to time travel? To me, it sounds like the term used by certain cults or Fundamentalists for the end of the world or Armageddon. (Just curious, not criticizing.) Also, as long as we're trying to make time travel logical (possibly an exercise in futility given that logic isn't JKR's forte any more than it's Harry's), let me ask you and Magpie and anyone else who's protesting the *logic* (as opposed to the canon, Magpie! ) of the PoA Time-Turner sequence a question related to Hermione's classes. But first, let me quote what you've already said on the subject: Dana: > If you look at the story of Hermione taking her classes then the second Hermione did not come out of no where. Hermione0 takes the first class and then after she is finished, goes back in time to become Hermione2 and re-live the same hour again and takes a different class. When they come back together she has the memory of both classes. Hermione1 is not actually re-living the hour she is just there at the same time Hermione2 is re-living the hour. Hermione2 does change the past because if she didn't Hermione (afterwards) would not have the knowledge of the class Hermione2 was taking. Hermione2's actions are still actively changing the present by changing the past. Just because her time travel does not affect other events around her does not mean her actions changed nothing. Carol: I agree with what you've said here about Hermione (except that I don't understand why Hermione0 isn't labeled Hermione1, or how Hermione0 differs from Hermione1). But why, in your view, doesn't Hermione just use the Time-Turner to make up the class that she slept through? Couldn't she just go back, say, four hours and attend Flitwick's class on Cheering Charms since she forgot to turn back and take it immediately before the class? You say she's already changing time by going back to take her classes, but if that's the case, why not change it a little bit more by going back four hours instead of one? Is something preventing her from turning back time once she's already missed the class? Surely, she already missed it in your "erased" alternate reality, but if that alternate reality consists of only one hour, it's okay to change it then and there, but not okay if she waits longer because it's *her* reality--sleeping through the class--that she'd be changing? Has McGonagall warned her that she can't go back more than the hour needed to take a second class (or third) because the unintended consequences of going back several hours later for a missed class would be too significant? Or is it because the Time-Turner doesn't go forward and she would have to relive those six hours, knowing that she was reliving them? (Notice that that's how she uses the TT all through the books--she goes forward in time by reliving the hour, or three hours, in the case of the Shrieking Shack sequence.) If that last is the case, not only would using a Time Turner to go back years instead of hours be clumsy and imprecise (how would you get to the exact time you needed to go to? And you'd have to be in the right place already), but you'd have to *live* those years as Hermione lived those hours because there's no going forward in time. And yet the Baby-Headed Death Eater and the hummingbird suggest that that's not the case. Okay, now I'm a lot more confused than I was when I simply accepted what was on the page. But, IMO, we're overanalyzing here. The Time-turning in PoA is just a plot device (like a Pensieve or the Hogwarts Express or Apparation) that doesn't require a lot of in-depth analysis, not deliberate misdirection like, say, a conversation Harry is eavesdropping on and misinterprets. Harry's misperceptions about Buckbeak's "execution" and "James" saving his life have already been cleared away, and, IMO, there's nothing more for the reader to discover, nothing more for JKR to reveal about what "really" happened in those scenes. JKR's Time-Turning may not make sense for the logically minded reader, but what we see is all there is (in contrast to, say, the argument in the forest or the conversations that Harry eavesdrops on or what happened on the tower, where what he hears or sees is subject to interpretations other than his own). I fear that the same thing will be true of Unbreakable Vows: we won't learn the mechanics of them; we'll just have to accept what's on the page, logical and consistent or otherwise. They, too, will be just a plot device. Dana: > Your theory is flawed because if the past has not yet occurred then there is no timeframe to travel back to from a future point. Carol: I don't think it's any poster's theory of time travel that's flawed. There *is* a timeframe, a particular point at which HH begin their time travel and to which they return, just as there is when Hermione goes back to take a second or third class (and whatever alternate reality would have occurred is "erased" because she was "always" present in those classes). The problem is not with our theories but (IMO) with JKR's assumption that she's doing the same thing with Harry and Hermione that she's done with Hermione all year. *Of course* it isn't logical for Harry to save himself because he'd have to have been already saved to do so, and he *is* already saved, by himself, and, um, erm, we go around in circles. That isn't the fault of a reader figuring out how Time Travel works in the Shrieking Shack sequence. It's what we're given. Harry and Hermione aren't changing what happened; they're making it happen. It's a continuous loop, like all circles, but it begins when they use the time turner and ends when they return to regular time. That's what's on the page; that's what happens in the book. Logical? No. Consistent with what Hermione does? Not really, if you think about it (as you've obviously done). But canon, nonetheless. If we search for logic and consistency in JKR's mechanism for time-turning, or for Potterverse magic that abides by the laws of physics, I don't think we're going to find them, any more than we'll find consistency in the use of "jinx" or "curse" or "hex." (And, no, I don't accept Pippin's explanation that Ron's knowing about the Hand of Glory that Lucius Malfoy *did not* buy for Draco is anything more than a Flint.) JKR has thought out the main plot and the clues she intends to drop and the development of certain characters and the solutions to certain mysteries. She's aware of certain genres and traditions and mythologies (and bends the rules and thwarts the reader's expectations when it suits her). But certain things--like the number of students in Hogwarts or Harry's sudden awareness of the existence of Gryffindors he's shared a common room with for years or the mechanics of Time-Turning--just don't concern her. It's not like the change of narrative strategy in "Spinner's End" or the use of red herrings and other forms of misdirection, which are quite deliberate and carefully planned. It's more like the workings of a Pensieve--a convenient plot device that's a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The reader doesn't need to know how a Time-Turner or a Pensieve works. He only needs to believe that it does. So, yes, it would be more logical if Snape had saved Harry first, but there's no evidence in canon of any such "erased" original reality. And the mechanics of working out such an uncanonical solution cause just as many headaches, if not more, than just accepting what's on the page. Believe me, I've tried. Trying to make sense of Time-Travel in PoA is like trying to figure out whether magic is a dominant or a recessive gene when it can't logically be either one. The best we can come up with is a combination of recessive genes, or we can accept the canonical but politically incorrect explanation that it's in the blood. (Or we can give ourselves a headache trying to figure out when, where, and how the eighty- or ninety-something wizard Horace Slughorn found out about genes. :-) ) Or look at LOTR: How can a door made by Dwarves be magically concealed and opened with an Elvish password (or, in "The Hobbit," opened only during a certain phase of the moon, "when the thrush knocks")? How can a sword made by the High Elves turn blue because it senses Orcs? How can a Morgul blade be more evil than other weapons, breaking off and finding its way to the heart to turn the victim into a wraith? It can because the author says it can, and we, the readers, can either reject that possibility and read some other book, or we can exercise the willing suspension of disbelief that constitutes poetic faith. Science and logic and reason have nothing to do with the mechanics of those universes (though Tolkien does at least attempt to make them consistent). We need to be a bit more like Luna here, believing in Crumple-Horned Snorkacks if JKR asks us to, and a bit less like Hermione (who, to be perfectly in character, should probably have asked the questions we're asking but didn't because, to JKR, they're not important). Dana: > And maybe I missed something but no where is it implied that you CAN'T change the past just that you SHOULD not change the past because it is dangerous and there is a simple reason; you can't control the effects your changes of the past will have on the events that already occurred; meaning the present. Carol: This part I agree with, which is why I stated earlier that DD might conceivably have gone back to *observe* what happened at Godric's Hollow but would not have saved James and Lily had he done so because it's dangerous to change the past for whatever reason. The unintended consequences of both good and bad actions is another important theme in the HP books, far more important (IMO) than a mere plot device like a Time Turner (or a Pensieve or a diary with a memory or memories preserved in it along with a soul bit). Carol, who thanks Geoff for the links to previous posts on Time-Turning (all of which she's already read) but who is really more interested in the perception vs. reality angle, which is *thematically* important and not just a plot device that allows the events JKR wants to happen to happen From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 21:01:42 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:01:42 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167528 > >>Pippin: > I never noticed a problem with Charlie Weasley's > age until it was pointed out to me -- so it's no surprise > to me that JKR didn't spot it. Some people notice stuff > like that immediately -- they probably got a higher > score on the math portion of their SAT than I did. Good > for them, but we're not all so gifted. Somebody who's > good at math not only makes fewer errors than I do, > he finds and corrects them more quickly. I can be > just as careful in terms of the time and attention I > devote to math, and still get poorer results. Betsy Hp: It does mean that any theories based on time (minutes, hours, days, years) are doomed to possibly end up in the "oh dear, maths" trash pile. Was Lupin's 12 years *really* unaccounted for, or was he just hanging in the AU world where Charlie won a quidditch cup or two? IMO, this kind of mystery solving is cheating. JKR isn't laying out clues, she's saying things are how they are and any readers questioning here are obviously freakishly interested in math or consistency. > >>Pippin: > I didn't mean she was making mistakes for the fun of it. > I mean, she knew that the circumstances in which she was > writing would force her to produce errors in the text, > just like GM knows that its business model will force the > production of a certain number of defective cars. Betsy Hp: So JKR has set a certain amount of money aside to deal with the inevitable law suits? > >>Pippin: > Knowing that, IMO, she invented a style in which some apparent > mistakes by the author would turn out to be misinterpretations > by the characters or tricks on the reader, tricks which would > be obvious except that they're concealed by the overall pulpiness. > I've already pointed out the examples in PS/SS -- are you saying > these aren't stylistic tricks but are pure coincidence? Betsy Hp: Yes, for the most part. Let's take a look at them. > >>Pippin: > ...such as the narrator's unqualified statement that Harry's > parents died in a car crash... Betsy Hp: This one is neither a mistake nor an invention, IMO. It's certainly nothing invented by JKR. It's the first indication that the narrator is tied to Harry and will generally see thing his way. But JKR's not the first author to ever tell a story this way. > >>Pippin: > ...Scabbers falling asleep immediately after attacking Goyle (which > makes no sense until we learn that he is not only not a real rat > but a "sleeper")... Betsy Hp: Why doesn't it make sense? Because it's not normal behavior for a rat? We already met the very not normal behaving boa contrictor, so it's not like we're expecting properly behaving animals, especially when they're interacting with wizards. So I don't see any inconsistency here to be remarked on and later remembered. > >>Pippin: > ...and the switch in PoV which allows JKR to omit any information > about when Harry regained control of his broom in relation to > Hermione's attack on Snape. > Betsy Hp: Except keeping to Harry's PoV wouldn't have meant JKR *had* to give that information. Harry's busy keeping himself from falling. It'd be easy for him to miss exactly what Hermione did until he was back on his broom and observing the aftermath (Quirrel a bit ruffled, Snape putting out flames). But again, changing PoV isn't a technique invented by JKR, nor is it something I'd label a mistake or an inconsistency. So I don't see it as an example of a "stylistic trick". It's more an aesthetic choice, and one that neither bothered me nor something I'd criticize JKR for. > >>Betsy Hp: > So JKR purposefully planned on her reader getting jerked out of the > story in HBP? > > >>Pippin: > How jerked out are you? Betsy Hp: Pretty jerked out, actually. I mean, it stuck in my mind (along with someone referring to Hermione *punching* Draco). That I remember it says something, I think. > >>Pippin: > You still want to read DH, despite your fear that it might > disappoint you, right? And so do about a zillion other people. Betsy Hp: Oh, yes. And I'm quite confident that your casual reader probably didn't notice the errors. She did keep Draco's basic character consistent, so I'm fairly confident I'll enjoy DH well enough. I'm just not sure the series is going to stand up to repeat reads. > >>Pippin: > It does jar -- but just enough to make you aware that you > had some preconceptions about how Draco's story was going to go > -- and I think she did that on purpose. Betsy Hp: Um, no. It jarred enough to make me aware that I was more up on what occured to Draco better than his creator was. Which, rather than doing anything about my preconceptions about *Draco*, did do something about my preconceptions about *JKR*. (What could seem a soon to be clever plot twist was really just a screwup on her part. Maths isn't her only issue.) > >>Pippin: > She wants you to see that your preconceptions about Draco failed to > predict what he was capable of. It makes Dumbledore's error in > failing to imagine that Draco could smuggle in DE's more credible, > no? Betsy Hp: No. How on earth would it have done that? I *loved* Draco's story through out HBP. He did exactly as I'd have expected him to do: prove himself a creative and intelligent problem solver, not nearly as bad-assed as he liked to think himself to be, willing to push himself to the edge to protect those he loves. It's not Draco's fault JKR couldn't remember the hand of glory scene properly. Nor does it say anything about his character. I was just grateful that that bit of technical screw-up didn't mean JKR totally rewrote his character (as she did with say, Ginny). > >>Pippin: > IMO, she hasn't got to resolve the technical issue of how > Draco got the hand. She just has to resolve the state of things > between Draco and his father, and then it won't matter, any more > than it matters how he got the Peruvian Darkness Powder, or > how the Twins got their hands on contraband before > they met Mundungus. It might make an intriguing bit of > fan fiction, but there's no thematic necessity for this info, IMO. > We don't, er, need to know. Betsy Hp: Right. Which is why it's an example of a mistake rather than a stylistic choice. It's a mistake that jars a reader out of the story without adding anything to the story at all. It's a question never answered that wasn't meant to be asked in the first place. > >>Betsy HP: > I do think Dumbledore was badly mishandled. (frex: While I can > accept that magically there was no surer way to protect Harry than > sticking him with the Dursleys, that oddly rude little lecture > Dumbledore gave the Dursleys in HBP shook my acceptence that any > sort of wizard interference would have put Harry on the street. It > was an odd choice on JKR's part, IMO.) > >>Pippin: > The point is, Dumbledore couldn't *know* how much wizard > interference it would take to put Harry in the street. He'd > be guessing, and he knows as well as we do that some of his > guesses are wrong. > Betsy Hp: Which is why it's an odd choice on JKR's point. She's showing us that Dumbledore could have kept Harry from being as underfed as Dumbledore noted him to be. But, in a bizzare moment of timidity, he instead decided to do nothing. Until Harry was eleven that is. But Dumbledore is shown making weird decisions all over the darn place. What was up with his treatment of young Tom Riddle? Why did he slam the Slytherins so badly? Did he really mean Harry to almost die in his first year? Etc. etc. Honestly, I think the best way to handle Dumbledore is sort of like a god in a Greek drama. He'll do things when he wants, how he wants, with whom he wants. It's all very haphazard and illogical and actually fits with Harry being more of a lucky hero than a gifted one. > >>Pippin: > It does make it harder to treat the books as chicken soup for > the soul. > I don't, I can't, read the books for comfort any more. Umbridge, > and Sirius's death took that away. DH may bring it back, or > not. I think that tension has been created purposefully too. > I'm not so sure JKR wants us to be able to lose ourselves in > these books -- read them, learn from them, enjoy them, > yes, but use them as mental comfort food? "It does not do > to dwell on dreams and forget to live, remember that." Betsy Hp: I generally don't read YA, so I don't know how the Potter books measure up. Umbridge is certainly not the worst villain I've ever read; and Sirius's death is certainly not the most tragic. And while I do see them as great opportunities to discuss various philosophies and ethics, I wonder if JKR meant for them to be so. Does she mean for me to see Hermione as a particularly disturbing girl, quite willing to physically maim those she dislikes, and beat a boy she claims to care about? Does she mean for me to see Hagrid as a bigoted loose cannon? Does she mean for me to see the WW as an example of some of the worst things human nature has to offer? If she does (and she really, really might; DH will tell us for sure) than well done her. Especially for turning expectations on their heads. But I still think the books are meant to be a bit of an escape, a nice armchair adventure where good will triumph over evil. I'll be interested to see if they're meant to be something more. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Apr 14 23:17:11 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:17:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning References: Message-ID: <00d401c77eeb$0baba0c0$f47e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167529 Carol: > But why, in your view, doesn't Hermione just use the Time-Turner to > make up the class that she slept through? Couldn't she just go back, > say, four hours and attend Flitwick's class on Cheering Charms since > she forgot to turn back and take it immediately before the class? You > say she's already changing time by going back to take her classes, but > if that's the case, why not change it a little bit more by going back > four hours instead of one? Is something preventing her from turning > back time once she's already missed the class? Surely, she already > missed it in your "erased" alternate reality, but if that alternate > reality consists of only one hour, it's okay to change it then and > there, but not okay if she waits longer because it's *her* > reality--sleeping through the class--that she'd be changing? Has > McGonagall warned her that she can't go back more than the hour needed > to take a second class (or third) because the unintended consequences > of going back several hours later for a missed class would be too > significant? Or is it because the Time-Turner doesn't go forward and > she would have to relive those six hours, knowing that she was > reliving them? (Notice that that's how she uses the TT all through the > books--she goes forward in time by reliving the hour, or three hours, > in the case of the Shrieking Shack sequence.) Magpie: I think she doesn't go back in time because now that several hours have passed she just doesn't think it's practical to live the whole day again. I don't think there's anything physically preventing her from turning the Time Turner to go back to the hour she missed at that moment (though she may have been told to only use it for an hour at a time) except that she's tired and it's the end of the day and doesn't seem worth it, so she just says, "Damn, forgot to go to X class." It's not important enough for the effort. Hermione is, after all, basically following a schedule for the day just like any other student. She goes to Arithmancy, then Divination, then lunch, then whatever, then whatever after that, then whatever after that. She missed her "schedule" when she didn't use the Time Turner at the same time she always does (like, use it at 11 am to go back to 10 am) so she's just letting it go. Of course, if she *did* decide to use the Time Turner as soon as Ron reminded her about it, then she would go back six hours, take whatever class that was, then hang around for a few hours (I would nap!) and then Ron would wind up never reminding her of it because she wouldn't have missed the class to begin with! (Round and round we go again.) Carol: > Okay, now I'm a lot more confused than I was when I simply accepted > what was on the page. But, IMO, we're overanalyzing here. The > Time-turning in PoA is just a plot device (like a Pensieve or the > Hogwarts Express or Apparation) that doesn't require a lot of in-depth > analysis, not deliberate misdirection like, say, a conversation Harry > is eavesdropping on and misinterprets. Harry's misperceptions about > Buckbeak's "execution" and "James" saving his life have already been > cleared away, and, IMO, there's nothing more for the reader to > discover, nothing more for JKR to reveal about what "really" happened > in those scenes. Magpie: I agree. Hermione's line sets up just how it's working in that scene where she misses class--she forgets to go to a class, just as she might have forgotten to go to one if she weren't using a Time Turner. Therefore she wasn't in it. She has to remember to take two classes during the same hour, and it confuses even her sometimes. Carol: I fear that > the same thing will be true of Unbreakable Vows: we won't learn the > mechanics of them; we'll just have to accept what's on the page, > logical and consistent or otherwise. They, too, will be just a plot > device. Magpie: Yes, I think that's the way much of her magic works. Same with when people try to read more into Pensieve scenes, taking into account things like subjectivity of memory or asking questions like "How far could Harry get away from the person having the memory, since he's already walking outside of things they consciously experienced?" It doesn't hold up to that kind of scrutiny, because it's more instinctual: this is what I remember, I'm showing it to you. Heh--it reminds me of that thing I read once that was pointing out flaws in Tolkien. It first had this long paragraph about how when Frodo put on the ring and became invisible he would no longer be able to see because light could not reflect off the cones in his eyes etc. And then the next flaw was "Also, rings can't make you invisible." Carol: (And, no, I > don't accept Pippin's explanation that Ron's knowing about the Hand of > Glory that Lucius Malfoy *did not* buy for Draco is anything more than > a Flint.) Magpie: Just an aside on that question, but didn't JKR in an interview at some point even refer to the Hand as if it were something we knew Draco had? It made it seem like a Flint to me too, like she remembered to introduce the Hand, and then forgot that she introduced it in a scene where Draco didn't get it, which is not the same as explaining how Draco had a Hand of Glory. And I can also understand Betsy's question of how Ron knew about it. That, I think, gets into the whole issue of Harry's relationship to the school. Sometimes she'll introduce things in such a way that we know that Harry's known about them for a while and we just hadn't heard about it--like when she introduces Blaise Zabini it's obviously as someone Harry knows about already. But other times we're told Harry really doesn't know about things and students in his class--or even his House. And with Draco we seem to know all the times when they've got anything to do with him because it's a plot point. But once in a while someone--usually Ron--will say something about Malfoy as if they spend a lot more time with him than they seem to do, and know stuff about him they don't seem to know because they sort of suggest conversations or scenes with Malfoy outside what they usually have. Carol: > Carol, who thanks Geoff for the links to previous posts on > Time-Turning (all of which she's already read) but who is really more > interested in the perception vs. reality angle, which is > *thematically* important and not just a plot device that allows the > events JKR wants to happen to happen Magpie: Yup, that's what seems to be the important part too. When you look at it that way, it's really the standard JKR device of having people see something, and misinterpret it because of lack of information or the wrong perspective. The main problem I think it adds to the universe is just, as I said, it's such a great power. As are actually a lot of things that she introduces for only limited purposes that would seem to make other plot points impossible or unnecessary. -m From aslitumerkan at gmail.com Sat Apr 14 21:49:54 2007 From: aslitumerkan at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-9?Q?Asl=FD_T=FCmerkan?=) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:49:54 +0300 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6467e1f0704141449j37219341l1d9e9f6c45f1587d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167530 katmandu: > Sirius doesn't seem to hold a grudge against him, and Dumbledore says > he trusts Sirius. > > If he knew, because of Pettigrew, that Sirius was innocent. Why > didn't he use the above means to prove his innocence? After all, > there were 4 other people who saw Pettigrew. Asli: First, I'm new to the group, and I'm sorry if I'm doing anything not according to the rules. In F.A.Q on JKR's site, somebody asks how the ministry couldn't find Sirius Black by sending him an owl. The answer is: "Just as wizards can make buildings unplottable, they can also make themselves untraceable. Voldemort would have been found long ago if it had been as simple as sending him an owl!" However, if he made himself untraceable how can Hedwig find him? Did he make himself untraceable for everyone but Harry? How is that possible? Did J. Rowling make a careless mistake there? From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 00:13:54 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:13:54 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: <009701c77ec7$53c4b320$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167531 > > jceltchic > > I agree here with Bart ... there is something that has yet to be > > revealed about Petunia. After all, what was her motivation to make > > an agreement with Dumbledore. Why would she take "magic" in to her > > house.. . What did she fear if she didn't? Let's just say it ... what is > > Petunia hiding??? > Shelley: > I simply think she is a witch that has refused witchhood. JW: JKR has announced two things of relevance here: First, that there IS an important revelation in DH about Petunia. I do not recall the exact words, but IIRC, she said that it WILL explain DD's multiple correspondences with Petunia, and what Pet was able to extract from DD in return for taking HP. Second, JKR has announced that Pet is NOT a witch, not the squib who JKR says will first perform magic relatively late in life, but instead is a normal, unexciting MUGGLE who will NEVER perform magic, thank you very much (to paraphrase the first paragraph in SS/PS). However, Shelley, is it possible to de-power a wizard into muggleness? Perhaps Dudley, not Petunia, is the recipient of such a "favor." Such a circumstance would be a hidden message behind DD's reference (in HBP) to the Dursley's abuse of Dudley... From random832 at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 01:49:29 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:49:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: <6467e1f0704141449j37219341l1d9e9f6c45f1587d@mail.gmail.com> References: <6467e1f0704141449j37219341l1d9e9f6c45f1587d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704141849g2096e14ag2d6e3b55f89a6685@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167532 > Asli: > In F.A.Q on JKR's site, somebody asks how the ministry couldn't > find Sirius Black by sending him an owl. The answer is: > > "Just as wizards can make buildings unplottable, they can also make > themselves untraceable. Voldemort would have been found long ago if it had > been as simple as sending him an owl!" > > However, if he made himself untraceable how can Hedwig find him? Did he make > himself untraceable for everyone but Harry? How is that possible? Did J. > Rowling make a careless mistake there? My reading of that statement is that they could send an owl, and it would arrive with their message, but they couldn't use that as a means to locate him. --Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 01:54:25 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:54:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: References: <009701c77ec7$53c4b320$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704141854t66a47d6fy15b7cc335bb351bf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167533 > JW: > > JKR has announced two things of relevance here: > > First, that there IS an important revelation in DH about Petunia. I do > not recall the exact words, but IIRC, she said that it WILL explain > DD's multiple correspondences with Petunia, and what Pet was able to > extract from DD in return for taking HP. > > Second, JKR has announced that Pet is NOT a witch, not the squib who > JKR says will first perform magic relatively late in life, but instead > is a normal, unexciting MUGGLE who will NEVER perform magic, thank you > very much (to paraphrase the first paragraph in SS/PS). No, she announced that she is not a squib, but that "that is a very good guess". Which seems obvious enough anyway since a "squib" as such is a non-magical person born into a magical family, and we know that her family was not magical. We do _not_ know that she's not a witch. We might logically assume that, because otherwise why would she be bitter. But, consider this; if she is the older of the two sisters, she might have rejected it out of, say, fear that her parents would not have approved, which would have added an element of regret for that decision to her bitterness on finding how proud they were of Lily. --Random832 From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 15 02:00:56 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:00:56 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167534 Carol responds: > First, a quick question for you, Dana. Is "end time" your own term > or is it commonly used in scifi works relating to time travel? To > me, it sounds like the term used by certain cults or > Fundamentalists for the end of the world or Armageddon. (Just > curious, not criticizing.) Dana now: I used it in the pretence of what I *consider* to be the end time but you can prefer to it as the final time or the last time standing after the time turning episode is over. Sorry if the use of such a simple word is still confusing. Carol: > Also, as long as we're trying to make time travel logical (possibly > an exercise in futility given that logic isn't JKR's forte any more > than it's Harry's), let me ask you and Magpie and anyone else who's > protesting the *logic* (as opposed to the canon, Magpie! ) of > the PoA Time-Turner sequence a question related to Hermione's > classes. > I agree with what you've said here about Hermione (except that I > don'tunderstand why Hermione0 isn't labeled Hermione1, or how > Hermione0 differs from Hermione1). Dana now: Hermione0 is the one that lives through the timeframe the first time without the time-traveling self present, while I indicated Hermione1 as the past self. I kept this in because I used it before but to give you an idea. Hermione0= the Hermione creating the past by living through the first time Hermione1= the historical record of Hermione0 Hermione2= the time-traveling Hermione0 Carol: > But why, in your view, doesn't Hermione just use the Time-Turner to > make up the class that she slept through? Couldn't she just go back, > say, four hours and attend Flitwick's class on Cheering Charms since > she forgot to turn back and take it immediately before the class? > You say she's already changing time by going back to take her > classes, but if that's the case, why not change it a little bit > more by going back four hours instead of one? Is something > preventing her from turning back time once she's already missed the > class? Dana now: She could but the problem is that it raises a lot of problems if she goes back in time far. By the way to correct on thing in my previous post I said Hermione2 stops to exist but it is actually hermione1 (the historical record) The problem is that Hermione2 is the new present Hermione and the one that fell asleep after she finished the class. When Hermione1 reaches the point the original Hermione (Hermione0) choose to leap back in time from (just before entering Charms classes) Hermione2 should have been there to fill her place but Hermione2 was in the Gryffindor common room fast asleep. So let say the present Hermione goes back in time to retake charms class, then her past self will be asleep in the common room and the moment the present Hermione would leap back into the past, is after she already has been seen by Harry and Ron. So if she did this, then Ron and Harry see her in Charms class and then when they go up to the common room they see her laying there sleeping. That is why the present time Hermione can't go back in time because she would first need to drag her sleeping self somewhere she cannot be noticed to maintain the perception she only lived through time once and not be in two places at once. Her already missing the class has nothing to do with it because when Hermione uses the time turner to take a different class during that same timeframe, she has already missed the class Hermione2 will be attending. Her problem is her past self thus Hermione1 is not in a place during these specific hours to go unnoticed and therefore she can't go back and retake charms not because she can't time travel or not change the past, just that it would take to much effort and therefore not worth the risk. Carol: > If that last is the case, not only would using a Time Turner to go > back years instead of hours be clumsy and imprecise (how would you > getto the exact time you needed to go to? And you'd have to be in > the right place already), but you'd have to *live* those years as > Hermione lived those hours because there's no going forward in > time. And yet the Baby-Headed Death Eater and the hummingbird > suggest that that's not the case. Dana now: Well I do not agree the time turner can go both ways so you do not have to live out the timeframe you went back to, if you just go to observe something and make sure you change nothing, the time turner can bring you back to your present time just a few minutes before your past self uses the time turner and you can go back to how things where. You are already part of the present thus the moment you use the device to transport yourself back to the present time, it will not leave a point in the past time you have to return to in order to move on with your life. If you would change something that would make the outcome in the present unpredictable then traveling back to your own time can result into some unpleasant surprises. Both Harry and Hermione are not going back in time to just witness a certain event; they go back in time to actively participate in that timeframe. Harry to safe Buckbeak and Sirius (yes, Hermione is present in this as well) and Hermione to take a different class and therefore they will not need to travel to the present by means of a time turner. Carol now: > Okay, now I'm a lot more confused than I was when I simply accepted > what was on the page. But, IMO, we're overanalyzing here. Dana now: Well maybe my logic just works differently because this is how I perceived it, the first time a read it. We are looking at one event from different angles but both are taking place in the timeframe of the time-traveler and what I dedicated to be the end time. The Harry, we the reader, see going to Hagrid and later to the Shrieking Shack is Harry1, the historical record of the Harry that lived through it the first time, and I refer to as Harry0. And after we reach the point he turns back in time, we go through the same timeframe again only this time we hitch a ride with Harry2, who is the time traveling Harry0. Harry1 is just an historical record of the Harry who lived through this time already to create the past, that was made up out of all the events occurring that night. This Harry cannot change anything because he is not an active participant in this timeframe he is just retracing the steps already made but everything that changes in these already made steps, will therefore will be observed and automatically register and become a new memory for Harry2. JKR choose to write it this way because otherwise she would have had to write the events in its entire twice; one time for the original Harry and then for his historical record. The dramatic value of the scene would be totally lost because everyone would have already known that it was not his father that he could have seen, because in the first time around that person was not present. If you look at the scene where Hermione, Harry and Ron are about to enter Charms Class then you see that Harry and Ron suddenly realize Hermione is no longer there. She was right behind them and suddenly she was gone. This was also the end time, where the original Hermione had chosen to use the time turner, just before entering the class but because the time traveling Hermione fails to show up to fill in the place of her historical self, there is suddenly no Hermione at all. In this case the present was not altered by something the time traveler did in the past time but her sudden disappearance, indicates the point she choose to go back in time and the past or historical record can't live past that point. It was not an active choice to choose that moment and then go to the Gryffindor tower to sleep. It was a record of what had already occurred an hour before. The problem is that one should not compare the time turning of the Potterverse with physics but only look at it from within the universe of Harry Potter and in the way this is written, there is no inconsistency. There for time should not be looked at from a linear point of view but from a relative one. With the Hermione missing the charms class, JKR already lets the reader know, they are witnessing a historical record of Hermione because otherwise she would not have suddenly disappeared. Hermione would not time travel to go take a nap and she most certainly would not time travel to miss the charms class. In the way JKR writes it, history is already made previously and we, the reader, are witnessing the historical record when we are in the Harry1 (the past self) narrative, then when he reaches the point he jumped back in time, JKR changes to the narrative to Harry2 and we witness what he and Hermione have changed while they were there. One is only overanalyzing the scene if you cannot accept that Harry did not have to safe Harry in order for the events to unfold the way they did. Why would one even question it, just because Harry2 changed the way Harry lived through the events does not mean it is therefore an illogical occurrence. It only becomes illogical if you drag "history cannot be changed" into the equation. It CAN be changed and we both see Hermione do it all year by taking classes that run parallel to other classes on her list and we see Harry do it with saving Buckbeak, saving himself (while not necessary but of great dramatic value and my personal favorite after the shrieking shack scene) and setting Sirius free. One could argue that setting Sirius free is not changing the past but they do set him free before the moment they go back in time so essentially it is still within the same time frame and it makes it possible for them to return to the hospital before Fudge and his dementor reaches Sirius and of course seeing Snape lose it, is so much fun too ;o) Dana From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 15 02:01:50 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:01:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: References: <009701c77ec7$53c4b320$f4639905@joe> <7b9f25e50704141854t66a47d6fy15b7cc335bb351bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00f101c77f02$0a8d19f0$f47e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167535 Jordan: > No, she announced that she is not a squib, but that "that is a very > good guess". Which seems obvious enough anyway since a "squib" as such > is a non-magical person born into a magical family, and we know that > her family was not magical. We do _not_ know that she's not a witch. Magpie: She said "She is not a squib. She is a Muggle." She said she is a Muggle, not a witch. Jordan: > We might logically assume that, because otherwise why would she be > bitter. But, consider this; if she is the older of the two sisters, > she might have rejected it out of, say, fear that her parents would > not have approved, which would have added an element of regret for > that decision to her bitterness on finding how proud they were of > Lily. Magpie: At which point she could change her mind, since she would still be a witch. Rejecting Hogwarts does not remove your magical powers or ability to do spells. You're just not well-trained. But Petunia's parents would have been approached regardless when Petunia was 11 if she were a witch. But JKR's quote does call her a Muggle, so it wasn't an issue. -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 02:10:38 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:10:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704141849g2096e14ag2d6e3b55f89a6685@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167536 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Asli: > > > > "Just as wizards can make buildings unplottable, they can also make > > themselves untraceable. Voldemort would have been found long ago if it had > > been as simple as sending him an owl!" > > > > How can Hedwig find Sirius? Did he make > > himself untraceable for everyone but Harry? Did J. > > Rowling make a careless mistake there? > Random832: > My reading of that statement is that they could send an owl, and it > would arrive with their message, but they couldn't use that as a means > to locate him. > JW: If the owl delivers the message, the owl could be followed and the recipient found. It appears this is what JKR means. The only answer is that an owl sent by the MoM would not find Sirius or LV. As NOBODY has EVER found a careless mistake made by JKR ;D it must be that untraceability can be customized. How can this be? Shesezo strikes again! It is GOOD to be Lord of the Universe! From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 15 02:36:43 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:36:43 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <00d401c77eeb$0baba0c0$f47e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167537 Magpie: > I agree. Hermione's line sets up just how it's working in that > scene where she misses class--she forgets to go to a class, just as > she might have forgotten to go to one if she weren't using a Time > Turner. Therefore she wasn't in it. She has to remember to take two > classes during the same hour, and it confuses even her sometimes. Dana: No, Hermione does not forget to go to class; she fell asleep after hiding in the common room until it was time to fill in the place of her historical self, this is already after she had taken her second class. If what you say would be correct her sudden disappearance when Ron, Harry and Hermione are about to enter charms classes makes no sense. Hermione can't travel to the past time BEFORE she has lived through the hour first. There is no past to go back to if it had not yet happened. Tomorrow contains no events yet and therefore traveling to it to attend class there, would not be considered turning back in time. Besides the past self cannot live past the timetraveling point so if you travel before you attend the class you get what you see happening in that scene, there is no longer a Hermione to enter the class room. The sleeping Hermione IS the time traveling Hermione not the historical record which can't live past the point of time turning. And therefore this Hermione becomes the new original. If the other one, that we see disappear, would be the original then how could she forget to go to Charms classes while she is standing in front of the door of the class? She didn't the one sleeping in the common room slept past the time turning point and therefore there is suddenly no Hermione there. Dana From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 03:24:01 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:24:01 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167538 > > zgirnius: > > Harry and Hermione are unaware of the rules, yes. This is not > because > > they do not realize they are fictional characters. It is because > they > > are residents of the Potterverse who happen not to know (or fully > > understand) all of the natural/magical laws that govern that > > universe. > > Magpie: > Yes, that too. But if they had known the rules of the universe and so > thought they couldn't change anything, and had not gone back in time > because of that, they would not have been there to save anyone. zgirnius: If you agree with me that that laws of nature and magic in the Potterverse show that the past cannot be changed, a different decision by Harry or Hermione would mean the following: 1) Bucky would have escaped the headsman, (Dumbledore witnessed the non-execution). 2) Harry and Sirius would have survived the Dementor attack by the lake (since by the time the decision faced Harry and Hermione, that moment was in the past). 3) The sentence of Dementor's Kiss on Sirius Black would have been carried out to the great horror or Harry and Hermione. This last, is the only point at issue, as it is the only event occuring in a hypothetical future after Harry or Hermione chose differently. The first two events had *already happened* at the time the choice was made. Odd though it may seem to you, Harry and Hermione's decision does not matter in a universe under those rules. Fortunately for Sirius, Hermione took Dumbledore's suggestion, and Harry went along with it. Now, if Rowling had written them making this choice that leads to a sadder outcome in PoA, she would have owed us explanations of how Bucky got away, and (especially) what the white light was when the Dementors retreated. Happily, she didn't, so we got to enjoy (or execrate, as our preferences dicatate) Sirius's scenes for another two books, and learned that Bucky was saved by the duo, and Harry and Sirius were saved by Harry's Patronus. > Magpie: > Similarly, on the days Hermione forgets to use the Time Turner to > attend a class, she has skipped that class for the day. She's got to > spin it to be in it.:-) zgirnius: If I am right, the High and Mighty Creatrix of the Potterverse says, 'spin it all you like, you will *still* not be in it' in this case. If Hermione knows this because someone has endeavored to explain the laws of time in her universe to her prior to equipping her with a Time Turner, it is an alternate explanation for why she does not bother. (One I find convincing - had I half her obsession with classes, I would have gone back several hours - after all, in the hours after that she could grab some much needed sleep). > Magpie: > If > everyone just said "we can't ever change the past" there would be no > use for Time Turners. zgirnius: First, the inventor could have believed in the Potterverse equivalent of the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, only to discover, much to her chagrin, that her learned colleagues whom she believed to be dunderheads for their belief in "Consistent Histories" were actually right. Second, I mentioned in an earlier post an alternate use for travel into the past - to find out what really happened then. Pensieve memories can only be used if you know of a witness, and the witness is willing and able to share the memory. (Not to mention that the only Pensieve we have ever met belongs to Albus Dumbledore). > Magpie: > The people who really believe you can't change > the past are Muggles. Wizards seem to kind of say that, but sometimes > interfere with the past while calling it not changing the past > because eventually it will all be remembered as one time stream. zgirnius: Ah, so we do disagree. I really think that wizards *cannot* change the past, that it is a physical and magical impossibility of the unoverse in which they live (just as they cannot, for example, bring back the really dead, per Rowling). I further suspect that some of them even know this, as I discussed upthread. I would certainly insist that we have *never* seen a wizard change the past. And noone and nothing wiped our memories. > Magpie: > Odd, given this was Hermione, though. Especially because she's not > exactly wrong. I mean, Buckbeak is savable if she uses the Time > Turner to save him. If she doesn't use the Time Turner to save him, > there's a good chance to be dead. zgirnius: If I am right about the rules, and about Hermione knowing them, then she ought to have believed there was no way to save Bucky, because she thought she had heard him die (which was upsetting enough, especially with all else going on, that a failure to think logically would be credible). Unless she understood DD's hint to mean that Bucky had survived (as I understand it in light of the rules I deduce from canon). In that case, she might have made her choice in the same hope with which Dumbledore offered it, namely that she rescued him while somehow getting Sirius free too. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 15 04:10:09 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:10:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning References: Message-ID: <012501c77f13$f728a250$f47e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167539 > Dana: > > No, Hermione does not forget to go to class; she fell asleep after > hiding in the common room until it was time to fill in the place of > her historical self, this is already after she had taken her second > class. Magpie: Sorry, to be honest I don't have the book in front of me and I'm going on vague recollections of just how she screwed up. Unfortunately, since I don't have the book in front of me, reading your comments on the scene is just confusing.:-) But I assume you're correct in what you're saying. Regardless we both have the same view of exactly what Hermione is doing when she Time Travels, and why she doesn't use the TT to go to the class she missed later. It's not worth the effort and confusion. zgirnius: If you agree with me that that laws of nature and magic in the Potterverse show that the past cannot be changed, a different decision by Harry or Hermione would mean the following: 1) Bucky would have escaped the headsman, (Dumbledore witnessed the non-execution). 2) Harry and Sirius would have survived the Dementor attack by the lake (since by the time the decision faced Harry and Hermione, that moment was in the past). 3) The sentence of Dementor's Kiss on Sirius Black would have been carried out to the great horror or Harry and Hermione. Magpie: This is confusing, because if Harry and Hermione had not Time Traveled we would have had a different series of events than the ones we saw. JKR wrote things happening with the interference of Time Traveling Harry and Hermione. Harry and Hermione time traveling is filling in things that have already happened in the narrative. The cause and effect are reversed chronologically, but they still work the same way. If they had made a different decision, the outcome would have been totally different from what we saw. They'd have a past they hadn't affected. Zara: This last, is the only point at issue, as it is the only event occuring in a hypothetical future after Harry or Hermione chose differently. The first two events had *already happened* at the time the choice was made. Odd though it may seem to you, Harry and Hermione's decision does not matter in a universe under those rules. Magpie: I don't understand how it doesn't matter. It seems to me it does matter very much, we're just seeing it in reverse order. JKR wrote the results of their decision first. But at the moment of decision, if Harry had made a different choice, things would be different. Neither he nor Hermione are operating on the idea that the past can not be changed. If the past can not be changed so they didn't think there was a reason to use the Time Turner in that instance, it would result in a totally different sequence of events. He and Hermione would not just have made a different decision, they would have experienced a different few hours leading up to the decision. Once Rowling wrote the version she had to come up with a decision on their part that fit everything we saw. Just as Draco must decide to fix the Vanishing Cabinet because the DEs are going to come through it in a later chapter. In both cases, the effect has already been written, so of course the cause is going to happen too. > Magpie: > Similarly, on the days Hermione forgets to use the Time Turner to > attend a class, she has skipped that class for the day. She's got to > spin it to be in it.:-) zgirnius: If I am right, the High and Mighty Creatrix of the Potterverse says, 'spin it all you like, you will *still* not be in it' in this case. If Hermione knows this because someone has endeavored to explain the laws of time in her universe to her prior to equipping her with a Time Turner, it is an alternate explanation for why she does not bother. (One I find convincing - had I half her obsession with classes, I would have gone back several hours - after all, in the hours after that she could grab some much needed sleep). Magpie: You mean that events would just conspire against her somehow to make her miss the class regardless? I agree they would). Do you mean the WW is ruled by a sort of fate that cleverly keeps people from fixing mistakes, or that, just as before, once Hermione's been written as missing class, we know that she's missed class? I mean, Hermione does spin it and get in it most days. She's also always going to be living in what Dana calls the End Time, which means any Time Traveling she does in the past will become part of everyone's past, including their memories. > Magpie: > If > everyone just said "we can't ever change the past" there would be no > use for Time Turners. zgirnius: Second, I mentioned in an earlier post an alternate use for travel into the past - to find out what really happened then. Pensieve memories can only be used if you know of a witness, and the witness is willing and able to share the memory. (Not to mention that the only Pensieve we have ever met belongs to Albus Dumbledore). Magpie: True--I was thinking only of the use that the TTs are used for throughout PoA--to alter something in the way a particular hour was spent. zgirnius: Ah, so we do disagree. I really think that wizards *cannot* change the past, that it is a physical and magical impossibility of the unoverse in which they live (just as they cannot, for example, bring back the really dead, per Rowling). I further suspect that some of them even know this, as I discussed upthread. Magpie: Again, are you saying that there's tricks of fate to keep them from changing anything they are aware of having happened? Hermione is able to take two classes at once only because she has a Time Turner which allows her to take one class and then go back and take a different class. She isn't "changing" the past in that she's still takes the first class, but now there's two Hermione's taking two different classes, which is a change. Zara: I would certainly insist that we have *never* seen a wizard change the past. And noone and nothing wiped our memories. Magpie: So how does that work? Hermione takes class for two hours. The first hour she's taking Charms. She has not yet taken Arithmancy. It makes more sense to me to assume that during that hour of Charms there was no Hermione in Arithmancy, and then when Hermione went back in time and did take Arithmancy whatever existed of the Arithmancy class that was going on when Hermione was *only* taking Charms stopped existing, replaced by the one with Hermione in it in her second hour. I don't see why this would be a strange idea, given that we see actual Hermione's ceasing to exist due to her Time Travel. zgirnius: If I am right about the rules, and about Hermione knowing them, then she ought to have believed there was no way to save Bucky, because she thought she had heard him die (which was upsetting enough, especially with all else going on, that a failure to think logically would be credible). Unless she understood DD's hint to mean that Bucky had survived (as I understand it in light of the rules I deduce from canon). In that case, she might have made her choice in the same hope with which Dumbledore offered it, namely that she rescued him while somehow getting Sirius free too. Magpie: Seems like Hermione's going back to save Buckbeak might be a big hint that the rules aren't exactly rules, but more just the way things happen. If I see a second Hermione come in and save me, and deduce that she's used the Time Turner she's had all year, I wouldn't call that a rule that time can't be changed, I'd call it knowing what Hermione was going to do before she did it, due to the Time stuff. I don't see how Hermione is supposed to approach her double schedule without thinking she's changing time. That would be how she experienced it, wouldn't she? She took an hour of Charms by herself. Then in the next hour she took Arithmancy, this time knowing there was a historical version of herself in Charms, which she must later replace. At the point before she used the Time Turner, during that hour, there was only one of her in one classroom. If she forgot to use her Time Turner that day, it would stay that way. -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 03:30:28 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:30:28 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: <00f101c77f02$0a8d19f0$f47e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167540 > Jordan: > > No, JKR announced that Pet is not a squib. We do _not_ know that she's not a witch. > Magpie: > She said "She is not a squib. She is a Muggle." She said she is a Muggle, > not a witch. > Jordan: > > We might logically assume that, because otherwise why would she be > > bitter. But, consider this; if she is the older of the two sisters, > > she might have rejected it out of, say, fear that her parents would > > not have approved, which would have added an element of regret for > > that decision to her bitterness on finding how proud they were of > > Lily. > Magpie: > At which point Pet could change her mind, since she would still be a witch. > Rejecting Hogwarts does not remove your magical powers or ability to do > spells. You're just not well-trained. But Petunia's parents would have been > approached regardless when Petunia was 11 if she were a witch. But JKR's > quote does call her a Muggle, so it wasn't an issue. JW retrieves a few JKR quotes: "Everyone who shows magical ability before their eleventh birthday will automatically gain a place at Hogwarts; there is no question of not being `magical enough'; you are either magical or you are not. There is no obligation to take up the place, however; a family might not want their child to attend Hogwarts." We are not told what happens to a no-show. Would a headmaster allow a muggle-born 11-year-old be a no-show without consulting the muggle parents? What would Hogwarts do with a no-show who later wanted to start training? Is such a person left with Quickspells mail correspondence courses as the only alternative? "Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she ever be able to do so." It appears that most magical kiddies generate untrained, uncontrolled, spontaneous magic (i.e., the vanishing glass that freed the snake in SS/PS). A literal interpretation (always dangerous!) of the quote means that this NEVER happened to Pet. However, I find nothing on JKR's site that calls Pet a muggle. Have I overlooked the quote, or is it in an interview, and not shown on the JKR site? From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Sun Apr 15 03:44:52 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:44:52 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167541 In the Brisbane Courier Mail, 14 April 2007, there is an interview with Daniel Radcliffe. He quotes a conversation with JKR. Dan: Oh, hello, why are you here today? JKR: ... Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble. Dan: But isn't he dead? JKR: Well, yeah, but it's a lot more complex... So DD is in a portrait but JKR can't quite decide how alive he is. We don't get consistency in post-life with the portraits, ghosts and Peeves who appears to be a ghost but is mistakenly called a poltergeist. So I think all seven HP books should be seen as works in progress. In a few years time, JKR will revise them with their whole in mind. Barry From tlfolsom80 at aol.com Sun Apr 15 04:50:54 2007 From: tlfolsom80 at aol.com (Tammy Folsom) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:50:54 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: The Dursleys: References: Message-ID: <4621AF2E.000001.03876@ACER-C28991BD48> No: HPFGUIDX 167542 JW: It appears that most magical kiddies generate untrained, Uncontrolled, spontaneous magic (I.e., the vanishing glass that freed The snake in SS/PS). A literal interpretation (always dangerous!) of The quote means that this NEVER happened to Pet. However, I find Nothing on JKR's site that calls Pet a Muggle. Have I overlooked the Quote, or is it in an interview, and not shown on the JKR site? Tammy Responds Actually in the text only section of JKR's site there is a link to an interview on Sunday 15 August 2004 at the Edinburgh Book Festival Where JKR is asked: "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?" And her answer was: "Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." so JKR has called Petunia a muggle which means there is no chance she could be a witch Tammy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 05:13:17 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:13:17 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > > In the Brisbane Courier Mail, 14 April 2007, there is an interview with > Daniel Radcliffe. He quotes a conversation with JKR. > > Dan: Oh, hello, why are you here today? > JKR: ... Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble. > Dan: But isn't he dead? > JKR: Well, yeah, but it's a lot more complex... > ***snip*** Irregardless of wether or not the interview is valid(which I seem to remember is).....I believe there may be more of a connection between Fawkes and Harry rather than Harry and and DD's portrait in the headmaster's office. This really does explain the "smoke phoenix" emitted from DD's tomb in HPB--DD's final message to Harry..(which even if we readers and those in the ww didn't get..it would certianly be one of the most positive lasting memories that dd had.). I believe Harry certainly did get this message regarding his loyalty speech to Rufus at the end of HPB! If Harry is still so loyal to DD at the end of HBP....and DD died so "willingly" at snape's hand...as a reader, I ladore the fact that Fawkes is out there on his own...waiting to fulfill DD's last order...or waiting to see how loyal Harry truly is to his(fawkes) last master. All things considered...writing the last book would have been easier if dd was alive..or at least had the chance of still being alive...I have the feeling that if harry ever went in and spoke with said portrait that the only words DD's portrait would have to say would be, "Fawkes"... DD (who regrets that JKR could never write any sort of dialog between DD and Fawkes and worse yet that DD never told Harry about his relationship between him and Fawkes.) From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 15 05:15:07 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:15:07 -0000 Subject: predictions/Abused!Harry/?s:baptism,wireless,pants/Patronus/LV lifestyle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167544 Dave Hardenbrook wrote in : << Wormtail will kill Greyback, which also results in the "curing" of all Fenrir's victims, including Lupin! >> And of all Fenrir's victims' victims? If killing a werewolf cured hiser victims, wouldn't something have been mentioned about it in FABULOUS BEASTS? At that there are tales of spontaneous remissions? << We find out how the Bloody Baron got bloody (and why Peeves fears him). >> I sure hope we find out why Peeves fears him. I like to think, because the Baron is the only ghost who can still do magic, thus having both ghost power and magic power. But I have yet to invent a good reason why the Baron would have retained his magic powers when other ghosts don't. If Carol's theory that magic power is literally in one's blood is correct, then the Baron could have retained his magic power because he retained his blood (by keeping it on his exterior) but also we could all become a witch or wizard temporarily by getting a blood transfusion from a witch or wizard. Kvapost wrote in : << It's amazing how DD chose to protect Harry from big bad magical bullies but not from Muggle ones and, wait for it, not *from himself*. It's not unusual for a kid in Harry's situation to actually commit suicide. Wouldn't that mess up things for DD and WW. I know, I know, there wouldn't be any HP books then. :) >> DD may have had faith that Harry wouldn't commit suicide because he (DD) believed that Harry-suicide would be prevented by the protection spells. That may also be the reason that DD had faith that Harry's abusive upbringing would not lead to him growing up to be a broken terrified coward who'd do anything to appease threatening people (something like Pettigrew in GoF) or a cynical tough guy who'd do anything to triumph (something like Tom Riddle) nor completely delusional and in no touch with reality. I have long had another theory: I think Lily was able, with her magic, to put an image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be like an 'imaginary mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would cuddle Harry and tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve Dursley abuse and tell him about how decent people behave, thus being that one caring adult said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of serious abuse... I kind of think Lily used her last magic to put this image in his head intentionally, instead of using her last magic in one last attempt to escape Voldemort. That is the heroic self-sacrifce that canon credits her, accepting her own death because it was more important to her to give this protection (from abusive Dursleys) of her love. (I admit I don't know why she would do that if she really believed that he would be dead seconds after she was.) When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I believe that that other voice is what's left of the image-Lily after all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's voice instead of her own, but she still is caring for Harry -- and still has free will. In addition, so far we've always seen Harry wondering and trying to find out about his father, and not about his mother. Some say that's a plot device because JKR is saving some big surprise about Lily, and some say it's normal because Harry is 11 to 14 so far, puberty and adolescence, and much more concerned about a male image to identify with. But *I* say that he doesn't search so much for Lily because, unknown to himself, he already has her with him. Carol wrote in : << Questions such as why wizards celebrate Christmas--or hold baptisms-- >> I don't think we actually know that wizards hold baptisms. We know that Harry was christened as a baby, but his mother was Muggle-born and could have insisted on observing a Muggle practise. Betsy Hp wrote in : << I *totally* have those questions. Like, what did they have before a "wireless" and did it actually have wires? >> I am absolutely certain that Wizarding Wizardless was invented in imitation of Muggle wireless, named after Muggle wireless, and did not have a magical wired precursor. The Muggle precursor of Muggle wireless was the telegraph ('wire' as in 'wire transfer' or 'wire service') and I'd like some 19th century wizard to have invented Spellograph as an imitation thereof, but I don't envision Spellograph having wires. I imagine a spell cast on two quills that what the operator writes with one quill, the other will also write in its distant location. << How come they got the concept of sweaters, but couldn't figure out pants? >> Well, the only one we *KNOW* didn't get the concept of pants was Old Archie, and we don't know that he got sweaters, either. Arthur wore trousers for his QWC Muggle disguise. In my mind, sweaters over robes look ugly; they should be worn under the robes. Maybe in Rowling's mind's eye, the robes had narrow enough sleeves that there's enough room in the sweater sleeves for both the human arm and the cloth sleeve of the 'under' garment. Maybe in Rowling's mind's eye, the robes are designed in some way that wearing a sweater over one wouldn't look any worse than wearing a sweater over a skirt and blouse outfit. << That the Quidditch team straddles brooms and flies about with great speed *while wearing robes* bothers me quite a bit. >> I imagine that the Quidditch robes are not as shown in any of the illustrations, but instead are robes whose skirt has a center slit front and back to make room for the broomstick, and a non-flying-up spell on them. Maybe a round hole for the broomstick to go through, rather than a slit ... then the robe could be sewn together at the bottom, like a sleeping bag, which would prevent it from flying up over the player's head and blinding him. Ryan wrote in : << I do think however, that the form of the patronus is linked to the inspiration for the Patronus. Which makes me wonder why Ron's patronus is a Jack Russell terrier and Cho Chang's is a swan. >> Carol answered in : << I wonder if we're not confusing the concepts of Animagus and Patronus here. A Patronus, according to JKR, is a "spirit guardian," a protector rather than an indication of the caster's personality and character, as the Animagus form clearly is. Sirius Black's Animagus form, a Grimlike black dog, reflected his personality and character, just as Peter Pettigrew's rat form reflects his, but I doubt that their Patronus forms were identical to their Animagus forms. >> I think it was JKR, not us, who confused the idea of Animagus and Patronus. She said she would want her Animagus form to be an otter, and she gave the otter to Hermione, her Mary Sue character, as a Patronus. I don't think that meant that Hermione feels that she is protected by having the Author on her side, and I don't think Hermione knows that the Author's Animagus form is an otter. Otters are known for playfulness as well as effectiveness, which seems appropriate to JKR with all her puns and other wordplay, but not appropriate to Hermione, who shows no sign of having a sense of humor. I think Sirius might well have the same Patronus as Animagus form, meaning that he feels he is protected by himself and his own powers. I can see Cho as a swan Animagus -- they're beautiful, but known to viciously bite the kind humans who are feeding them -- but can't see her as self-confident enough to feel protected by her own powers. Still, she could have one swan as Animagus form and a different swan for Patronus, showing that she feels her beauty is her strongest power. Kvapost wrote in : << 1) What would [Voldemort's] lifestyle be like? I mean, where does he live, what does he eat, what on earth does he do with his time?? With all that eternity that he's got on his hands at the moment. Because once Potter is out of his way (as he hopes), he's going to be so bored with no challenge. >> I imagine he's still living in the old Riddle House where he hid out in GoF, with a Death Eater servant he finds less annoying than Wormtail, who cooks for him. He plans his re-conquest of wizarding Britain, debriefs his spies, gives orders to his henchmen, tortures some of them for fun. Maybe he reads a lot (that's what any of us would do). << 2) What is he getting out of being an outcast? I mean, if he wanted to merely stay immortal, there was no need to be a meanie-poo to the whole WW: you need your 7 Horcruxes? - fine, make them, hide them, go to Hawaii and enjoy surfing. I know he's a sociopath and a megalomaniac with an agenda (purebloods vs mudbloods/muggles). But still, to be immortal and be hiding for eternity? Goodness me. >> He doesn't intend to be in hiding for eternity. He intends to conquer the British wizards and then launch a war to conquer the European wizards and eventually conquer all the world. After conquering just the British wizarding world, he would live in a palace made of gems where he would be surrounded by sycophants praising him and inventing endless new ways to torture Muggles for his amusement. I don't believe he cares a bit about purebloods versus Mudbloods, using that only as a recruiting technique, altho' his hatred of Muggle (because his father was one) may be sincere. I don't understand why Voldemort is so determined to avoid death, as it seems to me that his great enjoyment is to destroy things, like cities full of people, and maybe eventually the Sun (thus causing wizards everywhere to fear his name, as Diary!Tom said was his goal), and eventually he'll run out of things to destroy and get as bored as you imagine. From jnoyl at aim.com Sun Apr 15 04:54:01 2007 From: jnoyl at aim.com (JLyon) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:54:01 -0500 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Who else--Dumbles, of course Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167545 Voldie Bella Snape DoubleDumb and, finally, last but not least DoubleDumb I still have heard of no justification for keeping the prophesy secret that was worth anyone dying. If DD truly wanted Harry to know, he would have found someone to teach Harry occlumency. At the very least, he would have told Harry that Voldie wanted the prophesy and that he might use Harry to get at it. This would have, for once, been the truth and would have allowed Harry nearly nine months to think about any visions in terms of being Voldie's actual actions or just visions to lead Harry into trouble. If I had to lay the blame, it would be with DD. He knew what could happen and did nothing intelligent to prevent it. It can not be Harry's fault, except based on hindsight (which is ALWAYS so clear after an event has unfolded). Since Harry had only had "true visions," there was no way for Harry to accept that it could be a false vision. He was as convinced that it was true as Arthur being bitten by a great big snake. It wasn't Sirius's fault except to the degree that talking instead of fighting led to his death. Again, as I remember, DD had the situation in hand and gave Sirius no support. Nobody supported Sirius against the deadliest DE. I lay almost all of Harry's problems (including getting Harry's parents into safety) at DD's high-heeled and silver-buckled boots. DD died being the worst headmaster and the worst mentor there has probably ever been in fiction. Any headmaster would have been fired after any one of Harry's years--and Minnie-the-robot would have been canned also. Of course, that would also lead to firing the staff DE, Sybil, and exorcising at least one ghost. Hogwarts must be a running joke to the rest of the world. JLyon From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 06:26:28 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 06:26:28 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Who else--Dumbles, of course In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167546 JLyon wrote: > I still have heard of no justification for keeping the prophesy > secret that was worth anyone dying. KathyK: And I *still* fail to see how Dumbledore can be blamed so completely for the actions of others. Yes, he knew the Prophecy. But did he truly *know* that Sirius would run off to the Ministry without listening to Snape? Did he *know* that Sirius and Bellatrix would duel and that Sirius would happen to be standing so close to the veil that he'd fall through after being hit by whatever spell that was? Did he have any control over what LV was attempting? No. Dumbledore, IMO, does deserve a share in responsibility for many things, but he cannot possibly be responsible for every little thing that happens in the Potterverse. Other characters need to take responsibility for their actions. Like Bellatrix. Or whoever else we like to blame for Sirius's death. JLyon: > If DD truly wanted Harry to know, he would have found someone to teach Harry occlumency. KathyK: He did. He just chose the wrong person. I'm pretty sure JKR has said somewhere that Harry couldn't learn Occlumency, but I'm ignoring that because I can't recall it exactly and am too lazy to go look for it. At any rate, it is my opinon that Harry, regardless of teacher, would not have learned occlumency because he was much too interested in learning what was behind that door he kept dreaming about to try and block such dreams. JLyon: > At the very least, he would have told Harry that Voldie wanted the > prophesy and that he might use Harry to get at it. KathyK: I agree with this. Dumbledore made a mistake. It happens to everyone, though. JLyon: > I lay almost all of Harry's problems (including getting Harry's > parents into safety) at DD's high-heeled and silver-buckled boots. KathyK: You have every right to do so. I choose to lay the blame on Voldemort who murders people to ensure his own contined existence and on those who choose to follow his lead. JLyon: > DD died being the worst headmaster and the worst mentor there has > probably ever been in fiction. Any headmaster would have been fired > after any one of Harry's years--and Minnie-the-robot would have been > canned also. Of course, that would also lead to firing the staff DE, > Sybil, and exorcising at least one ghost. Hogwarts must be a running > joke to the rest of the world. KathyK: I'm sorry, but on what do you base this assumption that any headmaster other than Dumbledore would have been fired for any of the things that have occurred at Hogwarts? What rest of the world do you mean? *Our* RL world? Perhaps. The rest of the WW? That I would need to see further evidence to even consider that Dumbledore or McGonagall would have been fired for anything that happened at Hogwarts. Yes, Dumbledore was suspended in CoS due to the petrification of students but as Dumbledore mentioned, they asked him back and may have been threatened by Lucius Malfoy to suspend DD in the first place. Yes Umbridge, that beacon of reason and enlightenment, managed to force Dumbledore's ouster in OoP. However, neither of these events seem the norm at Hogwarts from what we have seen. What evidence from the WW do you present that Dumbledore could or should have been fired? KathyK From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 07:10:56 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:10:56 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <012501c77f13$f728a250$f47e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167547 > Zara: > This last, is the only point at issue, as it is the only event > occuring in a hypothetical future after Harry or Hermione chose > differently. The first two events had *already happened* at the time > the choice was made. Odd though it may seem to you, Harry and > Hermione's decision does not matter in a universe under those rules. > > Magpie: > If the past can not be changed so > they didn't think there was a reason to use the Time Turner in that > instance, it would result in a totally different sequence of events. He and > Hermione would not just have made a different decision, they would have > experienced a different few hours leading up to the decision. zgirnius: The way I look at it, here is the answer: The past cannot be changed, but when making the decision whether or not to Time Turn, Hermione must consider whether the past is the way it is *because* she is about to Time Turn and make it so. The actual way her past is at that moment might be a consequence of the decision she is about to make. This of course seems illogical because causes should precede effects, but time travel moved the effect back before the cause. She knows she cannot change that Bucky lived, or that Harry and Sirius were mysteriously saved, but there are things about the recent past in this instance that she does not know, that might be hugely important to her. She might have saved *two* innocent lives already. (But she has no memory of this, because it is her future self that did it.) > Magpie: > Once Rowling wrote the version she had to come up with a decision on their > part that fit everything we saw. zgirnius: I don't doubt this is the approach she took to writing it. I think she also went and back-edited the original sequence of events to put in some clues to the presence of the time-turned Harry and Hermione. > Magpie: > You mean that events would just conspire against her somehow to make her > miss the class regardless? I agree they would). zgirnius: Yes, they would. And one way they could do so would be to cause her to simply disappear. The real-life formulation in theoretical physics of this theory of time travel uses some fairly ominous-sounding words, when applied to people we care about. A reason not to set out consciously trying to alter a known fact in the past, in my view. Magpie: > I mean, Hermione does spin it and get in it most days. zgirnius: Most days, she is not trying to change the past. Suppose Hermione plans to go to Class A, timeturn and go to Class B, and timeturn again and go to Class C, all in a day's work for her, in the usual manner when she does not mess up. It is my contention that if we followed her into Class A, then left after the start of the lecture and peeked into Class B, we would see Hermione there too. And likewise, if we wandered over for a look at Class C, there she'd be, sitting in the front of the class waving her hand in the air. Because while she timeturns after Class A to achieve this, she was in Classes B and C all along. > Magpie: > So how does that work? Hermione takes class for two hours. The first hour > she's taking Charms. She has not yet taken Arithmancy. It makes more sense > to me to assume that during that hour of Charms there was no Hermione in > Arithmancy, and then when Hermione went back in time and did take Arithmancy > whatever existed of the Arithmancy class that was going on when Hermione was > *only* taking Charms stopped existing, replaced by the one with Hermione in > it in her second hour. I don't see why this would be a strange idea, given > that we see actual Hermione's ceasing to exist due to her Time Travel. zgirnius: I am not saying your idea is strange or unnatural. (In one sense, as Ken has argued, all ideas of time-travel are unnatural. In another, which I brought up in my discussion, *both* our views find some favor with physicists.) I am just saying that it is not, in my opinion, the correct idea about what happens when one time-travels in the Potterverse. As I already explained, I take the precisely opposite view that she would already be in all her classes. And I believe I have canon support, in that when we read the first set of chapters in PoA in which Harry and Hermione leave the castle, go to Hagrid, etc, etc, we are already given clues that they are there in duplicate. You say 'but the narrator is living in end-time', but it seems to me my explanation is also consistent with what we are shown. > Magpie: > I don't see how Hermione is supposed to approach > her double schedule without thinking she's changing time. That would be how > she experienced it, wouldn't she? She took an hour of Charms by herself. zgirnius: I am able to conceptualize her activities in this way. Since I believe that she is truly a gifted student and not the parrot some take her for, I would hesitate to assume that I am in this regard brighter than Hermione. Though, again, Hermione's conceptualization of her activities is irrelevant to what actually happens when she time-turns. > Magpie: > At > the point before she used the Time Turner, during that hour, there was only > one of her in one classroom. If she forgot to use her Time Turner that day, > it would stay that way. zgirnius: Of course it would. It would always have been that way. If a Seeress had told us that Hermione was going to omit to timeturn for Class B on a particular day, the morning of that day, we could go to Class A with Hermione, and leave to look in on Class B. If the Seeress was right - guess what? We would not see Hermione there. On the other hand, if we watched her go to Class A, and snuck over to find her also sitting in Class B, we could predict with amazing accuracy that she would time turn. If DD got that bright idea because he *saw* Hermione - then he had no doubt what she would decide. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Apr 15 07:19:14 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:19:14 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Who else--Dumbles, of course In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JLyon wrote: > > Voldie > Bella > Snape > DoubleDumb > and, finally, last but not least > DoubleDumb Julie: For me that order would be: 60% Bellatrix (she did the actual "killing") 30% Voldemort (he sent the DEs to the MoM to kill at will) 5% Sirius (he made the choice to go, and particularly made the choice not to take Bellatrix seriously) 3% Dumbledore (admittedly his decision not to give Harry more information made Harry more vulnerable to Voldemort's mind games) 1.5% Harry (he refused to consider anything outside his own emotionally-charged impulses--Hermione's advice, the mirror, etc) .5% Snape (he bears minimal responsibility since the goading back and forth between him and Sirius was a long-standing juvenile tactic that had little effect on either of them other than to cement their hatred of each other) Note: I'm talking moral responsibility above. Criminal responsibility would fall on Bellatrix (the murderer) and Voldemort (co-conspirator)--and perhaps the rest of the DEs present at the DoM (at least in U.S. courts all gang members present at a murder scene can be found equally guilty of the crime). JLyon: > I still have heard of no justification for keeping the prophesy > secret that was worth anyone dying. If DD truly wanted Harry to know, > he would have found someone to teach Harry occlumency. At the very > least, he would have told Harry that Voldie wanted the prophesy and > that he might use Harry to get at it. This would have, for once, been > the truth and would have allowed Harry nearly nine months to think > about any visions in terms of being Voldie's actual actions or just > visions to lead Harry into trouble. Julie: I agree. As Dumbledore admitted, his mistakes are correspondingly bigger, and this was probably his biggest. His justification was that he was protecting Harry, and I believe that was his intent. He certainly had no reason to suppose anyone would die because of it, given the unlikelihood that Harry and his friends could get to the MoM, and Sirius would leave Grimmauld Place and go there against advice, and Bellatrix would get the opportunity to kill her reasonably skilled cousin because he chose to let his guard down. That is what happened, of course, and in retrospect Dumbledore has reason to take on some blame (as he does), but he could never have foreseen it. JLyon: > If I had to lay the blame, it would be with DD. He knew what could > happen and did nothing intelligent to prevent it. Julie: See above. Dumbledore couldn't foresee every possibility, and the sequence of events that led to the death of Sirius add up to a very unlikely possibility at that. JLyon: > It can not be Harry's fault, except based on hindsight (which is > ALWAYS so clear after an event has unfolded). Since Harry had only > had "true visions," there was no way for Harry to accept that it > could be a false vision. He was as convinced that it was true as > Arthur being bitten by a great big snake. It wasn't Sirius's fault > except to the degree that talking instead of fighting led to his > death. Again, as I remember, DD had the situation in hand and gave > Sirius no support. Nobody supported Sirius against the deadliest DE. > I lay almost all of Harry's problems (including getting Harry's > parents into safety) at DD's high-heeled and silver-buckled boots. Julie: I don't think Harry bears much responsibility, though he does bear at least a small amount. He could have done several things differently, and he knew it as he was choosing not to do them (deliberately not trying to learn Occlumency, not listening to Hermione, etc). And Sirius does bear some responsibility for his actions, IMO, as he didn't take Bellatrix seriously. She couldn't have killed him if he hadn't made it so easy for her. (And, yes, I know Sirius was depressed, disturbed from his years in Azkaban, and so on, but if he was considered stable enough by everyone to be part of the Order rather than placed in a nice rubber room somewhere, then he could understand that Bellatrix was a dangerous opponent not to be taken lightly.) BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by no one supporting Sirius against the deadliest DE. I think the others were busy at the time, and I'm not sure any of the other DEs were considered to be less deadly than Bellatrix. Certainly she's not deadlier than Voldemort, whom DD was busy engaging. JLyon: > DD died being the worst headmaster and the worst mentor there has > probably ever been in fiction. Any headmaster would have been fired > after any one of Harry's years--and Minnie-the-robot would have been > canned also. Julie: I'm not sure we can compare Dumbledore to other headmasters in fiction, as very few (none?) of them run Wizarding schools. We know the WW is far more accepting of harsh discipline, dark pasts in teachers, and students placed in physical danger than are Muggle schools in real life. Or perhaps the WW is simply determined to prepare the students for the harsher and more dangerous Wizarding world. In any case, we have no indication that Dumbledore is considered a bad headmaster, and at least in comparison to Durmstrang's headmaster--an ex-DE who ran for his life when Voldemort returned--he comes out pretty well. As for a mentor, the jury is still out on that one, I think. At least until we read DH and see what Harry does with the information and advice Dumbledore gave him in HBP. JLyon: Of course, that would also lead to firing the staff DE, > Sybil, and exorcising at least one ghost. Hogwarts must be a running > joke to the rest of the world. > Julie: Again, are we talking about the Wizarding world? If HP was set in the real world, you might have a point. But in the WW, Hogwarts seems to be a typical school, except that they do not teach Dark Arts as some schools do (Durmstrang). Other than that missing element being derided by DE children such as Draco, whose opinions don't exactly reflect the WW at large, there's no evidence Hogwarts is viewed negatively at all. Julie From random832 at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 08:02:57 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 04:02:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50704141849g2096e14ag2d6e3b55f89a6685@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704150102w64fae824p16c7acd834a2996e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167549 > JW: > > If the owl delivers the message, the owl could be followed and the > recipient found. It appears this is what JKR means. No, this was what the questioner meant. JKR was IMO refuting that statement. > The only answer is that an owl sent by the MoM would not find Sirius > or LV. Or that if the MoM sends an owl, it will find them but they (the MoM) cannot follow it. > As NOBODY has EVER found a careless mistake made by JKR ;D it > must be that untraceability can be customized. I don't see how it's unreasonable to think that, instead, the owl itself could find them, but rather, they can cast a spell on themselves such that an owl directed at them cannot be tracked. It seems illogical, but remember, the analogy to unplottability, which allows you to cast a spell on a property such that even on the survey maps that were _already_ made showing #12 right between #10 and #13 Grimmauld place, no-one can find it. > How can this be? Shesezo strikes again! It is GOOD to be Lord of > the Universe! Except "the owls can't find them" isn't what she actually said. She said the Ministry couldn't use that method to find them (which is perfectly satisfied by "they can send an owl, but they can't track the owl in that case") --Random832 From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 08:16:06 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:16:06 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > Radcliffe quotes a conversation with JKR. > > Dan: Oh, hello, why are you here today? > JKR: ... Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble. > Dan: But isn't he dead? > JKR: Well, yeah, but it's a lot more complex... > > So DD is in a portrait but JKR can't quite decide how alive he is. We > don't get consistency in post-life with the portraits, ghosts and > Peeves who appears to be a ghost but is mistakenly called a > poltergeist. So I think all seven HP books should be seen as works in > progress. In a few years time, JKR will revise them with their whole in > mind. JW: With all due respect to your sincerity and creativity, I must disagree with at least one fact and some possibilities. First, what makes you believe Peeves is **mistakenly** called a poltergeist? It appears to most readers - not to mention the author herself - that Peeves is INDEED a poltergeist. Beyond the invocation of Shesezso, we have evidence to support this differentiation. Peeves commonly physically interacts with material objects in ways that ghosts never do. Further, we are told that ghosts are a pale imprint left by those who were living and died. Peeves can not be a ghost because he never lived. Second, it is quite possible that it is not the portrait of DD that causes JKR's problem. There are several other ways in which the dead DD could communicate. Of course, they would all arise from actions taken when DD was alive - examples might include DD time-traveling into the future to speak with other characters, or otherwise impact the plot of DH; memory threads that could be used in the pensieve; or even good old, mundane letters written by DD that would not be read until after his death. Honestly, my view is that having serious problems over portraits rates a low probability. Do you mean that portraits do not act the same as ghosts, and both are different from poltergeists? Quite simply, they act differently because they ARE different. Each of the three types of characters have unique characteristics that set them apart from the other two. Or do you mean that some portraits act differently from other portraits, and some ghosts act differently from other ghosts? If so, it is not a huge problem - after all, when alive these characters acted very differently from each other. Why would they all act the same after death? JW From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 08:37:11 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:37:11 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167551 > Katmandu > Dumbledore was a member of the Wizard court, why would he allow a man (sirius) to be sent to Azkaban without a trial? Just sent away. Did he know Sirius to be innocent? Nobody bothered to use veriserum or legimancy (spelling?) to see what happened. Goddlefrood; First of all, it appears that all on this thread have forgotten that at the time Sirius was sent to Azkaban there were no proceedings of the Wizengamot. Barty Crouch Senior had assumed emergency powers and one of those powers was the power to convict and sentence without due process. Having lived under a state of emergency twice in the past 7 years it is not an unusual power to be assumed when an emergency arises. Whetehr or not it is justified is a different argument altogether, and one I will not get into here. Barty Senior also had authorised the use of Unforgiveables by Aurors during the latter parts of the first rise of Voldemort. I would anticipate that these poers were granted originally by Decree. A Decree is not normally required to be presented to a legislature to pass. It appears to have been the mechanism used in OotP also in respect of the Educational Decrees. The Wizengamot, as the legislative body need not have been consulted at all in other words. That would then, at least in this instance, lead to a conclusion that Dumbledore was in no control at all over what happened to Sirius and can bear no responsibility, except perhaps moral responsibility because he did not press James and Lily hard enough to be their Secret Keeper. Barty Senior is to balme, he's dead and his line has been snuffed. Punishment enough perhaps? So, no trial :) Dumbledore innocent of Sirius being in jail :) Compare him to Uncle Morfy , that uncle of Tom Riddle's spent a good number of years in Azkaban for a crime he did not commit, but which he thought he had. Sirius certainly felt guilty, but he has probably atoned in his own way. He also was not required in the continuing story ark until PoA ;). He may appear in some form again. Oh, and btw there is an FAQ on her site in which JKR explains why Veritaserum would not have been used to determine guilt or otherwise, the relevant extract: "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." Found here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=105 That link does not alter the fact that there was no Wizengamot proceeding, a summary proceeding with statements only and no opportunity of defence, not that Sirius himself tells us anywhere that he offered one, before Barty Senior alone appears implicit. Perhaps this may assist ;) Goddlefrood From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Apr 15 09:00:46 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:00:46 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167552 > > JW retrieves a few JKR quotes: > > "Everyone who shows magical ability before their eleventh birthday > will automatically gain a place at Hogwarts; there is no question of > not being `magical enough'; you are either magical or you are not. > There is no obligation to take up the place, however; a family might > not want their child to attend Hogwarts." > > We are not told what happens to a no-show. Would a headmaster allow > a muggle-born 11-year-old be a no-show without consulting the muggle > parents? What would Hogwarts do with a no-show who later wanted to > start training? Is such a person left with Quickspells mail > correspondence courses as the only alternative? > > "Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she ever be able to > do so." > > It appears that most magical kiddies generate untrained, > uncontrolled, spontaneous magic (i.e., the vanishing glass that freed > the snake in SS/PS). A literal interpretation (always dangerous!) of > the quote means that this NEVER happened to Pet. However, I find > nothing on JKR's site that calls Pet a muggle. Have I overlooked the > quote, or is it in an interview, and not shown on the JKR site? > Hickengruendler: "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." >From here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 IMO, these answers are pretty clear. Aunt Petunia is a muggle, who has never done any magic and never will. Granted, JKR is very tricky sometimes (see her answer to the question, if we'll here about Regulus), therefore I would be very careful about everything she said, but I really don't know, how she could sneak out of this one. From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 15 09:04:25 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:04:25 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167553 zgirnius: > The way I look at it, here is the answer: The past cannot be > changed, but when making the decision whether or not to Time Turn, > Hermione must consider whether the past is the way it is *because* > she is about to Time Turn and make it so. The actual way her past > is at that moment might be a consequence of the decision she is > about to make. This of course seems illogical because causes should > precede effects, but time travel moved the effect back before the > cause. > She knows she cannot change that Bucky lived, or that Harry and > Sirius were mysteriously saved, but there are things about the > recent past in this instance that she does not know, that might be > hugely important to her. She might have saved *two* innocent lives > already. (But she has no memory of this, because it is her future > self that did it.) Dana now: You are contradicting yourself here. If history cannot be changed then her future self cannot save these two innocent lives, because to be from the future you already must have a past, otherwise the future is the present and in the present these events have not yet occurred and both Hermione's would not have a recollection of it. You now only dedicate the past time to be created by a future self instead of a present time self in a first run. And according to your version the future self comes out of no where, not as a result of time turning because that event also did not take place yet, also in your version it is just the future self that creates the past just before the original Hermione is entering the present time. You say the future self rescued Buckbeak and the original would not have a memory of it. Memories are made during the unfolding of events, which become memories just as the event ends. You cannot have a memory about the future, we call it a vision which carries no factual information yet. If according to your theory Hermione2 is from the future where the past has not already unfolded, then what would that future self be doing here, she would not know Buckbeak is about to be sentenced to death and she will not know Sirius is about to be soul sucked because according to you these events have not yet occurred and the past can't be changed according to the same theory. Let me show you the scene where Hermione disappears just before they all are about to enter the charms. Pg 217 UKed Paperback: `We're due in Charms,' said Ron, still goggling at Hermione. `We'd better go.' They hurried up the marble staircase towards Professor Flitwick's classroom. `You're late, boys!' said Professor Flitwick reprovingly, as Harry opened the classroom door. `Come along, quickly, wands out, we're experimenting with Cheering Charms today. We've already divided into pairs -' Harry and Ron hurried to a desk at the back and opened their bags. Ron looked behind him.'Where's Hermione gone? Harry looked around, too. Hermione hadn't entered the classroom, yet Harry knew she had been right next to him when he had opened the door. `That's weird,' said Harry, starring at Ron. `Maybe ? maybe she went to the bathroom or something?' But Hermione didn't turn up all lesson. Hermione wasn't at lunch either. Hermione was sitting at a table, fast asleep, her head resting on an open Arithmancy book. They went to sit down on either side of her. Harry prodded her awake. `Wh-what?' Said Hermione, waking with a start, and staring wildly around. `Is it time to go? W-which lesson have we got now?' `Divination, but isn't for another twenty minutes,' said Harry. `Hermione, why didn't you come to Charms?' What? Oh no! Hermione squeaked. `I forgot to go to Charms!' `But how could you forget?' Harry said. `You where with us till we were right outside the classroom!' End quote canon. As you can see Hermione suddenly disappeared when she is about to enter Charms, why would she use the time turner here? And then later say, oh I forgot to go to charms? According to your theory a future Hermione would be in the same present time, so how is it that she disappeared? Did the future self change the past so Hermione is no longer there suddenly? No, Hermione in her first run uses this moment to go back in time to attend the Arithmancy class which was at the same time as Care for Magical Creatures. Both classes do not take the same amount of time and the time traveling Hermione knows both Ron and Harry will not go to the common room before they go to Charms and can therefore safely wait in the common room until Charms is due but she falls asleep. The Hermione that was present with Ron and Harry just before they are about to enter the class stops to exist because that was the time traveling point and she cannot go passed it, because her previous action (from an hour before) sent her back in time at that very moment. In essence, the moment they are about to enter the class is where the time traveling episode *ends* and were there is only one Hermione in the *present* time and she is asleep in the common room and it is her that mist to be at that location before her historical record vanishes and why Ron and Harry register her being gone. If you apply your theory to these events then it makes no sense. Hermione does not travel back in time to take a missed class (Arithmancy that runs at the same time as Care for Magical Creatures) but just creates a duplicate of herself, so she can be at two places at once in the PRESENT time. If that was true, then why did this Hermione suddenly vanish? And why did her future self go to the common room to have a nap? It doesn't make sense at all and it is therefore not possible. Hermione lives through the hour FIRST and then goes back in time to attend the class she missed (as in not being able to attend because it is not in her past yet) in the first run. Also you say Hermione has no recollection of what her future self has done in this time frame, then tell me how is it possible for the realtime Hermione to remember what her future self has learned during the second class? Wouldn't it be a waist of time if she can't remember the class and the information any way? In JKR's world history CAN be changed, just because in real-time life we can't, does not mean JKR therefore could never have intended it to be like that in her World. She DID intent it to be that way and therefore she makes a big deal out of Ron and Harry noticing Hermione gone, while she was standing next to them just a minute ago. All JMHO Dana From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Apr 15 09:07:53 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:07:53 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > > In the Brisbane Courier Mail, 14 April 2007, there is an interview with > Daniel Radcliffe. He quotes a conversation with JKR. > > Dan: Oh, hello, why are you here today? > JKR: ... Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble. > Dan: But isn't he dead? > JKR: Well, yeah, but it's a lot more complex... > > So DD is in a portrait but JKR can't quite decide how alive he is. Hickengruendler: That's a very bold interpretation. I would argue, that it is equally possible, that DUmbledore is dead but somehow able to help Harry from the beyond. I am willing to bet a lot, that we will see a spirit-like Dumbledore in book 7 (and I wouldn't be surprised, if a few other spirits return as well, for a short time). We > don't get consistency in post-life with the portraits, ghosts and > Peeves who appears to be a ghost but is mistakenly called a > poltergeist. Hickengruendler: Peeves is a poltergeist. He is not a ghost. Nearly-Headless Nick already said so back in Philosopher's Stone, that Peeves wasn't even a real ghost. Rowling has also made this pretty clear on her website. Whatever JKR's flaws in worldbuilding may have been (and IMO, even though a few exist, I find them hardly bothersome so far), she was always very consistent regarding what Peeves is (a Poltergeist) and what he isn't (a ghost like Nick or Myrtle). From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Sun Apr 15 08:40:27 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:40:27 -0000 Subject: Ghosts/ Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167555 > zanooda: > > Are you sure that Peeves can walk through walls? Others already > pointed out that he is not a ghost, but this is not the point. Since I've recently reread Phoenix, I turned to the bit I remember. In Chapter 30, page 597: "Cackling madly, he soared through the school,..., bursting out of blackboards... floating along after Umbridge..." Soaring, bursting out of and floating all suggest ghost to me. Page 598: Peeves, who was determinedly loosening a crystal chandelier and could have sworn he heard her tell the poltergeist ... "It screws the other way." Now a poltergeist is usually a person, often a teenager if you count a teenager as a person, who has psychic powers that are disruptive. Peeves happens to be a ghost who has the powers of a poltergeist. As a poltergeist, his psychic powers would simply send the chandelier flying. He wouldn't be trying to unscrew it. Put another way, unscrewing it implies that he's not a poltergeist. It also implies that he's too too solid to be a ghost and hence cannot burst out of blackboards nor soar through the air nor float after Umbridge. Peeves is a coat of many colours. JKR changes his nature according to what she wants him to do. Barry From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Apr 15 09:19:03 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:19:03 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Who else--Dumbles, of course In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JLyon wrote: > > Voldie > Bella > Snape > DoubleDumb > and, finally, last but not least > DoubleDumb > > I still have heard of no justification for keeping the prophesy > secret that was worth anyone dying. If DD truly wanted Harry to know, > he would have found someone to teach Harry occlumency. At the very > least, he would have told Harry that Voldie wanted the prophesy and > that he might use Harry to get at it. This would have, for once, been > the truth and would have allowed Harry nearly nine months to think > about any visions in terms of being Voldie's actual actions or just > visions to lead Harry into trouble. > > If I had to lay the blame, it would be with DD. He knew what could > happen and did nothing intelligent to prevent it. > > It can not be Harry's fault, except based on hindsight (which is > ALWAYS so clear after an event has unfolded). Since Harry had only > had "true visions," there was no way for Harry to accept that it > could be a false vision. He was as convinced that it was true as > Arthur being bitten by a great big snake. It wasn't Sirius's fault > except to the degree that talking instead of fighting led to his > death. Again, as I remember, DD had the situation in hand and gave > Sirius no support. Nobody supported Sirius against the deadliest DE. > I lay almost all of Harry's problems (including getting Harry's > parents into safety) at DD's high-heeled and silver-buckled boots. > DD died being the worst headmaster and the worst mentor there has > probably ever been in fiction. Any headmaster would have been fired > after any one of Harry's years--and Minnie-the-robot would have been > canned also. Of course, that would also lead to firing the staff DE, > Sybil, and exorcising at least one ghost. Hogwarts must be a running > joke to the rest of the world. > > JLyon > Hickengruendler: I really do not want to make Harry look guiltier than he is, but partly he is responsible, because he forgot the mirror (and Snape). He admitted as much to himself, when he learned in HBP, that Tonks supposedly blamed herself. For that matter Ron, Hermione and Ginny could have thought about Snape as well. And with all respect, and even though I, too, am not always happy with how Dumbledore is written, there is no need to make him worse than he is. He was fighting about 10 or 11 Death Eaters almost at once, once he entered the ministry. This is already quite a lot. I know that with great power comes great responsibility and sadly he doesn't always live up to it, but I am sure he did the best he could in the climax of OotP (and it was quite a lot). If he is to blame, than rather for his decisions prior to the desaster (with which I partly agree), but he was very busy and helped a lot during the fight, and I find it very hrad on him, to blame him, that he didn't help Sirius in time against Bellatrix, because it's not that he was lazy, there. I am also a bit surprised that Kreacher didn't even feature on your list. Also, I find it somewhat besides the point to blame this and this person, because it is IMO pretty clear, that Sirius' death was the result of a chain by very bad decisions by several of the characters, including Sirius himself. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 12:13:40 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:13:40 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Who else--Dumbles, of course In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167557 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JLyon wrote: > > Voldie > Bella > Snape > DoubleDumb > and, finally, last but not least > DoubleDumb > > I still have heard of no justification for keeping the prophesy > secret that was worth anyone dying. If DD truly wanted Harry to know, > he would have found someone to teach Harry occlumency. At the very > least, he would have told Harry that Voldie wanted the prophesy and > that he might use Harry to get at it. This would have, for once, been > the truth and would have allowed Harry nearly nine months to think > about any visions in terms of being Voldie's actual actions or just > visions to lead Harry into trouble. > > If I had to lay the blame, it would be with DD. He knew what could > happen and did nothing intelligent to prevent it. > > It can not be Harry's fault, except based on hindsight (which is > ALWAYS so clear after an event has unfolded). Since Harry had only > had "true visions," there was no way for Harry to accept that it > could be a false vision. He was as convinced that it was true as > Arthur being bitten by a great big snake. It wasn't Sirius's fault > except to the degree that talking instead of fighting led to his > death. Again, as I remember, DD had the situation in hand and gave > Sirius no support. Nobody supported Sirius against the deadliest DE. > I lay almost all of Harry's problems (including getting Harry's > parents into safety) at DD's high-heeled and silver-buckled boots. > DD died being the worst headmaster and the worst mentor there has > probably ever been in fiction. Any headmaster would have been fired > after any one of Harry's years--and Minnie-the-robot would have been > canned also. Of course, that would also lead to firing the staff DE, > Sybil, and exorcising at least one ghost. Hogwarts must be a running > joke to the rest of the world. > > JLyon Jenni from Alabama responds: As I said in a previous post, add Kreacher to that list. Harry actually checked to see if Sirius was at Headquaters. It was Kreacher who told him he was gone. If Harry had known Sirius was there, he'd have never left for the battle to begin with. He'd have stayed at Hogwarts and Sirius would still be alive. JMHO, Jenni From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 15 15:08:03 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:08:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Patronus References: Message-ID: <00a701c77f6f$ddd6ae80$3b60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167558 > Ryan wrote in > : > > << I do think however, that the form of the patronus is linked to the > inspiration for the Patronus. Which makes me wonder why Ron's patronus > is a Jack Russell terrier and Cho Chang's is a swan. >> > > Carol answered in > : > > << I wonder if we're not confusing the concepts of Animagus and > Patronus here. A Patronus, according to JKR, is a "spirit guardian," a > protector rather than an indication of the caster's personality and > character, as the Animagus form clearly is. Sirius Black's Animagus > form, a Grimlike black dog, reflected his personality and character, > just as Peter Pettigrew's rat form reflects his, but I doubt that > their Patronus forms were identical to their Animagus forms. >> > > I think it was JKR, not us, who confused the idea of Animagus and > Patronus. She said she would want her Animagus form to be an otter, > and she gave the otter to Hermione, her Mary Sue character, as a > Patronus. I don't think that meant that Hermione feels that she is > protected by having the Author on her side, and I don't think Hermione > knows that the Author's Animagus form is an otter. Otters are known > for playfulness as well as effectiveness, which seems appropriate to > JKR with all her puns and other wordplay, but not appropriate to > Hermione, who shows no sign of having a sense of humor. > > I think Sirius might well have the same Patronus as Animagus form, > meaning that he feels he is protected by himself and his own powers. > > I can see Cho as a swan Animagus -- they're beautiful, but known to > viciously bite the kind humans who are feeding them -- but can't see > her as self-confident enough to feel protected by her own powers. > Still, she could have one swan as Animagus form and a different swan > for Patronus, showing that she feels her beauty is her strongest power. Magpie: Cho, to me, doesn't seem to be either someone who viciously bites the hand of the kind humans feeding her or lacking in self-confidence Patronuses are supposed to somehow represent the happy memory, which is tied to what makes you feel protected. I assume that Cho's swan is perhaps linked to the mating for life and love associations with swans. Her happy memory could, for instance, be something having to do with Cedric, which still protects her even though he is gone. She might also be a swan animagus for all we know, but that wouldn't necessarily mean her Patronus represents her being protected by her own powers. I wouldn't be surprised if Sirius' Patronus had something to do with James or Harry. He might have a stag too (though his own version of it) I may be forgetting Harry's happy memory, but isn't it his finding out he's a Wizard? That can be associated with the stag because it is connected to his real self, his real heritage, and his real family. Hermone's otter and Ron's Jack Russell would also be associated with some happy memory of theirs. If Hermione was remembering some time when Ron made her happy, the otter would on some level associated with him. Ron's Jack Russell would be associated with whatever his happy memory was (heh--perhaps that's Hermione for him). Animagus forms are connected to the essence of the caster and don't change, but Patroni definitely can, as different memories and experiences and people become more important to the caster. The very name suggests a guiding spirit outside the person. The memory comes from them, and it symbolizes their own protection of themselves, but it's not, imo, a symbolic representation of things that make them confident in their life. That's why Hermone's Patronuses isn't, for example, a book. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 15 16:14:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:14:44 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167559 > Betsy Hp: > It does mean that any theories based on time (minutes, hours, days, > years) are doomed to possibly end up in the "oh dear, maths" trash > pile. Was Lupin's 12 years *really* unaccounted for, or was he just > hanging in the AU world where Charlie won a quidditch cup or two? Pippin: A lot of theories based on what turned out to be sequencing errors have bitten the dust. But we know that they were sequencing errors because JKR fixed them. She swapped 'descendant' for 'ancestor', she re-wrote the wand order, and she's had plenty of time to insert some information about what Lupin was doing while Sirius was in jail, Pettigrew was in hiding, and James was a-moldering in his grave. It wouldn't even contradict anything that's already there. But she hasn't. If that was the only gap in Lupin's history it wouldn't amount to much, I agree. But he's been MIA in every book. Betsy: > IMO, this kind of mystery solving is cheating. JKR isn't laying out > clues, she's saying things are how they are and any readers > questioning here are obviously freakishly interested in math or > consistency. Pippin: Hardly -- it's only the people who notice things which are jarring who have any chance of solving the mysteries at all-- the trick is to decide which things are jarring by accident and which have been made jarring on purpose. IMO, if you can connect the dots from book to book with some consistency, and the outcome would have some obvious relevance to the plot, you've got a real clue, not a mistake. I guess we're not bothered by the same things, if you see the Hand of Glory as a great big deal but the things I mentioned in PS/SS didn't bother you. They jarred me on first reading because they seemed senseless. When I re-read, they were explained and didn't jar any more, which is where I got the idea that some things which are jarring must be clues. IIRC, Steve Kloves remarks in his interview with JKR that he can recognize the clues because they stand out a little and JKR nods her head. > > >>Pippin: It might make an intriguing bit of fan fiction, but there's no thematic necessity for this info, IMO. > > We don't, er, need to know. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. Which is why it's an example of a mistake rather than a > stylistic choice. It's a mistake that jars a reader out of the story > without adding anything to the story at all. It's a question never > answered that wasn't meant to be asked in the first place. Pippin: IMO, we don't know that yet. There are multiple times in canon where items disappear or reappear, and JKR doesn't always let us know immediately. The leprechaun gold, various invisibility cloaks, the marauders map, and so forth. IMO, something's up with that. The clue here is not, maybe, that the hand itself is important but that we should be alert that items may not be where we think they are. Harry's invisibility cloak is AWOL at the moment. The complacent assumption is that JKR so far omitted to write that he got it back...but we'll see. > > >>Pippin: > > The point is, Dumbledore couldn't *know* how much wizard > > interference it would take to put Harry in the street. He'd > > be guessing, and he knows as well as we do that some of his > > guesses are wrong. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Which is why it's an odd choice on JKR's point. > Pippin: I thought the books had established pretty well that the Dursleys would abuse any child in their 'care' regardless of intervention, well-meant or otherwise. Dumbledore's lecture was more aimed at making sure Harry squeezed the last bit of coverage out of the protection than at getting the Dursleys to understand anything, IMO. And I think he wanted to Harry to understand that despite appearances, there never was any reason to be jealous of Dudley. I think Molly's shunning of Hermione in GoF shows that repeating gossip leads to evil and hints at why Dumbledore did not expose Riddle. I think Snape's handshake shows that however it looked to Draco, Slytherin got beat fair and square. Hey, this is Snape we're talking about. He's not exactly given to conciliatory gestures. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. See, *that*'s why he took the vow. He'd been brooding over Slytherin's humiliation for four years, and he finally cracked. > > Betsy Hp: > But I still think the books are meant to be a bit of an escape, a > nice armchair adventure where good will triumph over evil. I'll be > interested to see if they're meant to be something more. > Pippin: What's Dolores Umbridge doing in a book like that? If good always triumphed over evil, would Sirius be dead? Or Cedric? Or even the poor unicorn in Book One? IMO, the good side is the side that believes that good *can* triumph over evil, despite the fact that people, even heroes, are seldom as good as we wish they were. Dumbledore believes that, IMO, and it gives him the courage to offer second chances and to refuse to fight evil with its own weapons even if it looks like that's the only way to win. I think his actions are consistent with this, but we'll see. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Apr 15 16:21:04 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:21:04 -0000 Subject: What Petunia knows (Re: The Dursleys:) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167560 > Hickengruendler: > "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? > > Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a > Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the > other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little > bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out > what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. > Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." > > From here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 > > IMO, these answers are pretty clear. Aunt Petunia is a muggle, who > has never done any magic and never will. Granted, JKR is very tricky > sometimes (see her answer to the question, if we'll here about > Regulus), therefore I would be very careful about everything she > said, but I really don't know, how she could sneak out of this one. Jen: Reading this quote again makes me think the simplest answer is best, that Petunia is like a Squib in knowing how the WW operates but this is due to her nosiness and not from growing up in a family with at least one magical parent or from trying to fit into the WW. We know Petunia overheard that one conversation at least; it's hard to imagine she only listened one time given how curious she is. Hmm, just noticed how Petunia's curiosity is contrasted with her rule about no questions for Harry--does that stem in part from Petunia thinking she paid a price for learning about the magical world? If so, she didn't learn any lessons about her own curious nature! There's so little she can do to learn information though, unlike a Squib. She can't read Daily Prophets, Lily's letters or any WW books (I'm guessing). Now the Grangers could see Gringotts so it's possible Petunia went on errands with her parents and Lily in Diagon Alley during summers prior to school starting. Still, she could learn a lot by eavesdropping on conversations between Lily and their parents if they were interested to learn all about the WW. Then Petunia would be doing to Lily what Harry observes her doing to with neighbors and famous people: professing not to be interested and yet her actions reveal otherwise. Petunia knows enough about the WW to correspond with DD prior to his 'last', the letter on the doorstep. I'm intrigued how these previous letters fit in. Petunia was chosen because of the blood connection so I don't see how Dumbledore would have corresponded with her about the possibility of baby Harry living with them until the blood tie became a necessity. And yet DD appears certain the Dursleys will accept Harry with just one letter of explanation; even McGonagall is surprised that Dumbledore believes a letter will be enough. I'm thinking the previous letters would fill in this particular gap because they need to be relevant to the missing parts of the story revealed in DH. I can't think of where the Dursleys would fit into the remaining story unless it was the events directly prior to Godric's Hollow. (Aside here: I like the theory about the Dursleys living at GP for a portion of DH when Privet Dr. is in danger of attack. Could they see the house though, even knowing the secret location from the SK as they do since Dumbledore revealed it in HBP? It seems like there would still be anti-Muggle jinxes and such. Maybe the Fidelius overrides those.) Jen From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 16:28:03 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:28:03 -0000 Subject: Ghosts/ Room of Requirements and the discovery of the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > Since I've recently reread Phoenix, I turned to the bit I remember. > In Chapter 30, page 597: "Cackling madly, he soared through the > school,..., bursting out of blackboards... floating along after > Umbridge..." > Soaring, bursting out of and floating all suggest ghost to me. Thank you for the quote! What can I say? JKR's poltergeist is definitely not that teenager with psychic powers that you mention (sorry I snipped it). In her world it's something different, more like a personification of chaos, or something like that. I forgot to comment on the ghost part of your previous post. It's not completely true that they can't interact with material world (I mean of course JKR's ghosts). For example, in CoS, when Moaning Murtle dives into a toilet, she splashes water all over the room ("The Writing on the Wall", p. 119 if you have British ed.). If she is able to displace water, it means that she interacts, right? I can be wrong of course, as I know very little about physics and ghosts in general :-). Take care! zanooda, who knows very little about RL or WW ghosts From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Apr 15 16:36:21 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:36:21 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <00a701c77f6f$ddd6ae80$3b60400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167562 Magpie: > I may be forgetting Harry's happy memory, but isn't it his finding out he's > a Wizard? That can be associated with the stag because it is connected to > his real self, his real heritage, and his real family. The memory comes from > them, and it symbolizes their own protection of themselves, but it's not, imo, a > symbolic representation of things that make them confident in their life. Jen: You know, I just realized we don't find out Harry's happy memory by the lake. When he tried to cast a Patronus the first time on the lake and couldn't make one strong enough, he was thinking about leaving the Durlseys and living with Sirius. I've filled in the blanks in my own mind that Harry is subconciously thinking of the short time he had with his own parents when he casts the powerful Patronus across the lake because 'Prongs rode again tonight' as explained by Dumbledore and there was the symbolism of James being there to protect Harry. But that isn't mentioned in the books and was my own conjecture! And we also don't hear Harry's memory when he casts his first stag, at the Quidditch match, unless I'm missing the reference. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Apr 15 16:38:18 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:38:18 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167563 > Pippin: > The clue here is not, maybe, that the hand itself is > important but that we should be alert that items may not be > where we think they are. Harry's invisibility cloak is AWOL at > the moment. The complacent assumption is that JKR so far > omitted to write that he got it back...but we'll see. Hickengruendler: I think the Hand was a genuine error. What convinced me is, that the Trio knew, that Draco had it. And this is simply impossible. Of course he could have gotten his hand everytime and Rowling did not need to tell the viewers (though why not?), but there's no way for Harry, Ron and Hermione to know this, and yet for them it was a matter of fact. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 15 17:01:22 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 15 Apr 2007 17:01:22 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/15/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1176656482.17.91768.m49@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167564 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 15, 2007 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 All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://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 nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 17:04:02 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:04:02 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167565 > Betsy Hp: > I don't buy that either. I agree that there are *elements* of parody > in the Potter books, but they are not solely parody. For that to be, > the Slytherins would all need to be evil merely by virtue of their > house (to be thrown out not brought back into the fold), and Snape > would need to truly be sadistic (DDM arguments should hold almost no > water). And Lupin would need to be more defined by his being a > werewolf (loves red meat, etc.). > > And it would also mean that we readers should care a lot less about > who's in charge of the MoM, whether or not they support Harry, the > Weasleys' poverty, or Harry's chances of becoming an Auror. We > shouldn't really care too much about James' and Lily's death either. > Because it's all fake and funny. > > A good example, IMO, of a parody writer is Roald Dahl. In his "James > and the Giant Peach" we learn that James is an orphan because his > parents were eaten by an angry rhinoceros (happens on the first page, > so no spoilers ). Which tells you right away to not look for > realism here. You care for James, but not so much about his dead > parents. JKR goes in a different direction. The time Harry spends > in front of the Mirror *aching* for his dead parents takes the Potter > series out of parody, IMO. Neri: This is not what I meant. I never wrote that the HP series was a parody. It most certainly isn't. What I did write was that the *WW* is a parody. That is, the plot itself and the characters aren't parodies and JKR has never meant them to be. James and Lily dying isn't parody and Harry looking at their images in a magic mirror isn't parody. However, Hogwarts *is* a parody of British public school and schools in general, the Ministry of Magic *is* a parody of RL politics and bureaucracy, and many kinds of magic, mainly those that are not critical for the plot, are parodies of modern technology and science. And of course, all the above are also parodies of stereotypes in the fairytale and fantasy genres. IOW, the HP series is a realistic/fantasy plot superimposed over a parody *background*. This paradoxical combination naturally results in a few clashes, but mostly it works surprisingly well. The readers usually know immediately what was intended as parody, and therefore should not be taken seriously, and what was intended as realism. For example, I encountered very few attempts by readers to figure out how come Remus Lupin ended up with his name (did his parents change his names after he was bitten? Or do werewolves in the WW only bite people with names that have a connection with wolves?). I don't think even those few attempts were actually serious. It was very obviously just the Author having fun over Lupin's head. And I can't remember any discussion at all about how the Founders had managed to come up with a wonderfully silly name like "Hogwarts". In any standard world-building fantasy such obvious winks from the Author would instantly kill any believability. The interesting thing is that, for me at least (and I think for many other readers) JKR's parody successfully generates a *more* believable world than if she was deliberately attempting serious world building. I think it is in large part the message that "magic isn't what it's cracked up to be" that seems real to us. The very fact that wizard kids need to worry about future careers feels realistic even when the *details* of the available careers are obviously parodies. The WW feels real because it is not "to good to be true", as are many world-building fantasies including the venerable LotR. This in itself is a brilliant achievement of JKR, but we should not mistake it for world building. Sure, it's fun to play world building in the Potterverse and I do it a lot myself, but I don't see much point in blaming the Author for not doing well something she has never intended to do. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 17:24:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:24:59 -0000 Subject: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704150102w64fae824p16c7acd834a2996e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167566 JW wrote: > > If the owl delivers the message, the owl could be followed and the recipient found. It appears this is what JKR means. Random832 responded: > No, this was what the questioner meant. JKR was IMO refuting that statement. JW: > > The only answer is that an owl sent by the MoM would not find Sirius or LV. > Random832: > Or that if the MoM sends an owl, it will find them but they (the MoM) cannot follow it. JW: > > As NOBODY has EVER found a careless mistake made by JKR ;D it must be that untraceability can be customized. > Random832: > I don't see how it's unreasonable to think that, instead, the owl itself could find them, but rather, they can cast a spell on themselves such that an owl directed at them cannot be tracked. > It seems illogical, but remember, the analogy to unplottability, which allows you to cast a spell on a property such that even on the survey maps that were _already_ made showing #12 right between #10 and #13 Grimmauld place, no-one can find it. JW: > > How can this be? Shesezo strikes again! It is GOOD to be Lord of the Universe! > Random832: > Except "the owls can't find them" isn't what she actually said. She said the Ministry couldn't use that method to find them (which is perfectly satisfied by "they can send an owl, but they can't track the owl in that case") Carol joins the discussion: I hope that I've attributed these remarks correctly as they weren't labeled in the post I was responding to. If not, please correct me. Although I certainly agree with JW that JKR makes the rules of the Potterverse and that her books are littered with inconsistencies, only some of which she appears to be aware of (she's corrected a few and made excuses, starting with Marcus Flint repeating a year, to cover others), I think that Jordan (Random832) is correct in this instance. No Muggle (with the possible exception of the Dursleys) can find or see 12 Grimmauld Place because it's unplottable. No wizard can see it unless they've been told (and understand) the secret: It appears to Harry only after he's read and memorized the note in DD's handwriting. But owls can find it. No one has told Hedwig the secret, much less the owls that deliver the Trio's book lists and RH's Prefect badges, and yet owls have no trouble finding them. The eagle owl finds Voldemort in GoF as well. And, of course, Hedwig finds Sirius Black when no human being has any idea where he is. The only exception that I can think of is Horace Slughorn. Maybe he moves to a new Muggle house (piano and all) when an owl finds him, or maybe he does something additional to prevent owls from finding him. (Dumbledore must have used those mysterious silver instruments to fid him! ) Carol, who hopes JW will forgive her for saying that she's almost as tired of "Shesezso" as of "Snapey-poo" (the term, that is, not Snape himself) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 17:28:52 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:28:52 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167567 Barry wrote: > > In the Brisbane Courier Mail, 14 April 2007, there is an interview with > Daniel Radcliffe. He quotes a conversation with JKR. > > Dan: Oh, hello, why are you here today? > JKR: ... Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble. > Dan: But isn't he dead? > JKR: Well, yeah, but it's a lot more complex... > Neri: My own guess is that JKR's troubles with Dumbledore are mainly in explaining some of his past behavior in several points along the series, in light of the Book 7 revelations, and *not* in any changes regarding his "dead" status. Dumbledore is *really* dead, *dead* dead. We'll find out in four months. > Barry: > So I think all seven HP books should be seen as works in > progress. In a few years time, JKR will revise them with their whole in > mind. Neri: I agree with that, but I don't think the revision will include much more than correcting a few continuity errors. Neri From Vexingconfection at aol.com Sun Apr 15 16:44:45 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:44:45 -0000 Subject: Catch me up Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167568 Does anyone remember in the Goblet of Fire how Snape reacted when Harry began to tell Fudge who the Death Eaters were? He took a step forward and appeared to be threatening or threatened (to me)-would that change anyone's mind as to if he were bad or good or am I grasping at straws? What would happen if Petunia were actually a witch who decided not to go to Hogwarts? Or what if she knew her whole family were actually pure bloods and she was the only Squib? Coming from a pure blood family would make Harry more powerful than LV (if JKR wanted to go that way- imo she seems to be making statements about Nazi's often with purebloods, mudbloods, and the way she describes the purebloods and mudbloods- Hitler was from Jewish descent...LV has a muggle father- maybe I just spent too much time in Europe but I see many similarities). I have to say thank you to all in the group. This has been a fascinating read for me and I think you have all challenged JKR to come up with something at least as exciting as your own theories. vexingconfection From aslitumerkan at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 17:48:39 2007 From: aslitumerkan at gmail.com (aslitumerkan) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:48:39 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167569 > Jen: You know, I just realized we don't find out Harry's happy memory by > the lake. And we > also don't hear Harry's memory when he casts his first stag, at the > Quidditch match, unless I'm missing the reference. > Asli: I think the happy memory by the lake is the fact that he understands that it was himself who saved him and Sirius when he was back in that time, as he was being attacked by dementors. He knows that he will be able to conjure the Patronus because he saw it earlier, before he went back in time, and that thought helps him conjure the patronus. As for the memory of the Patronus in the Quidditch field, he doesn't look after he conjures it, as he was trying to get the snitch at the time so he isn't aware that it is a stag. Lupin, however, probably is, since he says: 'That was some Patronus' and I think he mentions it at the end of PoA. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Apr 15 17:35:00 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:35:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: References: <009701c77ec7$53c4b320$f4639905@joe> <7b9f25e50704141854t66a47d6fy15b7cc335bb351bf@mail.gmail.com> <00f101c77f02$0a8d19f0$f47e400c@Spot> Message-ID: <009d01c77f84$64bbac20$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 167570 > Jordan: > > No, she announced that she is not a squib, but that "that is a very > > good guess". Which seems obvious enough anyway since a "squib" as such > > is a non-magical person born into a magical family, and we know that > > her family was not magical. We do _not_ know that she's not a witch. > > Magpie: > She said "She is not a squib. She is a Muggle." She said she is a Muggle, > not a witch. > > Jordan: > > We might logically assume that, because otherwise why would she be > > bitter. But, consider this; if she is the older of the two sisters, > > she might have rejected it out of, say, fear that her parents would > > not have approved, which would have added an element of regret for > > that decision to her bitterness on finding how proud they were of > > Lily. > > Magpie: > At which point she could change her mind, since she would still be a witch. > Rejecting Hogwarts does not remove your magical powers or ability to do > spells. You're just not well-trained. But Petunia's parents would have been > approached regardless when Petunia was 11 if she were a witch. But JKR's > quote does call her a Muggle, so it wasn't an issue. JW wrote: Second, JKR has announced that Pet is NOT a witch, not the squib who JKR says will first perform magic relatively late in life, but instead is a normal, unexciting MUGGLE who will NEVER perform magic, thank you very much (to paraphrase the first paragraph in SS/PS). However, Shelley, is it possible to de-power a wizard into muggleness? Perhaps Dudley, not Petunia, is the recipient of such a "favor." Such a circumstance would be a hidden message behind DD's reference (in HBP) to the Dursley's abuse of Dudley... Shelley: I still think that it is possible that Petunia is a witch that refused her witchhood- that there could be some formal process for doing what it is that JW proposes: to de-power a wizard into Muggleness. Since Petunia might have chosen this route for herself, there is no abuse in that, but to also choose it for her son, that indeed might classify as "abuse of Dudley". Thus, JKR would be correct in saying that Petunia is currently a Muggle, and that she will never do magic. This would be of her own willfull choice to do so. Dudley, on the other hand, might be able to choose for himself once he reaches "of age" in wizard years for that choice to be final, meaning that he would be the one to "do magic late in life" when he chooses the Wizard life against his parents wishes. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 15 18:21:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:21:02 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167571 > Hickengruendler: > > I think the Hand was a genuine error. What convinced me is, that the > Trio knew, that Draco had it. And this is simply impossible. Of course > he could have gotten his hand everytime and Rowling did not need to > tell the viewers (though why not?), but there's no way for Harry, Ron > and Hermione to know this, and yet for them it was a matter of fact. > Pippin: Okay, this is what I don't understand. Sure, it could be an error, but what makes you sure that it's *impossible* for Ron to know about it? Here's the canon from CoS: A glass case nearby held a withered hand on a cushion, a blood-stained pack of cards, and a staring glass eye. ... "Can I have *that*?" interrupted Draco, pointing at the withered hand on its cushion. "Ah, the Hand of Glory!" said Mr. Borgin, abandoning Mr. Malfoy's list and scurrying over to Draco. "Insert a candle and it gives light only to the holder! Best friend of thieves and plunderers! Your son has fine taste, sir." "I hope my son will amount to more than a thief or a plunderer, Borgin," said Mr. Malfoy coldly, and Mr. Borgin said quickly,"No offense, sir, no offense meant--" "Though if his grades don't pick up," said Mr. Malfoy, more coldly still, "that may be indeed all he is fit for--" CoS ch 4 "He was on his own, clutching that awful shriveled arm--" "His Hand of Glory," said Ron. "Gives light only to the holder, remember?" -HBP ch 29 Elsewhere it's established that Draco has spending money, that he has an owl, that he's fond of bragging, often less than discreet and usually has the best of everything. So where is the problem with Draco getting the hand and Ron knowing what it is and that he had one? Ron doesn't have to have discussed it with Harry. He refers to it as if Ginny should know what it is. That probably means it's a reasonably well-known device, though probably expensive if Borgin's eagerness to peddle it is any guide. As a prefect Ron had opportunities to be near Draco when Harry wasn't there. It's not wizard contraband. It was openly for sale. If Draco bought it before he planned to use it in a secret plot, I'd expect him to brag. What am I missing? Pippin From aslitumerkan at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 18:05:20 2007 From: aslitumerkan at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-9?Q?Asl=FD_T=FCmerkan?=) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:05:20 +0300 Subject: How do owls find people WAS: Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50704150102w64fae824p16c7acd834a2996e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6467e1f0704151105h6bf12607o54d3f77a88f91334@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167572 Random832: > Or that if the MoM sends an owl, it will find them but they (the MoM) cannot follow it. Asli: This seems very logical, but still, I can't understand how an owl is not traceable. And I don't understand how owls are this brilliant in finding people. If the adress is written, than okay, but if no one knows where a person is, how can an owl find him? From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Apr 15 18:45:24 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:45:24 -0000 Subject: Catch me up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167573 vexingconfection: > Does anyone remember in the Goblet of Fire how Snape > reacted when Harry began to tell Fudge who the Death > Eaters were? He took a step forward and appeared to be > threatening or threatened (to me)-would that change > anyone's mind as to if he were bad or good or am I > grasping at straws? houyhnhnm: **************** Snape made a sudden movement, but as Harry looked at him, Snape's eyes flew back to Fudge. (p. 706, Am. ed.) **************** That's pretty ambiguous. It sounds as if Harry wasn't looking at Snape directly, but simply became aware of some kind of movement out of the corner of his eye. A startle response, perhaps, or a sudden turning of the head to look at Harry, something like the twitch in "Spinner's End". It doesn't sound as if Snape took a step or moved his whole body in any way. That sentence could generate a myriad of interpretations. Mine, in the light of two books' worth of subsequent action, is that Snape, for all of his sychophancy toward Lucius Malfoy over the years, had never managed to break through Lucius' claim of having been put under the Imperius curse, and that Snape truly didn't know which way Lucius would jump when Voldemort returned to power. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 18:54:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:54:44 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167574 Barry wrote: > We don't get consistency in post-life with the portraits, ghosts and Peeves who appears to be a ghost but is mistakenly called a poltergeist. > Barry again, in a different thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167555 > Since I've recently reread Phoenix, I turned to the bit I remember. In Chapter 30, page 597: "Cackling madly, he soared through the school,..., bursting out of blackboards... floating along after Umbridge..." > Soaring, bursting out of and floating all suggest ghost to me. > > Page 598: Peeves, who was determinedly loosening a crystal chandelier and could have sworn he heard her tell the poltergeist ... "It screws the other way." > > Now a poltergeist is usually a person, often a teenager if you count a teenager as a person, who has psychic powers that are disruptive. Peeves happens to be a ghost who has the powers of a poltergeist. JW responded to the first comment: > > First, what makes you believe Peeves is **mistakenly** called a poltergeist? It appears to most readers - not to mention the author herself - that Peeves is INDEED a poltergeist. we have evidence to support this differentiation. Peeves commonly physically interacts with material objects in ways that ghosts never do. Further, we are told that ghosts are a pale imprint left by those who were living and died. Peeves can not be a ghost because he never lived. Carol responds to both: JW is right. The "bursting through the blackboard" may be a Flint, but Peeves is *not* a ghost, as we've been told since book 1 (by NHN, who should know, being a ghost himself), and by JKR in interviews and on her website. Here are her words from the text-only version of her website's FAQ in answer to a question on this very topic: [Question:] Peeves chews gum, how can he when he is a ghost? (Nearly Headless Nick can't eat). [JKR:] Peeves isn't a ghost; he was never a living person. He is an indestructible spirit of chaos, and solid enough to unscrew chandeliers, throw walking sticks and, yes, chew gum. Here's a link to the Lexicon's entry on Peeves, which may also prove useful: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/peeves.html Just as JKR has adapted her hippogriffs and ghosts and other creatures and spirits to fit the needs of her story, she has adapted the one and only poltergeist into a spirit of mischief who is not a ghost because he has never been a wizard and has never died. Consequently, although he can become invisible, he is not transparent like a ghost. Perhaps, being a spirit, he can change his properties and cease to be solid long enough to burst through a blackboard (rather like Harry when he enters a Pensieve memory, but under his own powers). Or that particular incident could be a Flint, which does happen in these books. (Ron knowing about the Hand of Glory that Lucius *didn't* buy for Draco! I'm as annoyed as Betsy HP by that one, and have been since I first read it. Digression. Sorry.) More on Peeves from a JKR interview with Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz, 16 July 2005: ES: Why does Dumbledore allow Peeves to stay in the castle? JKR: Can't get him out. ES: He's Dumbledore, he can do anything! JKR: No, no no no no. Peeves is like dry rot. You can try and eradicate it. It comes with the building. You're stuck. If you've got Peeves you're stuck. ES: But Peeves answers to Dumbledore-- JKR: Allegedly. MA: Allegedly? JKR: Yeah. I see Peeves as like a severe plumbing problem in a very old building, and Dumbledore is slightly better with the spanner than most people, so he can maybe make it function better for a few weeks. Then it's going to start leaking again. . . . http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm Fleur says in GoF that if there were a poltergeist at Beauxbatons, he would be banished "like zat!" (Given what JKR says above, Fleur is probably wrong, but, oh, well.) She makes no such comment about the ghosts, which suggests that Beauxbatons also has its ghosts. At any rate, ghosts and poltergeists are not the same sort of being or spirit, any more than Ghouls are Lethifolds. I'm not sure where you got the teenage ghost idea, but Peeves is definitely a poltergeist as JKR envisions a poltergeist, not a wizard who died but was afraid to "go on" and consequently left "a pale imprint of himself" on earth, as she envisions a ghost as being. Peeves, it appears, is as old as Hogwarts and will remain there, causing mischief for the inhabitants, as long as Hogwarts stands. (If you've acquired the scrapbook items on JKR's website, you can see her drawing of Peeves--definitely solid and not a ghost, in contrast to NHN and the others.) JW responding to Barry: > Second, it is quite possible that it is not the portrait of DD that causes JKR's problem. There are several other ways in which the dead DD could communicate. Of course, they would all arise from actions taken when DD was alive - examples might include DD time-traveling into the future to speak with other characters, or otherwise impact the plot of DH; memory threads that could be used in the pensieve; or even good old, mundane letters written by DD that would not be read until after his death. Honestly, my view is that having serious problems over portraits rates a low probability. Carol: Again, I agree with JW here. We don't know that JKR was talking to Dan Radcliffe about Portrait!Dumbledore when she (ostensibly) said that DD was giving her trouble. Given her interview remarks about the limitations of portraits, I think it's probably some other manifestation of DD that was giving her trouble. Which leads me to suspect that possibly, when DD sent Harry to fetch the Invisibility Cloak that Harry was supposed to have with him at all times, he wasn't just giving *Harry* a chance to make last-minute preparations: he was making some preparations himself. And possibly, just possibly, those preparations included time travel to find out what would happen that night. If so, DD knew that he was going to die. His urgent need to send Harry to find "Severus" may have been a failed attempt to alter that future, to save Snape from having to keep his vow and cast that AK. And, if he time-traveled to the future, he may well have visited Harry, too, getting himself back to his office just in time for Harry to go with him to find what he didn't know was a fake Horcrux. *If* that's what happened (and if a wizard can visit a future that hasn't happened yet and may not happen), TT!DD can persuade Harry that Snape is indeed DDM. (And maybe he can provide Snape with some much-needed comfort, as well.) Just a thought, but I rather like the possibility. In fact, I like it very much and hope it happens. :-) > JW: > Do you mean that portraits do not act the same as ghosts, and both are different from poltergeists? Quite simply, they act differently because they ARE different. Each of the three types of characters have unique characteristics that set them apart from the other two. Carol: Exactly. Steve (bboyminn) and I have already discussed the ghost vs. portrait question rather exhaustively (quotes and all) though we don't quite agree on what portraits as "imprints" means. But regardless of the differences between portraits and ghosts (and there's no reason why a headmaster afraid of death wouldn't have both), *poltergeists* don't fit in with the question of how DD will return to cause problems for JKR in DH. I very much doubt that he'll come back as a spirit of mischief who plagues the Hogwarts staff and students and dumps ink on the heads of ickle firsties. One Peeves is sufficient, and even if a wizard could come back as a poltergeist (which isn't how it works, according to JKR), DD would never do so. His character is as different from Peeves's as it's possible to be. Nor is it likely that someone for whom death is "the next great adventure" will come back as a ghost. Harry may well encounter the spirit of DD beyond the Veil (where I'm almost certain he'll encounter Sirius Black, as well), but I'll bet real money (say, two dollars and fifty cents ) that DD won't come back as a ghost. So, the possibilities appear to be Portrait!DD, possible letters or bottled memories willed to Harry along with the Pensieve, Time-Turned DD, DD beyond the Veil--and no doubt other possibilities that haven't occurred to us yet. (The chocolat frog cards don't speak, AFAWK, so they won't be much use except to make Harry miss DD even more.) No Ghost!DD, though, and certainly no Poltergeist!DD. (I also doubt very much that we'll find DD's memories preserved in a diary, convenient though that would be, or come across his notes scribbled in an old textbook.) Carol, who takes JKR at her word that Peeves is a poltergeist, not a ghost, but wonders what Barry means (upthread) by "DE Sibyl" From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 19:08:53 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:08:53 -0000 Subject: More to the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167575 > --- "arminor75" wrote: > > > > There has been a lot of discussion over the discrepancy > > between DD and Trelawney's recitation of what happened > > the night she gave the propecy. DD says Snape only > > heard the first part of the prophecy, but Trelawney > > gave the entire thing in the pensieve memory without > > interruption, and she claims Snape rudely interrupted > > them, so did Snape hear the whole propecy ..., did > > Snape only hear the first part but didn't interrupt > > until Trelawney finished the entire thing, or is this > > a discrepancy we just have to look past? > > bboyminn: > > Yes, this has been touched on, though the resulting > thoughts remain polarized. > > The first flaw in your logic is that you assume all > parties are giving full and completely factual accounts > of what happened. They are not. They are giving short, > broad, and general summaries of events, each emphasizing > what they personally feel is important. Mike: Quite frankly, I don't see any logic flaw in April's comments. Yes, each account is given from that character's perspective (DD's and Trelawney's, we don't get Snape's or Aberforth's yet). But there is no doubt that Dumbledore is holding back in his account. That's not a flaw in April's logic but rather she has identified Dumbledore's lie of omission. > bboyminn: > Next remember that Snape himself was interrupted. He was > interrupted by Aberforth while listening at the keyhole. > That interruption is what prevented him from hearing the > whole prophecy. By the time Aberforth and Snape finished > discussing what the heck Snape was doing listening at > the door. The Prophecy was over, and Aberforth brought > Snape into the room to see what Dumbledore wanted to do > with him. Mike: This is your extrapolation of what you think happened based on what Dumbledore told us in OotP with the added information from Trelawney in HBP. I don't buy it. Professor Dumbledore, did you tell the truth, the whole truth, in that exposition in your office to Harry? "Well, I left out that part about it being Snape who was the listener at the door. And I made it sound like the listener was discovered and expelled before the prophesy was complete. So, no, I didn't tell the whole truth. But my reason was ..." Thank you, Professor Dumbledore. Members of the reading public, I ask you, if Professor Dumbledore is willing to lie by omission, why should we give him the benefit of believing the rest of his story happened the way he wants us and Harry to believe? > bboyminn: > Those aren't inconsistent stories. Those are the same > story told by different people with different > perspectives with each different storyteller emphasizing > different aspects of the story. Mike: Those are incomplete stories. Trelawney's because she doesn't know any more than what she related. Does anyone have any reason to believe Trelawney's story was false, even if it was incomplete? Dumbledore doesn't have the same excuse. Dumbledore doesn't want Harry to know it was Snape. On this point we can all safely assume, imo. But what else doesn't Dumbledore want us and Harry to know about that night? On this point we have not been priveledged to any information. But Dumbledore's hesitation in answering Harry's accusation of Snape's duplicity (in "Seer Overheard" chapter in HBP), can be an indication of any number of things. > bboyminn: > Both accounts are correct, they are just focusing on > different aspects of the same event. > > Or so says I. Mike: And I says, there's more to Dumbledore's and Snape's story that has yet to be revealed. I says that Dumbledore was hiding more than just the identity of the listener-at-the-keyhole. April, if you want to read a previous thread on this subject, I started a thread called Dumbledore Does Lie. It starts here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/158940 It was started by me but a lot of people weighed in, including bboyminn/Steve. There was a part II to this theme and it began here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159761 I will specifically point you to Neri's counter-argument in this thread, I thought his was the strongest against my theory. Enjoy, Mike From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 15 19:26:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:26:53 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Who else--Dumbles, of course In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167576 KathyK: > And I *still* fail to see how Dumbledore can be blamed so completely > for the actions of others. Yes, he knew the Prophecy. But did he > truly *know* that Sirius would run off to the Ministry without > listening to Snape? Did he *know* that Sirius and Bellatrix would > duel and that Sirius would happen to be standing so close to the > veil that he'd fall through after being hit by whatever spell that > was? Did he have any control over what LV was attempting? No. > Dumbledore, IMO, does deserve a share in responsibility for many > things, but he cannot possibly be responsible for every little thing > that happens in the Potterverse. Other characters need to take > responsibility for their actions. Like Bellatrix. Or whoever else > we like to blame for Sirius's death. Dana now: Although I am definitely not one, who likes to play the "lets blame it all on DD" game, what you are saying isn't correct either. Not blaming someone does not mean that no one had any responsibility either. You blame someone only because you want to displace your own feelings of frustration and hurt onto someone else, but saying no one had any responsibility into what happened goes a bit too far for me as well. DD knew pretty much what LV wanted and why the Order was working all year to keep him from it. We know this because Sirius tried to tell Harry on his first night at GP. Then, when Arthur is bitten, DD sees what he though was a shadow of LV behind Harry's eyes and this is confirmed by what DD had been told by Sirius, after Harry had confided in him (pg 730 UKed Paperback). That is what initiated the occlemency lessons. Snape tells Harry himself (or rather confirms Harry own thoughts) that LV might try to make Harry do something (pg 471 UKed). So in this sense, DD should have told Harry what LV wanted or he should have allowed for Sirius to discuss this with Harry but he doesn't because he doesn't want Harry to worry to much and feels it is up to the Order to make sure Harry is kept safe and keep LV away from both Harry and the prophecy. I am not saying this to blame DD but he was responsible for his own decisions and these decisions had great disastrous effects. Something DD had to live with and did not take lightly, I am sure. But I agree with many others that JKR did a very poor job on the way she handled the DoM aftermath scene. She shoves the blame into Sirius shoes by letting DD say, that if Sirius had handled Kreacher differently then none of this would have happened. I cannot for the life of me think of any good reason, why she needed to add this to the scene because if it was to point out that every action a person takes can have consequences then why on earth does she have DD defend Snape's actions. If Snape had treated Harry better then Harry would not have forgotten to go to him as the last Order member present at Hogwarts and also when you hold Snape actions of that evening against the light of day, then the man did a pretty bad job of making sure Harry was safe. He lets Harry been taken to the Forest by the person that already was responsible for DD's exit, for Hagrid's exit and with it McGonagall's and she had already tried to get sensitive information out of Harry twice, fake veritaserum or not, but he just lets them go into the forest without following them? He even lets three other kids go into the forest without a teacher and does not go and ask Draco what the hell is going on or does not follow them in. No according to DD, Snape is even surprised that Harry still thinks Sirius might be a captive of LV after he has given Snape the cryptic message. Snape thinks nothing of Harry and did nothing until he realized Harry was gone. With all the information that was known about LV's plan (directly from LV or not, does not matter) Snape should have realized that LV planted the vision in Harry's head and was trying to lure him to the DoM. Even if it was just a dream then Snape should have treated it seriously but he didn't, until he noticed they did not came out of the Forest, not even after the other three had joined Harry and Hermione (and have no real problem finding them either but Snape never goes into the Forest and never claimed he did because DD never says he did (pg 730 UKed Paperback)). With Snape's actions or lack of actions, to be more precise, makes him directly responsible for letting Harry out of his sight and with it gives Harry a possibility to go to the DoM. Could Snape have known, no he could not have known Harry would fly to the DoM as he did, but he has 4 year of Harry experience and he knows the kid can get into places and into trouble no one expects him too and this alone was enough reason to keep Harry in sight, especially when he goes to the Forbidden Forest with a potential enemy. Maybe everyone forgot but the MoM was a serious threat to Harry as has been seen with the fierce campaign against Harry and DD all year. I am not trying to blame Snape but I do wonder why the emphasis is made on how Sirius treated Kreacher but not how Snape treated Harry compared to the actions of both man in the course of OotP. Either I am reading too much into it or JKR wants us to notice DD falls into his "I trust Snape" defense a little to much so that he can no longer see the man's actions clearly. He even blames himself for the occlumency lesson fiasco and not Snape's ridiculous schoolboy grudge, which makes him truly hate Harry from the bottom of his soul. After these two man's (DD and Snape)core actions everything that follows is just the snowball taking on speed and growing over everyone's head. Everyone would know Sirius would never stay put if Harry was in danger. He comes out of hiding in GoF and lives in a cave to make sure he is close enough to Harry to act if he needs too. The other Order Members present at GP, when Snape gives them the message Harry went to the DoM, can't make him stay behind either. It had nothing to do with Sirius not listening to Snape. Only two people could have made him stay behind, DD and Harry himself. But this does not make both DD and Snape not responsible for their decisions because what they decided had effect on more people then just themselves while Sirius decision only effected himself and his decision to go, might have prevented the death of others because the Order Members were already outnumbered with him included. That to me is the difference, yes people are responsible for their own actions but when your actions include decisions you make on someone else's behalf; you automatically have more responsibility in the end result. JMHO Dana From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 19:56:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:56:10 -0000 Subject: How do owls find people WAS: Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: <6467e1f0704151105h6bf12607o54d3f77a88f91334@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167577 --- "Asl? T?merkan" wrote: > > Random832: > > Or that if the MoM sends an owl, it will find them > > but they (the MoM) cannot follow it. > > Asli: > This seems very logical, but still, I can't understand > how an owl is not traceable. And I don't understand how > owls are this brilliant in finding people. If the > address is written, than okay, but if no one knows > where a person is, how can an owl find him? > bboyminn: "If the address is written, then okay..." So, in your world you imagine that Owls can read??? I think Owls can comprehend, but I don't think they can read. The only possible explanation for the level of skill we see in the Owls, is that they are Magical Owls. They are magical Owls different from ordinary Owls just as wizards are magical people different from ordinary people, just as Wand Wood Trees are magically different from ordinary trees, just a magical rats are different from ordinary rats. So, like all great mysteries in the series, "It's Magic" is the only real answer. I think highly intelligent magical Owls would not allow themselves to be compromised by being followed to a destination. Not so intelligent magical Owls would simply not be able to find the person in question. I also think the address on the envelope is irrelevant to the destination of the message. Perhaps, 'irrelevant' is a bit strong, but I think when an Owls is given a message to deliver, there is an instinctive understanding between the Owl and the Message sender as to where the letter is to be delivered. If the understanding is 'deliver this to Harry Potter' then the Owl will instinctively find Harry where ever he is. If the understanding is 'deliver this to #4 Privet Drive', then that is where it goes independent of where Harry is. I think this is exactly what the Ministry did to attempt to make sure Harry missed his Hearing. They sent the letter of notification specifically to Privet Drive knowing that it was unlikely that Harry was still there. They send a letter to Hogwarts rather than to Dumbledore, and they did it at about 7:00am, hoping that Dumbledore would not get it in time for an 8:00am hearing. So, magical Owls have a sense of magical understanding and a magical instinct for finding the person the letter is suppose to be delivered to. "It's magic" really is the answer in this case. As to the seemingly magically precise addresses - - Harry Potter, Cupboard under the Stairs... - Harry Potter, the Smallest Bedroom... - Petunia, the Kitchen... I speculate that is an enchantment on the envelope and has nothing to do with Owls or Owl Magic; it is a self- modifying address. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Apr 15 20:03:19 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:03:19 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167578 Carol: > I'm not sure where you got the teenage ghost idea, but Peeves is definitely a poltergeist as JKR envisions a poltergeist, not a wizard who died but was afraid to "go on" and consequently left "a pale imprint of himself" on earth, as she envisions a ghost as being. Peeves, it appears, is as old as Hogwarts and will remain there, causing mischief for the inhabitants, as long as Hogwarts stands. (If you've acquired the scrapbook items on JKR's website, you can see her drawing of Peeves--definitely solid and not a ghost, in contrast to NHN and the others.) Ceridwen: According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist (and other sources I've read over the years), poltergeists are manifestations which usually occur around a person who triggers the phenomenon. The trigger person is often a teen-ager whose hormones are going nuts. Since JKR tweaks things a bit to put them in the series, it would make a lot of sense for a school populated by pubescent teens to have, at the least, one poltergeist. He would be born of the elevated hormones and the magic of those students, and nourished by it, too. Being a series about a magical boy, the poltergeist will be visible while in the Real World, poltergeists are recognized only by their activity. Carol: > Again, I agree with JW here. We don't know that JKR was talking to Dan Radcliffe about Portrait!Dumbledore when she (ostensibly) said that DD was giving her trouble. Given her interview remarks about the limitations of portraits, I think it's probably some other manifestation of DD that was giving her trouble. Ceridwen: I'm hoping for another flashback chapter, or a chapter outside of Harry's POV. If we get a flashback chapter, then Dumbledore can appear without being portrait, ghost, or beyond the veil. If we get the story behind the Prank this way, Dumbledore would play a role in the aftermath of the Prank. Ceridwen. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 15 20:02:59 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:02:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys: References: <009701c77ec7$53c4b320$f4639905@joe> <7b9f25e50704141854t66a47d6fy15b7cc335bb351bf@mail.gmail.com> <00f101c77f02$0a8d19f0$f47e400c@Spot> <009d01c77f84$64bbac20$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: <013601c77f99$122a62c0$3b60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167579 > Shelley: > I still think that it is possible that Petunia is a witch that refused her > witchhood- that there could be some formal process for doing what it is > that > JW proposes: to de-power a wizard into Muggleness. Since Petunia might > have > chosen this route for herself, there is no abuse in that, but to also > choose > it for her son, that indeed might classify as "abuse of Dudley". Thus, JKR > would be correct in saying that Petunia is currently a Muggle, and that > she > will never do magic. Magpie: I don't see how it's possible. JKR said she has never done magic and she never will and that she is a Muggle. You know you are a witch because you do magic. A Muggle is defined as a non-magical person. There is nothing in canon that suggests anything like a way for Witches to get rid of their magic. Nor is there any suggestion that any such thing has been done for Dudley. I know we've been discussing how canon can be inconsistent, but I think it goes beyond inconsistent to introduce this idea for becoming a Witch. It also suggests that JKR is directly lying in an interview saying that Petunia is a Muggle when she's really a Witch who didn't go to Hogwarts. Also, totally unrelated, but I mis-attributed quotes incorrectly in my Patronus post. This part was Carol: > > << I wonder if we're not confusing the concepts of Animagus and Patronus > > here. A Patronus, according to JKR, is a "spirit guardian," a protector > > rather than an indication of the caster's personality and character, as > > the Animagus form clearly is. Sirius Black's Animagus form, a Grimlike > > black dog, reflected his personality and character, just as Peter > > Pettigrew's rat form reflects his, but I doubt that their Patronus forms > > were identical to their Animagus forms. >> This was Catlady: > > I think it was JKR, not us, who confused the idea of Animagus and > > Patronus. She said she would want her Animagus form to be an otter, and > > she gave the otter to Hermione, her Mary Sue character, as a Patronus. I > > don't think that meant that Hermione feels that she is protected by > > having the Author on her side, and I don't think Hermione knows that the > > Author's Animagus form is an otter. Otters are known for playfulness as > > well as effectiveness, which seems appropriate to JKR with all her puns > > and other wordplay, but not appropriate to Hermione, who shows no sign > > of having a sense of humor.> > I think Sirius might well have the same > > Patronus as Animagus form, > meaning that he feels he is protected by himself and his own powers. > > > > I can see Cho as a swan Animagus -- they're beautiful, but known > > viciously bite the kind humans who are feeding them -- but can't see her > > as self-confident enough to feel protected by her own powers. > > Still, > > she could have one swan as Animagus form and a different swan for > > Patronus, showing that she feels her beauty is her strongest power. Magpie again: I mistakenly attributed both contradictory ideas to Carol. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 20:28:03 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:28:03 -0000 Subject: Snape at end of OotP (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167580 > Dana now: > I am not saying this to blame DD but he was responsible for his own > decisions and these decisions had great disastrous effects. Something > DD had to live with and did not take lightly, I am sure. zgirnius: Snipped lots of stuff with which I agree, along with this conclusion. Dana: > But I agree with many others that JKR did a very poor job on the way > she handled the DoM aftermath scene. She shoves the blame into Sirius > shoes by letting DD say, that if Sirius had handled Kreacher > differently then none of this would have happened. I cannot for the > life of me think of any good reason, why she needed to add this to > the scene because if it was to point out that every action a person > takes can have consequences then why on earth does she have DD defend > Snape's actions. zgirnius: One reason she may have DD defend Snape's actions is that the person to whom he is talking (Harry) already blames Snape, and in a way that is not rational. Snape and Sirius participated in a rather nasty argument at Christmas, and Harry bases his blame of Snape on that incident. I do not think this can be tied directly to Sirius going to the Ministry. Snape did express a frustration Sirius was feeling and threw it in his face, but first, that was months before, and second, Sirius would have gone anyway, in my opinion. > Dana: > If Snape had treated Harry better then Harry would not have forgotten > to go to him as the last Order member present at Hogwarts and also > when you hold Snape actions of that evening against the light of day, > then the man did a pretty bad job of making sure Harry was safe. zgirnius: You realize Harry forgot Snape twice, don't you? After repeated attempts at mental communication with Snape and the cryptic Padfoot comment he threw at Snape as the later departed, he never even bothered to check what the only Order member at Hogwarts had done about the warning. The fact that Harry had confirmation of Sirius's absence in the late afternoon, after all, does not mean Sirius was still in danger at nightfall, several hours later. Snape checked on Sirius immediately, and Sirius was safe, so Snape did nothing further. Had he checked and confirmed the possibility of Harry's vision being true, his next move should have been to notify Dumbledore and the Order to arrange a rescue. Which means, in my view, that Harry should have checked back with Snape once he was free to do so before haring off to the Ministry. If time was the issue in his mind, he could have done so on Thestral- back. If he feared Snape would try to stop him/would let Sirius die, he could have delegated the task of communicating with Snape to someone he wanted to keep from the Ministry, leaving himself free to go if Snape messed with the messenger in some way. However, the thought never crossed his mind even after he realized in Umbridge's office how stupid he'd been in the first place not to think of Snape. I can understand Snape not being top-of-mind for Harry when he first had the vision and felt compelled to use Umbridge's Floo to find out what was happening. But twice? > Dana: > He lets Harry been taken to the Forest by the person that already was > responsible for DD's exit, for Hagrid's exit and with it McGonagall's > and she had already tried to get sensitive information out of Harry > twice, fake veritaserum or not, but he just lets them go into the > forest without following them? zgirnius: How does Snape know they are off to the Forest in time to follow? His first thought, quite properly, was to verify that Sirius was safe. Voldemort strikes me as a greater potential danger than Dolores Umbridge had shown herself to be thus far. The removals you credit to her involved the Minister of Magic and a number of Aurors, none of whom were present at Hogwarts. > Dana: > He even lets three other kids go into > the forest without a teacher and does not go and ask Draco what the > hell is going on or does not follow them in. zgirnius: And how the hell was Snape to know this while trying to secretly communicate with 12 GP? > Dana: > No according to DD, Snape is even surprised that Harry still thinks > Sirius might be a captive of LV after he has given Snape the cryptic > message. zgirnius: I would be surprised too, were I Snape. I imagine Snape got the message loud and clear two or three times in the office scene, and figured that after repeatedly tossing the problem to him, Harry would check with him to learn what he, Snape, had done about it. > Dana: > I am not trying to blame Snape but I do wonder why the emphasis is > made on how Sirius treated Kreacher but not how Snape treated Harry > compared to the actions of both man in the course of OotP. zgirnius: I have noticed that a lot of arguments about whether Rowling writes characters consistently or not hinge on differences of opinion about what the characters actually do. Snape ain't a nice teacher, and especially not to Harry, but in OotP he seemed to be making an effort (not to be nice, that would be overstating it. To give occlumency lessons a chance, I guess is how I would phrase it). I realize many readers consider this opinion risible, but I was always struck by Snape's willingness to answer questions and explain things to Harry in the first Occlumency lesson. I was shocked how much non-technical 'why should I learn this crap?' questioning he tolerated, and would compare his instructions regarding how to do Occlumency to Lupin's Patronus lessons as equal or better (in terms of being more varied and more detailed - he lacks the rapport with Harry that Lupin enjoyed). However, I did not take the meaning of Dumbledore's words to be that Sirius was a lot meaner to Kreacher than Snape was to Harry, or anything of the sort. Rather, Dumbledore seemed to me to criticize Sirius for underestimating Kreacher and the harm he could do out of his twisted loyalty to the worst ideals of the Black family. Snape and Harry, at least in Dumbledore's opinion, share the same loyalties, so it is a comparison of apples and oranges. > Dana: >He even blames himself for the > occlumency lesson fiasco and not Snape's ridiculous schoolboy grudge, > which makes him truly hate Harry from the bottom of his soul. zgirnius: I don't believe Snape's ridiculous schoolboy grudge had much,if anything, to do with the failure of Occlumency lessons. Nowhere in the first lesson does Snape so much as mention Harry's father or Sirius. Yet Harry never does the homework Snape assigns at the end of the first lesson and keeps insisting is necesary for the achievement of this skill. That Dumbledore chose not to bring that up was entirely appropriate, in my opinion. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 20:50:55 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:50:55 -0000 Subject: More to the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167581 --- "Mike" wrote: > > > --- "arminor75" wrote: > > > > > > There has been a lot of discussion over the > > > discrepancy between DD and Trelawney's recitation > > > of what happened the night she gave the propecy. > > > DD says Snape only heard the first part of the > > > prophecy, but Trelawney gave the entire thing in > > > the pensieve memory without interruption, and she > > > claims Snape rudely interrupted them, so did Snape > > > hear the whole propecy ...,? > > > > bboyminn: > > > > ... > > > > The first flaw in your logic is that you assume all > > parties are giving full and completely factual > > accounts of what happened. They are not. They are > > giving ... general summaries of events, each > > emphasizing what they personally feel is important. > > > > Mike: > Quite frankly, I don't see any logic flaw in April's > comments. Yes, each account is given from that > character's perspective .... But there is no doubt > that Dumbledore is holding back in his account. > That's not a flaw in April's logic but rather she has > identified Dumbledore's lie of omission. > bboyminn: Yes, but April doesn't seem to be asserting that Dumbledore is or is not telling the WHOLE truth. She is saying that there is a 'discrepancy'; that Dumbledore's and Trelawney's accounts are inconsistent or contradictory. They are not inconsistent or contradictory, they are simply two different accounts made from different perspectives and different frames of referrence. > > > bboyminn: > > Next remember that Snape himself was interrupted. > > ... That interruption is what prevented him from > > hearing the whole prophecy. ... > > Mike: > This is your extrapolation of what you think happened > based on what Dumbledore told us in OotP with the > added information from Trelawney in HBP. I don't buy > it. > bboyminn: No, this is exactly what is says in the books. The book says with crystal clarity that Snape did not hear the whole prophecy. If you don't accept that, which you are certainly free to, then that is YOUR extrapolation. > Mike continues: > > Professor Dumbledore, did you tell the truth, the > whole truth, in that exposition in your office to Harry? > > ... > bboyminn: Of course, Dumbledore is withholding information, Dumbledore is ALWAYS withholding information, that's what he does, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand? There is plenty of missing information, tons of it, but that is no reason to doubt the information we DO have. There is no reason to think Snape was working for Dumbledore at the time, so there is no reason to think that Snape did not report what he knew. There IS reason to believe that Voldemort DOES NOT know the whole Prophecy. If he knew then what was the whole Order of the Phoenix story about? > > > bboyminn: > > Those aren't inconsistent stories. Those are the > > same story told by different people with different > > perspectives with each different storyteller > > emphasizing different aspects of the story. > > Mike: > Those are incomplete stories. ... > bboyminn: Incomplete, yes, but not inconsistent or discrepant. > > bboyminn: > > Both accounts are correct, they are just focusing on > > different aspects of the same event. > > > > Or so says I. > > Mike: > And I says, there's more to Dumbledore's and Snape's > story that has yet to be revealed. I says that > Dumbledore was hiding more than just the identity of > the listener-at-the-keyhole. > bboyminn: I absolutely agree! There is /more/ to both stories, much more, but that doesn't mean the stories as we have already heard them are wrong. They are not wrong, they are only incomplete. Further there 'incompleteness' is a separate issue from whether the two versions are consistent or inconsistent. They are consistent, but very incomplete stories, and that is a point I actually made. They are not full and complete accounts, they are generalized summaries from two separate perspectives. Thanks for the links to the previous discussions. Steve/bboyminn From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Apr 15 18:40:29 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:40:29 +0200 Subject: How do owls find people WAS: Re: Sirius and jail References: <7b9f25e50704150102w64fae824p16c7acd834a2996e@mail.gmail.com> <6467e1f0704151105h6bf12607o54d3f77a88f91334@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a001c77f8d$8b36d010$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 167582 Asl Tmerkan wrote: > This seems very logical, but still, I can't understand how an owl is > not > traceable. And I don't understand how owls are this brilliant in > finding > people. If the adress is written, than okay, but if no one knows > where a > person is, how can an owl find him? Miles: Well, you are not surprised that an owl can understand spoken language and think they should be able to read, but you are surprised that it can find people without an address? Why so? Those owls are magical creatures. Thestrals can find any place, owls (almost) every person. That's what JKR made owls like - and so they are in Potterverse. We can talk about inconsistencies concerning travel speed and such, but the ability to find people is a "fact" like the healing powers of Phoenix' tears. Miles (curious if he has slipped back into probation status after not writing for some time) From tlfolsom80 at aol.com Sun Apr 15 18:35:20 2007 From: tlfolsom80 at aol.com (Tammy Folsom) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:35:20 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: The Dursleys: References: <009701c77ec7$53c4b320$f4639905@joe> <7b9f25e50704141854t66a47d6fy15b7cc335bb351bf@mail.gmail.com> <00f101c77f02$0a8d19f0$f47e400c@Spot> <009d01c77f84$64bbac20$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: <46227067.000001.03732@ACER-C28991BD48> No: HPFGUIDX 167583 Shelley: I still think that it is possible that Petunia is a witch that refused her Witchhood- that there could be some formal process for doing what it is that JW proposes: to de-power a wizard into Muggleness. Since Petunia might have Chosen this route for herself, there is no abuse in that, but to also choose it for her son, that indeed might classify as "abuse of Dudley". Thus, JKR would be correct in saying that Petunia is currently a Muggle, and that she will never do magic. This would be of her own willfull choice to do so. Dudley, on the other hand, might be able to choose for himself once he reaches "of age" in wizard years for that choice to be final, meaning that he would be the one to "do magic late in life" when he chooses the Wizard life against his parents wishes. Tammy Responds Shelly while I agree that it is possible that Petunia refused her heritage, If she did it could be considered a mistreatment of Dudley for the Dursleys to not allow him to decide for himself if he wanted to be a Wizard or not. But IMO and this may make me sound very dull and boring lol but I believe JKR is referring to the quite mundane idea that Dudley is mistreated because he is given anything and everything he has ever wanted to make him happy and no discipline. Which IMO he badly needs. For example in SS/PS when Dudley throws a tantrum about the amount of presents he receives on his birthday his parents automatically tell him they will buy him more to keep him from throwing a tantrum. Now as for the part of doing magic late in life I believe and I could be wrong that JKR said "quite" late in life which would lead me to think it was an older person who would be doing the magic. In this vein of thought only two people stick out in my mind. One being Filch and the other Mrs. Figg since I just can't see Filch as ever being able to do magic that leads me to believe it would be Mrs. Figg who does the magic later in life. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 21:17:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:17:48 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167584 Dana: > But I agree with many others that JKR did a very poor job on the way > she handled the DoM aftermath scene. She shoves the blame into Sirius > shoes by letting DD say, that if Sirius had handled Kreacher > differently then none of this would have happened. I cannot for the > life of me think of any good reason, why she needed to add this to > the scene because if it was to point out that every action a person > takes can have consequences then why on earth does she have DD defend > Snape's actions. Alla: Well, yeah, I am one of those who hates DD OOP speech as I mentioned several times and I hate that part more than others as I also wrote about in the past. Are you sure though that JKR sides with DD here in a sense that she approves of that speech? I do not know, maybe I am rationalizing too much and I just cannot stand thinking that JKR would be fine with her "epitome of goodness" badmouthing Harry's godfather who just died a few moments ago. The only way I am able to feel good enough about that scene, is that I am telling myself that Dumbledore was not feeling that fine and dandy that night either, that he was not thinking clearly, was suffering, was upset with Sirius death and did not choose his words carefully enough because of that, and yes, I know it is a self rationalizing again, but whatever works, yes? Because if that would be what carefully thinking DD would have said, oh man, **hate it**. And you know, I just had a thought. Maybe JKR deliberately wrote DD death the way that it makes it possible to blame him for his own death, HAHA. Karma, maybe? Again, I am not the one blaming DD for his own death, never will be, but surely text as it stands now has support for those arguments. I hope that JKR does not held the opinion that victim should be blamed, I hope not, I hope she will make it clear in book 7 with Dumbledore as well and place the blame solely on the shoulders of Snape, but one never knows of course. Dana: > If Snape had treated Harry better then Harry would not have forgotten > to go to him as the last Order member present at Hogwarts and also > when you hold Snape actions of that evening against the light of day, > then the man did a pretty bad job of making sure Harry was safe. > Alla: Okay, I am going to take my temperature after I am typing this :), but I am not sure I agree. I mean, I agree that Snape bears each and every moment of blame for animosity that he created between him and Harry. After he greeted Harry the way he did on his first lesson ( that is a child who lost his parents in part thanks to Snape), Snape lost in my mind any right to complain about any misgivings by Harry. The bastard in his thirties chose to hate an innocent kid, instead of his dead dad. So, no matter how irrationally Harry may feel towards Snape later on, I blame Snape and only Snape for creating this situation. In that sense Occlumency disaster is Snape doing of course in a sense how badly Snape behaved towards Harry previously in those five years that Harry cannot master one iota of trust towards him. But if we look only at situation at hand, I am not sure what else Snape could have done differently. I mean if he is LID or evil and Neri's argument about wasted time is correct, then sure, here we have another one of Snape sins, for which I am keeping my fingers crossed he will suffer in book 7. But if he is DD!M Snape, I am not sure how he could have kept Harry from going to the Ministry. I mean, isn't it taking away Harry's most endearing quality ( as I see it)? Harry will not stand for loved ones being in danger, real or imaginary. One of many things I adore him for, so I do not know, I think even if Snape tied him up, I think he would have gone to save Sirius anyways. > > Dana: > > I am not trying to blame Snape but I do wonder why the emphasis is > > made on how Sirius treated Kreacher but not how Snape treated Harry > > compared to the actions of both man in the course of OotP. > > zgirnius: > I have noticed that a lot of arguments about whether Rowling writes > characters consistently or not hinge on differences of opinion about > what the characters actually do. Alla: Um, that too, but to me it is more like whether characters behave consistently to what they were established as through the series earlier, but I am not sure what this has to do with Occlumency. zgirnius: Snape ain't a nice teacher, and > especially not to Harry, but in OotP he seemed to be making an effort > (not to be nice, that would be overstating it. To give occlumency > lessons a chance, I guess is how I would phrase it). > > I realize many readers consider this opinion risible, but I was > always struck by Snape's willingness to answer questions and explain > things to Harry in the first Occlumency lesson. I was shocked how > much non-technical 'why should I learn this crap?' questioning he > tolerated, and would compare his instructions regarding how to do > Occlumency to Lupin's Patronus lessons as equal or better (in terms > of being more varied and more detailed - he lacks the rapport with > Harry that Lupin enjoyed). > Alla: He was? Well, yeah, I guess he was if one compares Snape's first lesson with Occlumency lessons. I do not compare the Occlumency lessons with vicious attack of the animal, as I compare Snape first lesson with. Snape, was actually answering some of Harry questions. Maybe it has to do something with Dumbledore having an eye of the lessons since he was the one who ordered them? But no IMO Snape's efforts were not even close to being adequate. It was still abuse IMO, just of the lesser degree. Oh, and I do not think that Snape was answering Harry's questions truthfully, either, so I do not know what is worse - flat out lie or lie by omission. "You are neither special nor important"? Right, that is from the man who delivered the Prophecy. > zgirnius: > I don't believe Snape's ridiculous schoolboy grudge had much, if > anything, to do with the failure of Occlumency lessons. Nowhere in > the first lesson does Snape so much as mention Harry's father or > Sirius. Yet Harry never does the homework Snape assigns at the end of > the first lesson and keeps insisting is necessary for the achievement > of this skill. > > That Dumbledore chose not to bring that up was entirely appropriate, > in my opinion. > Alla: I think Snape schoolboy grudge has everything to do with failure of Occlumency lessons. And DD seems to recognize that, no? Old wounds, etc. I think it has everything to do with failure of the lessons in a sense that how Snape treated Harry for five years because of his grudge finally led to the disaster - that no trust between them could have been established. JMO, Alla From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 15 21:27:48 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:27:48 -0000 Subject: Snape at end of OotP (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167585 zgirnius: > One reason she may have DD defend Snape's actions is that the > person to whom he is talking (Harry) already blames Snape, and in a > way that is not rational. Snape and Sirius participated in a rather > nasty argument at Christmas, and Harry bases his blame of Snape on > that incident. I do not think this can be tied directly to Sirius > going to the Ministry. Snape did express a frustration Sirius was > feeling and threw it in his face, but first, that was months > before, and second, Sirius would have gone anyway, in my opinion. Dana: If you read that scene carefully then you notice that it was Harry that caused it by looking at Sirius for help. That is what triggered Sirius to act not due to anything Snape did. That is why Harry will never use the mirror because he now knows Sirius will immediately react to anything Harry asks for, not because Snape is truly able to goad Sirius (sure he doesn't backs off after Snape reacts too). That is only Harry trying to blame it on Snape. zgirnius: > You realize Harry forgot Snape twice, don't you? After repeated > attempts at mental communication with Snape and the cryptic Padfoot > comment he threw at Snape as the later departed, he never even > bothered to check what the only Order member at Hogwarts had done > about the warning. The fact that Harry had confirmation of Sirius's > absence in the late afternoon, after all, does not mean Sirius was > still in danger at nightfall, several hours later. Yes, but this is again Snape fault by the way he reacts to Harry's attempt to notify him. Would you believe after such a reaction the man is going to look into things? I wouldn't. That is why Harry still thinks he must act himself because he could not believe Snape would take any actions on his behalf (or Sirius's) You lost me with Sirius absence is not an indication he would still be in danger several hours later. Harry believes LV got Sirius and he heard LV tell Sirius there will be enough time for him to die later and Harry is monitoring the scar link and expects it to hurt if LV kills Sirius off. For Harry this is real especially after Kreacher says he is not there and LV would never let Sirius go, at least not in a living form. Snape's idea is just really strange because what changed between the time, Harry gave Snape the cryptic message and him going into the Forest? Snape never came back not even after Harry was already gone. We do not hear Ron, Luna, Ginny or Neville say that Snape came back. If Snape had come back, he could have ordered the group (just Harry's group) to his office and have them tell him, what has been going on. He is head of House and he could have ordered these four being handed over to him. He could tell Ron and Neville to go look for Harry and tell him everything is okay at HQ. But he did none of all that. None of these actions would have given away his spy cover. That is my big problem, Snape does nothing and the explanations DD gives of his account does not add up in relation to the amount of time that have passed between Snape seeing Harry in Umbridge office and them departing to the DoM and him only then alerting the Order. By the time the Order gets there Harry has been running down the DoM a pretty long time. Why did it take Snape that long to realize Harry was no longer at Hogwarts? If you do not want to believe in a ESE doing this on purpose then the only other explanation would be that Snape did not care and did not think enough of Harry's abilities to do things and come up with solutions others wouldn't especially with the others there too. zgirnius: > How does Snape know they are off to the Forest in time to follow? > His first thought, quite properly, was to verify that Sirius was > safe. Voldemort strikes me as a greater potential danger than > Dolores Umbridge had shown herself to be thus far. The removals you > credit to her involved the Minister of Magic and a number of > Aurors, none of whom were present at Hogwarts. Dana: Because DD tells us so. He tells us that Snape realized where Harry had gone (DoM) when he failed to return from his trip with Umbridge and that after he alerted the Order, he had intended to search for Harry in the Forest. This can only be Snape's account of things because there are no other witnesses. Even if he heard it from Draco (which would make it even more suspicious Snape did not go look for them right away as he would also know Umbridge tried to Crucio Harry and that it was her who send the Dementors earlier that year and that Hermione made up some story about a weapon in the forest) then it took Snape to long to check in on Harry because he would only have heard it from Draco after Ron, Luna, Ginny and Neville were already gone. So if Snape intention was to check on Sirius he never intended to tell Harry as soon as possible. Or to get back there to keep watch as soon as possible. It doesn't matter if Umbridge did not remove DD and the rest herself, it was her that initiated it and therefore she is a potential threat. If Snape just based his actions on a lot of assumptions then he is not such a great thinker after all and a little full of himself that what he assumes is always correct. Especially with his 4 years of many Harry experiences, he should know by now his assumptions are almost always wrong even if he judged the overall situation right. zgirnius: > I would be surprised too, were I Snape. I imagine Snape got the > message loud and clear two or three times in the office scene, and > figured that after repeatedly tossing the problem to him, Harry > would check with him to learn what he, Snape, had done about it. Dana: You would? And would you believe the person you told it too would actually check in after such a response. Snape should know especially after the SWM incident that Harry would not just believe Snape is there for him and that it would take just a little more effort but to me Snape did not care about Harry's state of mind, he just never envisioned the kid would get off the Hogwarts grounds and thus underestimated Harry for the millionth time. It was not his call to just assume anything. He is an Order Member and Harry is in the care of someone fighting the Order all year and we see her put people in danger while there at Hogwarts, with or without help from other MoM members. If she had been successful in having Harry reveal Sirius location then it was not only Sirius who was in danger because she would have proof the Order was hiding a convicted criminal and is reason to lock them up and this would bring Harry in even more danger because he would no longer have the Order to protect him or at least a very few members. The only thing I can think off why JKR inserted the Kreacher element into that scene, is because there was no other place to have it revealed that it was Kreacher that betrayed Sirius and Harry. To me, it not even makes sense that DD takes his mighty time to uncover the truth from Kreacher, instead of going to the DoM straight away and worry about that later. So either JKR did some sloppy writing all through OotP and why the book seems such a mess with all these events that make no sense at all if you look at them closely or she deliberately have let these man made these decisions because it will be important later and why these actions stand out so significantly or at least to me. For me OotP as a book within the series ruined my liking of the series, it turned it into an obsession driven by frustration about all these things that so obviously should have happened but didn't or shouldn't have happened but did. I hope DH can enlighten my feelings about it or at least help me to let go ;o) JMHO Dana From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 21:58:06 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:58:06 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167586 > Dana now: > > You are contradicting yourself here. If history cannot be changed > then her future self cannot save these two innocent lives, because to > be from the future you already must have a past, otherwise the future > is the present and in the present these events have not yet occurred > and both Hermione's would not have a recollection of it. You now only > dedicate the past time to be created by a future self instead of a > present time self in a first run. zgirnius: I am not. It is possible that my interpretation is not what Rowling intended - I continue to participate in this discussion because I recognize that possibility. However, my explanations themselves conform fully to a theory of time travel that is internally consistent. What they are not consistent with is your insistence that the cause must precede the effect in time. My view is that time travel is precisely that thing which permits the effect to precede its cause in time, however illogical this seems. > Dana: > Let me show you the scene where Hermione disappears just before they > all are about to enter the charms. > > Pg 217 UKed Paperback: > > `We're due in Charms,' said Ron, still goggling at Hermione. `We'd > better go.' > They hurried up the marble staircase towards Professor Flitwick's > classroom. `You're late, boys!' said Professor Flitwick reprovingly, > as Harry opened the classroom door. `Come along, quickly, wands out, > we're experimenting with Cheering Charms today. We've already divided > into pairs -' > > Harry and Ron hurried to a desk at the back and opened their bags. > Ron looked behind him.'Where's Hermione gone? Harry looked around, > too. Hermione hadn't entered the classroom, yet Harry knew she had > been right next to him when he had opened the door. > > `That's weird,' said Harry, starring at Ron. `Maybe ? maybe she went > to the bathroom or something?' > But Hermione didn't turn up all lesson. > > Hermione wasn't at lunch either. > > Hermione was sitting at a table, fast asleep, her head resting on an > open Arithmancy book. They went to sit down on either side of her. > Harry prodded her awake. > > `Wh-what?' Said Hermione, waking with a start, and staring wildly > around. `Is it time to go? W-which lesson have we got now?' > `Divination, but isn't for another twenty minutes,' said > Harry. `Hermione, why didn't you come to Charms?' > What? Oh no! Hermione squeaked. `I forgot to go to Charms!' > `But how could you forget?' Harry said. `You where with us till we > were right outside the classroom!' zgirnius: Thaank you for calling my attention to this scene, and especially for your prompt offlist response to help me locate it in my US edition! Here is the 'time happens once, we cannot change the past' explanation of how this came to be. (Yes, one exists. And I am glad, because this truly is the view of time travel I find more natural - I can still hope that if time travel occurs in DH, it will be the kind that makes sense to me). Hermione went to CoMC with the boys, and walked back with them to the castle. However, she was also in Arithmancy *at the same time*, because instead of walking into Charms with the boys, she time turned to catch Arithmancy. She did so out of a preference to manage her mutliple time turns in shorter intervals. So, she time turned to get to Arithmancy. After that class, as you point out, there was still time left before Charms, because ComC is a longer class. She spent the time in the Common Room, where she fell asleep and failed to show up in Charms as she had planned, and was discovered by the boys as you cite. From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 15 22:22:15 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:22:15 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167587 Alla: > Okay, I am going to take my temperature after I am typing this :), > but I am not sure I agree. Dana: I think it will be high but don't worry it will come down again I am sure ;o) Alla: > In that sense Occlumency disaster is Snape doing of course in a > sense how badly Snape behaved towards Harry previously in those > five years that Harry cannot master one iota of trust towards him. > But if we look only at situation at hand, I am not sure what else > Snape could have done differently. I mean if he is LID or evil and > Neri's argument about wasted time is correct, then sure, here we > have another one of Snape sins, for which I am keeping my fingers > crossed he will suffer in book 7. < big snip> Dana: Actually to me DD explanation about Snape being surprised Harry still believed Sirius was still a captive of LV, has everything to do with the animosity between them. So to me it seems Snape told this to DD to put the blame back with Harry because it was Harry's fault, he did not trust Snape enough to look into things and thus letting go of it and Snape truly believed Harry should have thought that highly of Snape, that it would be only Snape and not Harry that would solve the situation. To me it looks like he washes himself from blame or responsibility for Harry state of mind at that moment. It is not like he couldn't have known Harry would not have trusted him not even if Harry tries to alert him. With a response Snape gives him like that who would have believed Snape would do anything. Harry is even desperate enough to want to try and allert Snape so should have known this or at least I feel so. Snape never did anything between the time he (supposedly) checked in on Sirius and the time he alerted the Order again. He could have gone back to Umbridge with another bottle of fake serum with the excuse he found some stashed away and forgot about, he would have made her day. He could have stayed in the vicinity or come back right after he checked in with Sirius, then he would have seen the IS was defeated or even see those four kids leave the Hogwarts Grounds into the Forest. But he doesn't, he only realized Harry left to the DoM after Harry already arrived there and already spend some time there. When did Snape start worrying? After it getting Dark and still no sign of Harry? To me it seems like it and this indicates to me, a total inaction on Snape's part to keep an eye out. What does he care if Umbridge tortures Harry a bit, he probably would gloat at the idea. How long would it have taken the Order to have apperate to the DoM from GP, both are in London? It would have taken no more then minutes, so let's say after leaving instruction with Kreacher, it takes them 15 minutes to get there, this still takes longer then Harry and his friends to fly over there. That is why Snape actions do not fit, either by is own reluctance to keep an eye on Harry more closely or for more evil reasons, it still makes Snape actions responsible for a lot of what occurred that night. Snape not only could have done more, he should have done more. If this was not written on purpose, then it was indeed sloppy writing on JKR part. JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 22:40:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:40:50 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167588 Alla wrote: > Okay, I am going to take my temperature after I am typing this :), > but I am not sure I agree. Carol responds: LOL! Hope you're feeling better. Alla: > But if we look only at situation at hand, I am not sure what else Snape could have done differently. I mean if he is LID or evil and Neri's argument about wasted time is correct, then sure, here we have another one of Snape sins, for which I am keeping my fingers > crossed he will suffer in book 7. > > But if he is DD!M Snape, I am not sure how he could have kept Harry from going to the Ministry. > > I mean, isn't it taking away Harry's most endearing quality ( as I see it)? Harry will not stand for loved ones being in danger, real or imaginary. One of many things I adore him for, so I do not know, I think even if Snape tied him up, I think he would have gone to save Sirius anyways. Carol responds: Thank you for your objectivity here. And I think you're right. Once Harry checked on Black at 12 GP and was deceived by Kreacher into thinking that his godfather had been kidnapped and was being tortured, nothing was going to stop him--unless, of course, he thought to check with Snape and see what he had found out. But he didn't do that because he believed Kreacher. Snape, meanwhile, knew nothing of Kreacher's treachery. It would have been difficult to find out much of anything after he determined that Black was safe (and presumably explained why he had checked on him in the first place). *Somehow* he found out that Harry and Hermione had gone into the forest with Umbridge. I can only assume that he went back to Umbridge's office to check on the situation and discovered the Inquisitorial Squad members covered with bats and hex marks, a few of them unconscious. So, after straightening that out, he'd have questioned Draco or Pansy and found out about the Forbidden Forest excursion. He would then, presumably, escort the Squad to the hospital wing, make sure they stayed there, and then wait for Harry and Co to return from the forest. Snape would know that Umbridge had confiscated Harry's broom and that he could not Apparate. He would know that they had gone into the forest wandless, in the company of Umbridge, who would hardly let them escape to the MoM. And he would probably think that someone like Hermione would talk common sense into Harry. *Of course* Black was not being held hostage. He'd confirmed that himself. So he only became worried when they didn't return from the forest. At that point, he began to suspect that they had, against all odds, found some means of leaving the Hogwarts grounds undetected and actually gone to the MoM. Either that, or they were still in the forest and in danger from Acromantulas and Centaurs and whatever else was in there. And at that point, he contacted the Order, telling Black to stay behind and wait for Dumbledore. I agree with Alla. He did everything he could possibly have done given that he didn't know about Kreacher. Alla: > > He was? Well, yeah, I guess he was if one compares Snape's first lesson with Occlumency lessons. I do not compare the Occlumency lessons with vicious attack of the animal, as I compare Snape first lesson with. Snape, was actually answering some of Harry questions. Maybe it has to do something with Dumbledore having an eye of the lessons since he was the one who ordered them? But no IMO Snape's efforts were not even close to being adequate. It was still abuse IMO, just of the lesser degree. Oh, and I do not think that Snape > was answering Harry's questions truthfully, either, so I do not know > what is worse - flat out lie or lie by omission. > > "You are neither special nor important"? Right, that is from the man > who delivered the Prophecy. > Carol responds: I agree with zgirnius that Snape told Harry everything he needed to know: What Occlumency is, what Legilimency is, why he had to take the lessons. The only thing he concealed is what DD wanted concealed, the Prophecy in the DoM. He allowed Harry to use any spell he chose to protect himself but encouraged him to use his mind instead, pointing out that he had done exactly that with the Imperius Curse. He was, for Snape, remarkably calm, becoming seriously upset or concerned only when the memories revealed by his Legilimens spell were Voldemort's. And clearly he reported those Voldemortian memories to DD, who mentions them in his end-of-the book talk. It was Harry who didn't practice, in part because he distrusted Snape and in part because he wanted to keep having those dreams, Harry whose violation of Snape's trust by entering the Pensieve ended the lessons, which would otherwise have resumed the following day. Snape had, in fact, already rescheduled the lesson. Yes, "you are neither special nor important" is mean and snarky, but it's Snape (who may really believe that Harry is "mediocre in the last degree," as he tells Bellatrix in "Spinner's End"). But he also says, "For a first attempt, that is not as bad as it would have been."And for Snape, that is high praise. Can you give me an example of a lie that you think Snape told during the Occlumency lessons, other than concealing the existence of the Prophecy orb in the DoM on Dumbledore's orders? (Calling it a "weapon," as Sirius Black did, is actually a more direct lie, however well-intentioned.) It seems to me that Snape gave a very careful, truthful, and exact definition of Occlumency and Legilimency. I believe that he was telling the truth when he said "Yes, Potter, that is my job," and when he said that it was possible for a skilled Occlumens to lie to LV without detection--as he himself has been doing as least since LV returned and probably in the days before GH when he was spying for DD "at great personal risk" as well. and, of course, a question such as "How did that man [Rookwood] and that room [at the Riddle house?] get into your head" hardly constitute lies. IMO, they reveal real concern at the extent to which Voldemort has penetrated Harry's mind, giving him dreams or memories that are not his own, dreams and memories which, as I said, Snape reports to Dumbledore. Alla: > > I think Snape schoolboy grudge has everything to do with failure of > Occlumency lessons. And DD seems to recognize that, no? Old wounds, > etc. Carol: Possibly. But Harry didn't try to learn Occlumency because he hated Snape and wanted to have those dreams. He was as happy to have the lessons end as Snape was, and I don't think he would have sufficiently mastered Occlumency to prevent Voldemort from implanting that vision in his head. Nor could any words of Snape's have persuaded him that the vision wasn't as true as the snake dream had been. If Hermione couldn't persuade him, how could Snape have done so? As for old wounds, we know that Dumbledore tells partial truths and the "schoolboy grudge" may serve here as it does in PoA (IMO) to cover other motives. It may be that both DD (to whom Snape must surely have reported the fiasco or DD wouldn't know about it) and Snape felt that the lessons were opening Harry's mind further to Voldemort, doing more harm than good. Or DD may have realized that, given Harry's emotional state, it was the wrong time to point out that it was he, Harry, who had invaded Snape's memory. So, as usual, he took the blame onto himself. Carol, who thinks that Harry's desire to find out what was behind the door was the chief reason for the failure of the Occlumency lessons and that Snape's methods would have worked wonders with an apt and eager pupil like Draco From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 22:42:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:42:18 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167589 > Dana: > Actually to me DD explanation about Snape being surprised Harry still > believed Sirius was still a captive of LV, has everything to do with > the animosity between them. So to me it seems Snape told this to DD > to put the blame back with Harry because it was Harry's fault, he did > not trust Snape enough to look into things and thus letting go of it > and Snape truly believed Harry should have thought that highly of > Snape, that it would be only Snape and not Harry that would solve the > situation. To me it looks like he washes himself from blame or > responsibility for Harry state of mind at that moment. Alla: Now, that is an interesting point. I agree with you in a sense that this **is** Snape blaming Harry for what he should not have blamed Harry. But I am not sure that it has anything to do with practicalities of the situation. Snape putting blame on Harry shoulders here is disgusting, but it is so typical Snape to me, you know? Hmmm, that temperature is still high, I think. Suppose Snape is loyal after all and he indeed did everything he could to salvage the situation. ( Please, it is not like I really believe that he is loyal and that he did everything he could to salvage the situation - I happen to find Neri's time calculating arguments to be extremely convincing, but that only works if Snape has his own interest in mind - paying off LID IMO. I am just saying that in case Neri is wrong, I do not see what else Snape could have done). Right, so suppose he did everything he could, yes? Play with me :) But the situation did not work out for the best, right? In a sense that Sirius is dead, etc. Let's pretend that Snape would feel bad that his fellow comrad in arms died :) ( No, I do not believe it either). Okay, where I am going with all of this? I am trying to say that if Snape tried and failed, to me it is perfectly in his bitchy, grudge holding, sadistic character to blame Harry for that, as he always does IMO. Whether it is because he wants to please Dumbledore ( competitiveness for his attention) or just enjoys Harry being in pain, I do not know, I am just saying that to me Snape blaming Harry does not necessarily say anything about what Snape did and did not do right. Dana: > It is not like he couldn't have known Harry would not have trusted > him not even if Harry tries to alert him. With a response Snape gives > him like that who would have believed Snape would do anything. > > Harry is even desperate enough to want to try and allert Snape so > should have known this or at least I feel so. > Alla: Well, absolutely I completely agree with that. But that to me goes more to Snape creating animosity for five years, which absolutely if he is loyal I consider to be very big, very bad mistake based on which Occlumency lessons blew away, you know? When does Snape ever admits his mistakes though? I just do not feel that his long terms mistakes should translate in him having psychic powers that night :) That is if he is loyal of course. Dana: > Snape never did anything between the time he (supposedly) checked in > on Sirius and the time he alerted the Order again. > Snape not only could have done more, he should have done more. > > If this was not written on purpose, then it was indeed sloppy writing > on JKR part. Alla: Right, but this is more like Neri's argument, no? Time frame IS suspicious, yes. I am just saying that if it does not hold up, I am not sure I see anything else as suspicious. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 15 22:42:25 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:42:25 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167590 --- "Zara" wrote: > > > > Dana now: > > > > You are contradicting yourself here. If history > > cannot be changed then her future self cannot save > > these two innocent lives, because to be from the > > future you already must have a past, otherwise ... > > both Hermione's would not have a recollection of it. > > You now only dedicate the past time to be created > > by a future self instead of a present time self in > > a first run. > > zgirnius: > I am not. ...my explanations themselves conform fully > to a theory of time travel that is internally > consistent. > > What they are not consistent with is your insistence > that the cause must precede the effect in time. My > view is that time travel is precisely that thing which > permits the effect to precede its cause in time, > however illogical this seems. bboyminn: As to the Cause and Effect issue, this is a point I have made before, and it is a difficult concept for most people to wrap their minds around. Since we, or the characters, are moving backward in time, absolutely Effect occurs before Cause, but I say the sequence is irrelevant. As long as there is a Cause, and as long as it produces an Effect, the time order in which they occur doesn't matter. Again, since we are going backward in time, indeed Effect occurs before Cause to the outside observer. And indeed, Effect become history before the Cause that precipitates it occurs. I've already made the point in a previous post that the Time Travelers do not experience time as outside observers do, and we need to make that distinction. As to the first issue of 'History' let us remember that their is a true physical history, and an interpretation or perception of that history. They say the history is written by the Victorious, and they write it from their perspective. The Trio perceive that Buckbeak was killed, but their perception, while in the moment may document a version of history, it does not create reality. The reality and the absolute historical fact is that Buckbeak never was killed. It is only when we gain a new historical perspective that we see that this is true. The Axe fell on a pumpkin and Hagrid cried out in joy, and Buckbeak wasn't there. The difference between these two perspectives is that the second time we see 'what' and 'why' of it. We see the error of our previous perspective. So, it is not history that is changed, but our perception of history. On the issue of Hermione attending class, naturally I'm in the camp of 'it happened once'. But it is important to separate how Hermione perceives time and how the rest of the world perceives time. To Hermione these are three consecutive classes, but to the 'world view' these are three simultaneous classes with three Hermiones in existence. In the example given (using slightly different nomenclature), Hermione-1 is in CoMC, Hermione-2 is in Arithmacy, and Hermione-3 never exists because Hermione-2 fell asleep and missed going back to Charms. Once she missed Charms, it is no longer historical perception, it is a historical fact. In a normal course of three simultaneous classes, at the end, Hermione-1 and Hermione-2 disappear because they have gone back in time. Hermione-1 going back to become Hermione-2, and Hermione-2 going back to become Hermione-3. Hermione-3 carries on as the normal Hermione and moves forward in time. But again, remember that to the 'world view' that is three simultaneous Hermiones and three simultaneous classes over a single hour of time. I'm sure that doesn't really add anything that hasn't already been said, but I'm having trouble resisting the lure of Time Travel discussion. Steve/bboyminn From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Apr 15 23:29:03 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:29:03 -0000 Subject: Snape at end of OotP (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > zgirnius: Snape did express a frustration Sirius was > > feeling and threw it in his face, but first, that was months > > before, and second, Sirius would have gone anyway, in my opinion. > > > Dana: > If you read that scene carefully then you notice that it was Harry > that caused it by looking at Sirius for help. That is what triggered > Sirius to act not due to anything Snape did. wynnleaf That was *well* into the conversation and there had already been numerous rude remarks tossed around. The first person to make a rude remark is Sirius' first comment to Snape, before Snape had addressed him at all. (Just for the record, Sirius is also the first to draw his wand.) But of course, this incident had nothing to do with Sirius going to the MOM, as he would always have been willing to put his life at risk to save Harry. > zgirnius: > > You realize Harry forgot Snape twice, don't you? After repeated > > attempts at mental communication with Snape and the cryptic Padfoot > > comment he threw at Snape as the later departed, he never even > > bothered to check what the only Order member at Hogwarts had done > > about the warning. Dana > Yes, but this is again Snape fault by the way he reacts to Harry's > attempt to notify him. Would you believe after such a reaction the > man is going to look into things? I wouldn't. wynnleaf Is Harry incapable of realizing that with Umbridge there Snape can't give him *any* sign that he understands Harry's message and will act on it? There's no reason Harry shouldn't be able to figure that out -- it's the very reason he gave mental and "coded" messages to Snape in the first place. It's ridiculous to think Snape is at "fault" for not reacting positively to Harry at that time. Umbridge was suspicious as it was. Even Dumbledore told Harry this later. Dana That is why Harry still > thinks he must act himself because he could not believe Snape would > take any actions on his behalf (or Sirius's) wynnleaf While Harry *might* have thought that, if he'd considered Snape at all, we never get any hint from canon that he even thought about Snape after getting away from Umbridge. Harry thinks he must act on his own for the same reason he acted on his own in his original attempt to contact Sirius. Harry doesn't think about asking Snape's help at all. He could have gone to Snape right away after the vision. Snape was, more than others, aware of his connection with Voldemort. Harry could have told Snape and asked Snape to contact Sirius. It's not that Harry considers this and decides against it. He never even considers it. He didn't think of Snape until he saw him. Dana > Snape's idea is just really strange because what changed between the > time, Harry gave Snape the cryptic message and him going into the > Forest? Snape never came back not even after Harry was already gone. wynnleaf What would he have come back to do? Announce to Harry, in front of Umbridge no less, that "Padfoot" was home? Snape couldn't come back and tell Harry anything as long as Harry was supposed to be with Umbridge. Of course, I don't really think Snape would have done so anyway. I think Snape would likely consider the whole business to be adult Order business, and that once Harry had passed along his message, he should stay out of it. Besides, as long as Harry was with Umbridge -- and she had no intention of letting him go -- Snape wouldn't have to wonder about the possibility of Harry attempting to go to London. Anyway, how would he go? As far as Snape knew, Harry had no access to brooms, floo, train, or any other readily available transportation. It is only after Snape learned that Harry had gone with Umbridge into the forest that he'd have to start wondering about where Harry was. And even then, he wouldn't be expected to wonder that Harry was anywhere *other* than the forest until a fair amount of time had passed and none of the three had returned. Even then, the fact that Umbridge had not returned proclaiming that Harry had escaped, still made it more likely that Harry was with her in the forest. Dana > We do not hear Ron, Luna, Ginny or Neville say that Snape came back. > If Snape had come back, he could have ordered the group (just Harry's > group) to his office and have them tell him, what has been going on. Huh? The point you seem to making is about Snape not coming back to tell *Harry* what occurred. If Snape thought Harry was there, then Umbridge would also be there. Snape couldn't do any ordering around of anyone with Umbridge there. Dana > He is head of House and he could have ordered these four being handed > over to him. He could tell Ron and Neville to go look for Harry and > tell him everything is okay at HQ. wynnleaf I'm really surprised at this notion. When Snape left the room, Umbridge was in control of the situation. Yet you are saying he should have come back later and basically taken over, and that it wouldn't have threatened his cover at all. Sorry, I don't buy that. > zgirnius: > > How does Snape know they are off to the Forest in time to follow? > > His first thought, quite properly, was to verify that Sirius was > > safe. Voldemort strikes me as a greater potential danger than > > Dolores Umbridge had shown herself to be thus far. The removals you > > credit to her involved the Minister of Magic and a number of > > Aurors, none of whom were present at Hogwarts. > > > Dana: > Because DD tells us so. He tells us that Snape realized where Harry > had gone (DoM) when he failed to return from his trip with Umbridge > and that after he alerted the Order, he had intended to search for > Harry in the Forest. This can only be Snape's account of things > because there are no other witnesses. wynnleaf There are a few points which canon does not tell us. We don't know at what point Snape learned that Umbridge had taken Harry and Hermione into the forest. Nor do we know at what point Snape decided that their not returning after some period of time might mean that Harry and Hermione had gone to London. We don't know if Snape learned about the forest excursion as soon they left (unlikely) or if they'd been gone for hours, all the while Snape thinking Harry was with Umbridge in the castle, only to discover sometime later that night that Harry had accompanied her into the forest. And how long should Snape be expected to think Harry and Hermione were *with* Umbridge in the forest (after all, when they left it was Umbridge who was in control)? For instance, if Snape heard Umbridge had taken them into the forest 30 minutes before, then one might reasonably expect them to still be with her. Over what period of time -- with Umbridge not back yet -- would one begin to think the children had escaped *and* found a way to travel to London? In general, people that find Snape's actions too suspicious here seem to assume that Snape heard immediately, or within the hour, about the trip into the forest. The theory is generally that Snape should have assumed Harry and Hermione would just naturally overcome Umbridge (they didn't - the centaurs did). The theory also holds that Snape should assume that not only would Harry and Hermione overcome Umbridge (which they didn't), but they'd also somehow prevent her return to the castle (they didn't, the centaurs did). The theory also continues with the notion that Snape should have assumed Harry had some sort of short-notice reliable way lined up to travel to London (he didn't -- the thestrals showed up purely by chance of the blood on their clothes). In other words, Snape should have assumed a lot of stuff that wasn't true, and since he didn't assume a lot of stuff that wasn't true anyway, his actions were suspicious. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. In fact, the way in which Harry and Hermione escape Umbridge and get to London is built on circumstance -- meeting the centaurs is Hermione's hope, but Umbridge insulting them in such a way that they'd attack her is circumstance. Grawp coming along so that Harry and Hermione could escape is a huge bit of luck as was the blood on their clothes attracting the thestrals. Neither Snape nor anyone else should have been able to assume that their trip into the forest would so circumstantially result in their later flight to London. And that's assuming (a big assumption) that Snape heard about the trip into the forest and waited around for awhile. For all we know, he heard about the trip into the forest hours later, immediately realised they'd been gone too long and should have been back if nothing had gone wrong, and called the Order right away. Dana > If Snape just based his actions on a lot of assumptions then he is > not such a great thinker after all and a little full of himself that > what he assumes is always correct. Especially with his 4 years of > many Harry experiences, he should know by now his assumptions are > almost always wrong even if he judged the overall situation right. wynnleaf As I tried to point out above, critics of Snape at this point seem to think that Snape should have credited Harry with more ability than Harry actually had that night. Harry did not overcome Umbridge, and nor did Hermione. The fact that they got away from Umbridge and the centaurs depended a lot on luck and Grawp -- was Snape supposed to know that Grawp would come to protect Harry? And then the ability to travel to London came simply because of the circumstantial blood on their clothes attracting the thestrals. It wasn't Harry's or Hermione's abilities at fighting, subterfuge, trickery, magic, or any other skill that got them away from the centaurs and brought the thestrals. Yet critics of Snape want to claim that Snape should have *assumed* that Harry would be able to affect his circumstances enough to overcome Umbridge, escape her, and get to London. > zgirnius: > > I would be surprised too, were I Snape. I imagine Snape got the > > message loud and clear two or three times in the office scene, and > > figured that after repeatedly tossing the problem to him, Harry > > would check with him to learn what he, Snape, had done about it. > > Dana: > You would? And would you believe the person you told it too would > actually check in after such a response. > Snape should know especially after the SWM incident that Harry would > not just believe Snape is there for him and that it would take just a > little more effort but to me Snape did not care about Harry's state > of mind, he just never envisioned the kid would get off the Hogwarts > grounds and thus underestimated Harry for the millionth time. wynnleaf If Snape ever thought that Harry wouldn't be able to escape Umbridge or travel to London on his own, he'd have been right. It wasn't Harry who would have been underestimated, it would have been Harry's luck -- or ill-luck in this case, since the trip to London was certainly ill-fated. Dana > It was not his call to just assume anything. He is an Order Member > and Harry is in the care of someone fighting the Order all year and > we see her put people in danger while there at Hogwarts, with or > without help from other MoM members. wynnleaf Once again is this notion that Snape should have gone back to give some message to Harry, right in front of Umbridge. Dana If she had been successful in > having Harry reveal Sirius location wynnleaf Impossible, and Snape knew it. Fidelius Charm, remember? If Snape can't tell Voldemort and Voldemort knows it, then there was absolutely no worry that Umbridge could force Harry to tell. dana > The only thing I can think off why JKR inserted the Kreacher element > into that scene, is because there was no other place to have it > revealed that it was Kreacher that betrayed Sirius and Harry. wynnleaf JKR makes this point on her website about Sirius' weaknesses: <> I think JKR was making a few of her own points about Sirius in OOTP and in order to do that, she has Dumbledore make some of those points to Harry. wynnleaf From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 16 00:41:17 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:41:17 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167592 wrote: > > Peeves is a poltergeist. He is not a ghost. Nearly-Headless Nick > already said so back in Philosopher's Stone, that Peeves wasn't even > a real ghost. Rowling has also made this pretty clear on her website. Peeves sometimes has the disturbed mind of a poltergeist yet his acts are often physical rather than psychical. Psychical mayhem being what defines a poltergeist. Sometimes though he floats and bursts out of blackboards which is not physical - except maybe at the quantum level. So I have to accept that he is not a ghost but is an ill-defined spirit. His language, however, suggests to me a person who was once alive. He seems to know what being alive is about. My quibble with Peeves is only part of a broader niggle. And that is the concept of death and afterlife in HP's world. Barry From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 00:57:44 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:57:44 -0000 Subject: How do owls find people WAS: Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: <6467e1f0704151105h6bf12607o54d3f77a88f91334@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167594 > Asli: > I can't understand how an owl is not > traceable. And I don't understand how owls are this brilliant in finding > people. If the adress is written, than okay, but if no one knows where a > person is, how can an owl find him? > JW: To my recollection, JKR has never offered a clue. Nevertheless, it happens. HP has successfully sent owls to Sirius without knowing what CONTINENT Sirius is in (exactly where are the "tropics?"), much less the street address. Somehow, the owls figure it out. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 02:01:15 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 02:01:15 -0000 Subject: More to the Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167595 > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > The first flaw in your logic is that you assume all > > > parties are giving full and completely factual > > > accounts of what happened. > > > > Mike: > > Quite frankly, I don't see any logic flaw in April's > > comments. > > bboyminn: > > Yes, but April doesn't seem to be asserting that > Dumbledore is or is not telling the WHOLE truth. She is > saying that there is a 'discrepancy'; that Dumbledore's > and Trelawney's accounts are inconsistent or > contradictory. Mike: I'll let you answer yourself in part. > bboyminn: > Of course, Dumbledore is withholding information, > Dumbledore is ALWAYS withholding information, that's > what he does, but what does that have to do with the > subject at hand? Mike: The discrepancy, the inconsistancy, is in what Dumbledore had withheld, information pertinent to the situation in the Hogs Head. Reading Dumbledore's explanation in OotP leaves the distinct impression that the "eavesdropper" was not around to hear the remainder of the prophesy. Not that the "eavesdropper" was *interrupted* and *prevented* from hearing the remainder of the prophesy. Dumbledore's explanation in OotP is inconsistant with what Trelawney revealed in HBP. > > > bboyminn: > > > Next remember that Snape himself was interrupted. > > > ... That interruption is what prevented him from > > > hearing the whole prophecy. ... > > > > Mike: > > This is your extrapolation of what you think happened > > based on what Dumbledore told us in OotP with the > > added information from Trelawney in HBP. I don't buy > > it. > > > > bboyminn: > > No, this is exactly what is says in the books. The book > says with crystal clarity that Snape did not hear the > whole prophecy. If you don't accept that, which you are > certainly free to, then that is YOUR extrapolation. Mike: First off, *Dumbledore* said that Snape only heard the first part of the prophesy, and I am calling into question Dumbledore's veracity in this incident. (I believe I titled my previous foray into this area: Dumbledore Does Lie) But that's not what is being extrapolated here. You extrapolated that Snape was "interrupted". Dumbledore *did not* tell Harry that the eavesdropper was "interrupted". "...the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building." (OotP, US, p.843) What did Trelawney tell Harry? "Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape." (HBP, US, p.545). Notice that prophesy is over, else Sibyll wouldn't know there also was a "commotion". (BTW, Sibyll did say she and DD were "rudely interrupted by Severus Snape", but not that Snape was interrupted by the barman) So, where in the book does it say "Snape himself was interrupted"? It doesn't; "interrupted" is an extrapolation of what may have transpired in order to fit the explanations of both Dumbledore and Trelawney in an attempt to hold the discrepancies to a minimum. Dumbledore says Snape was "detected" and "thrown" from the building. But nowhere in the books does it tell us directly or indirectly that Snape was interrupted. In fact, reading Dumbledore's words, he seems to be saying that the "eavesdropper" was *stopped* from any more eavesdropping activity and removed from the premises *prior* to the completion of the prophesy. If I were to read Dumbledore's words alone, I do not see how Trelawney would even know there was an eavesdropper, much less who it was. > bboyminn: > > There is no reason to think Snape was working for > Dumbledore at the time, so there is no reason to think > that Snape did not report what he knew. There IS > reason to believe that Voldemort DOES NOT know the > whole Prophecy. If he knew then what was the whole > Order of the Phoenix story about? Mike: Sorry, but I don't think the timeframe for when Snape turned is a decided question at this point of the story. The Black Tapestry evidence of Regulus dying in '79, Snape's "16 years of evidence" in the Spinner's End chapter, and Carol's speculation of the prophesy delivery at Holloween of '79, make me think that Snape turned *before* the prophesy. And, can you point to *any* of my previous posts where I averred that Voldemort heard more of the prophesy? I don't believe I was trying to claim such a thing. > bboyminn: > > I absolutely agree! There is /more/ to both stories, > much more, but that doesn't mean the stories as we have > already heard them are wrong. They are not wrong, they are > only incomplete. Further their 'incompleteness' is a > separate issue from whether the two versions are > consistent or inconsistent. They are consistent, but > very incomplete stories, and that is a point I actually > made. They are not full and complete accounts, they > are generalized summaries from two separate perspectives. Mike: Well, my contention is that the "incompleteness" directly resulted in the "inconsistancies" between the two versions, and visa-versa. As you said in your previous post: "Yes, this has been touched on, though the resulting thoughts remain polarized." My opinion remains polarized from your opinion. It's our magnetic personalities Steve, don't ya know! > Steve/bboyminn: > Thanks for the links to the previous discussions. Mike: My pleasure. I've never thought my opinion is the only one, just the best one. ;D From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Apr 16 02:05:32 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:05:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning References: Message-ID: <019d01c77fcb$bc313aa0$3b60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167596 Steve: > On the issue of Hermione attending class, naturally I'm > in the camp of 'it happened once'. But it is important > to separate how Hermione perceives time and how the > rest of the world perceives time. To Hermione these are > three consecutive classes, but to the 'world view' these > are three simultaneous classes with three Hermiones in > existence. Magpie: Exactly. There are two completely different experiences of time happening at once. Hermione is becoming more tired because she is taking more classes, experiencing more hours of time in a consecutive way. To everyone else there is more than one Hermione at once, but Hermione is never more than one consciousness at one time. Same with her and Harry later on. Harry experiences both being attacked by Dementors and saving himself, one after the other. From an outsider's pov there's two Harrys existing at once, but Harry himself is never in doubt as to who he "is" at one time. His cause and effect is the same as always: I got surrounded by Dementors, I was in the hospital wing, I drove off Dementors. His consciousness never splits between the two. When he sees a future self he has no idea what it is, shares no consciousness with it. When he sees his past self he recognizes it as a memory. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 16 02:13:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:13:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4622DBD3.8080609@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167597 hickengruendler wrote: > Peeves is a poltergeist. He is not a ghost. Nearly-Headless Nick > already said so back in Philosopher's Stone, that Peeves wasn't even > a real ghost. Rowling has also made this pretty clear on her website. > Whatever JKR's flaws in worldbuilding may have been (and IMO, even > though a few exist, I find them hardly bothersome so far), she was > always very consistent regarding what Peeves is (a Poltergeist) and > what he isn't (a ghost like Nick or Myrtle). But what the hell does that MEAN? Poltergeists are generated (and continually powered) by human beings; generally a human being who is suppressing heavy emotions. Which could bring up some interesting possibilities. I was thinking Snape, but was just considering the possibilities of it being Filch (like where his absent powers are appearing?). Bart From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 02:09:15 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 02:09:15 -0000 Subject: I don't know much about Owls, but I know what I like In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167598 > JW: > To my recollection, JKR has never offered a clue. Nevertheless, it happens. HP has successfully sent owls to Sirius without knowing what CONTINENT Sirius is in (exactly where are the "tropics?"), much less the street address. Somehow, the owls figure it out. Goddlefrood: The tropics are the area between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. It straddles the globe. I live in them :). Both of these are latitudinal lines. JKR may simply not know a great deal about owls as she herself admits, here's a little snippet from her site's Extra Stuff: "However, any owl expert would tell you that Hedwig is strangely atypical of her breed. Only after Philosopher's Stone had been accepted for publication did I realise that Snowy Owls are diurnal. I think it was during the writing of `Chamber of Secrets' that I discovered that Snowy Owls are also virtually silent, the females being even quieter than the males. So all of Hedwig's night-time jaunts and her many reproving hoots may be taken as signs of her great magical ability or my pitiful lack of research, whichever you prefer." Found in full here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=20 So she does not know much about owls, but she knows what she likes and uses them to whatever purpose is necessary. I'll leave it to you to decide which of JKR's explanations is best ;) Goddlefrood From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 16 02:44:09 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:44:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4622E2F9.1030509@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167599 justcarol67 wrote: > Carol, who hopes JW will forgive her for saying that she's almost as > tired of "Shesezso" as of "Snapey-poo" (the term, that is, not Snape > himself) Bart: I think that I might be guilty of starting the "Snapey-poo" stuff; when I delurked again a few months ago, I didn't want to bother looking up the names of characters, so I started just using cutesie (and easier to spell) nicknames. I was, by no means, the first here to use nicknames, but it seems to have increased greatly since I've started. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 16 03:04:00 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:04:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How do owls find people WAS: Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4622E7A0.7010702@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167600 Steve wrote: > I think Owls can comprehend, but I don't think they > can read. The only possible explanation for the level > of skill we see in the Owls, is that they are Magical > Owls. Bart: And the Ministry is made up of a bunch of dunderheads, including the lauded Aurors (but we knew that, already; they make the adults from 1960's live action Disney films look like geniuses in comparison). How about having an auror miniaturize himself, and then mail himself via owl to Sirius? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 03:07:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:07:56 -0000 Subject: Characters nicknames WAS : Re: Sirius and jail In-Reply-To: <4622E2F9.1030509@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167601 > justcarol67 wrote: > > Carol, who hopes JW will forgive her for saying that she's almost as > > tired of "Shesezso" as of "Snapey-poo" (the term, that is, not Snape > > himself) > > Bart: > I think that I might be guilty of starting the "Snapey-poo" stuff; when > I delurked again a few months ago, I didn't want to bother looking up > the names of characters, so I started just using cutesie (and easier to > spell) nicknames. I was, by no means, the first here to use nicknames, > but it seems to have increased greatly since I've started. Alla: Okay, I am speaking for myself and for myself only, but last time I checked the posting rules any character nicknames, good or bad are fair game. So, please. Snapey-poo ( which I happen to not like much, but would not dream of telling anybody not to use), Greasy git ( which is my favorite at the moment), what else is there? DoubleDumb? Please, carry on, I would say. What is Harry called by those who do not like him? Brat? STOOPID? Characters feelings cannot be hurt, I think. I mean, I certainly feel for my favorite characters sometimes, when they are called names, I think many of us attached to their favorites, but just as I would not **dare** of telling other people not to call my favorites names, I would **not** take well to anybody telling me not to call the characters I dislike names. So, no Bart, I do not think that you are **guilty** of anything at all. Besides, characters are being called nicknames in canon often enough, no? "Potty" is canon, Greasy git is canon as well, etc, etc. If we can invent more, more power to us, I would say :) JMO, Alla, who is stressing that she is speaking as a list member **only** on this one. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Apr 16 03:11:07 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:11:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: One Dore closes another Dore opens References: <4622DBD3.8080609@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <01dd01c77fd4$e0c5eb50$3b60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167602 Bart: > But what the hell does that MEAN? Poltergeists are generated (and > continually powered) by human beings; generally a human being who is > suppressing heavy emotions. Which could bring up some interesting > possibilities. > > I was thinking Snape, but was just considering the possibilities of it > being Filch (like where his absent powers are appearing?). Magpie: It doesn't seem like they're powered by a human being suppressing heavy emotions in this universe. Though truth be told they're not necessarily in our own either; often enough poltergeists in our world were actually just kids playing tricks so I don't know if we can even say what they are in our universe, the explanation is kind of vague there too. Sometimes they're precursors to possession. Peeves is the personification of the spirit of chaos, period. His origins are mysterious, but he was never alive as a human. He's always just been an entity, it seems. -m From aslitumerkan at gmail.com Mon Apr 16 00:34:49 2007 From: aslitumerkan at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-9?Q?Asl=FD_T=FCmerkan?=) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:34:49 +0300 Subject: How do owls find people (WAS: Re: Sirius and jail) In-Reply-To: <00a001c77f8d$8b36d010$15b2a8c0@miles> References: <7b9f25e50704150102w64fae824p16c7acd834a2996e@mail.gmail.com> <6467e1f0704151105h6bf12607o54d3f77a88f91334@mail.gmail.com> <00a001c77f8d$8b36d010$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <6467e1f0704151734v1cca7611rca861d40048ec8e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167603 > Miles: > Well, you are not surprised that an owl can understand spoken language and > think they should be able to read, but you are surprised that it can find > people without an address? Why so? > > Those owls are magical creatures. Thestrals can find any place, owls > (almost) every person. That's what JKR made owls like - and so they are in > Potterverse. Asli: Both Miles and Steve make a very good point. I think I thought owls would understand the address, not because they were able to read but because someone told them the address. Other than that, I don't know why I looked for so much logic there. "It's magic." From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 16 02:45:56 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:45:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ghosts and Inferi ("Ghosts are transparent") References: Message-ID: <00a201c77fd1$5bd708a0$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 167604 > Career Advisor: > > > In HBP Snape asks Harry to explain the difference between Ghosts and > > Inferi. And Harry's infamous answer is that: "Ghosts are transparent." > > > > > > But why does JKR have Snape ask this seemingly bizarre question? > Pippin: > It echoes Snape's question in PoA about how to tell the werewolf > from the true wolf. Presumably the reason it's important to be able > to tell the difference quickly is that one is far more dangerous to > wizards than the other. Ghosts in the Potterverse are generally > friendly and mostly harmless, as far as we've seen. If you allowed > the Inferius of a newly dead acquaintance to approach you, > mistaking (or hoping) that it was a ghost, it would probably > be the last mistake you ever made. Shelley: I really agree with Pippin: it's meant to be a teaching question. One to make the children think, and possibly think about how they will know if they ever run into one. It's the same type of question as seeing a snake, and having someone ask you if you know if it's poisonous. The answer "I don't know" becomes synonmous with "but I'd better find out!" From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Apr 16 05:43:14 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 05:43:14 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167605 Alla: > Now, that is an interesting point. I agree with you in a sense that > this **is** Snape blaming Harry for what he should not have blamed > Harry. But I am not sure that it has anything to do with > practicalities of the situation. Snape putting blame on Harry > shoulders here is disgusting, but it is so typical Snape to me, you > know? I am not arguing Snape being responsible for Sirius death just to make that clear, well not in this context. What I am arguing is that Snape as an Order Member should have been more concerned with Harry safety and letting Umbridge take Harry into the Forest without an apparent reason still falls within that category and if he had taken this a little more seriously instead of just waiting to see if they ever come out of it, then yes he could have prevented a lot of the things that happened that night. This is not an attempt to dedicate Snape under what ever tag you want to put before his name. If you have the specific care of a person and he is in the presence of someone that has tried to destroy him all year even if she is supposed to be one of the good guys, then would you leave that person out of your sight long enough to let that someone take him to a location that is known to contain some pretty dangerous creatures? No, you wouldn't, at least I wouldn't. I see a lot of but Snape couldn't have done this or that or couldn't have known this or that, but it was his job to find out one way or the other and the resourceful mind will find a way to do it even if it seems impossible. The Order don't let Harry out of their sight, not even if he goes to Hogsmeade with a large group of friends so why does Snape let this happen without trying to find him because according to DD Snape never went looking for him but just intended to search the forest at the moment he already suspects him to be off to the DoM and yes, I do agree with Neri, the time it takes the Order to arrive is suspicious especially because DD wants us to believe Snape alerted them immediately after he found out Harry's gone missing. So when did Snape start worrying after half an hour, an hour or just when it started to turn dark and the 4 others that have gone missing too, that were not in the care of Umbridge did not arouse Snape to go look for them sooner either? I did look at the scene again and Hermione never tells Umbridge were the weapon is hidden, Ron tells Harry he saw them enter the Forest and they followed. So if we assume DD is correct that Snape waited for Harry to return from his trip with Umbridge, there is still something not quite right. This is what DD says and unless we should assume DD is lying then this information is a correct account of what Snape did. Pg 732 UKed Paperback `When, however you did not return from your trip into the Forest with Dolorus Umbridge, Professor Snape grew worried that you still believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's. He alerted certain Order Members at once.' End Quote from Canon. If this is truly Snape's account of events then how does he know they went into the Forest? He could not have known unless he watched either Harry himself enter the Forest or the other 4 kids. If so then he should have followed and not just sit back and wait. It took him an awful long time to start getting worried because as we see on how long it takes the Order to arrive at the DoM and Snape's supposed immediate alert and the immediate departure of the Order to the DoM indicates Snape waited a very long time for Harry's return that never came. He should have made it his business to see to it, Harry remained safe and if he had, then Harry would not have ended up at the DoM. So in that sense Snape's actions, to me, still makes him responsible for the whole event to take place but not for the individual actions of other people in these same events. Well at least not at this moment. We could find out in DH Snape's timing was deliberate because he knew the time DD was about to arrive at HQ from his previous contact with Sirius and why he choose that moment because he knew if DD was not there, it would make Sirius rush out to go to Harry's aid and no one but DD could stop him and waiting would have given the DEs enough time to finish the job (although we see they failed miserably at it). Snape could not have foreseen Bellatrix killing Sirius off but the chance that Sirius would have been caught by the MoM was ever so great as we have seen with other Order Members on watch duty, especially if the DEs would have left before the Order arrived. I am not saying this will ever be but canon does not dispute Snape's own claim in HBP that he was responsible for Sirius death and to answer your question would Snape feel bad Sirius died? No, he wouldn't he would consider it justice being served finally, just as we see him actively trying to get Sirius soul sucked in PoA, I do not believe his feelings changed about it one bit and why he is happily boosting about it in HBP. (he is still claiming it lying or not so either he did actively participate or is just so happy about it that he just wished he did, there was no need for him to even claim it) JMHO Dana From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 06:26:52 2007 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:26:52 -0000 Subject: Someone else missing from DD's funeral. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167606 Some have been curious about Trelawny's presence of lack thereof at DD's funeral, but it occured to me that there's another non-mention that is almost as glaring. I'm referring to the Giant Squid. The squid is mostly background, having his big moment when he rescued little Dennis Creevy from sure drowning in his first year. What a good character. There is one occasion, however, in which the squid is not there, and it is specifically called to our attention. The one time Harry is IN the lake (2nd task, GoF), when he really should have seen the squid, the narrative states that the squid is nowhere to be seen. "Why is this?" I ask. Wouldn't the squid, having established himself as the gentle hero by setting little Creevy back into the boat, want to be there to make sure that the contestants were unharmed? Who better to moniter them and make sure of their safety? Who better to be able to pull off a rescue should the contestants have a bit of technical difficulty which would result in their drowning? The merpersons were busy playing the role of bad guys and stopping the contestants. They weren't in any position to pull off a rescue. It would have blown their cover. So, I ask, "Where was the squid?" Fast-forward to DD's funeral. The whole of the WW is there (except DEs and maybe Trelawney). The centuars even show up, for crying out loud. The merpersons sing their song, which draws the attention of all to the lake. Harry is sitting by the lake, and would have certainly noticed the squid, even if he had just been floating there, rather than, say, accompanying the merpersons on his harmonica. Or bongos. Whatever. On the other tentacle, the squid is there when students are hanging out by the lake. Lily states that she would rather date the giant Squid than James. (How fortunate for Harry, genetically, that she ended up with James.) I'm not sure what the life expectancy of a squid is, but that one seems to have been in there for quite some time. But back to the lake. The students hang out there when they have free time, when they need to be alone, and when they are wishing to talk out of the earshot of teachers. The presence of the squid would hardly be a deterrant to those planning something mischevious, and his presence might soothe those who hide there in time of personal pain; like having a dog to pet and talk to with complete confidence that you can vent your personal feelings and they will go no further. I noticed a pattern here. The times when the squid is not present are times when DD's whereabouts are accounted for. In GoF, DD was on the shore with the rest of the judges. In HBP, he was, of course, dead. Therefore, I have come up with my latest blindingly brilliant <--- sarcasm<--- theory. Dumbledore's animagus form is the Giant Squid. He will be missed. Ginger, not placing any actual money on this, just keeping the old noodle occupied. Oh, yes, for a theory to be complete, it needs an acronym: SQUID- Sympathetic, Quiet Underwater Inhabitant's Dumbledore. From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 16 07:07:42 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:07:42 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: <01dd01c77fd4$e0c5eb50$3b60400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167607 > Magpie: > Peeves is the personification of the spirit of > chaos, period. His origins are mysterious, but he was never alive as a > human. He's always just been an entity, it seems. > A nice description. But here is a definition from Wikipedia: Poltergeist... German for noisy ghost I guess everyone knows that Voldemort is French = vol-de-mort = flight of/from death Barry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 16 11:56:37 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:56:37 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > Peeves is the personification of the spirit of > > chaos, period. His origins are mysterious, but he was never alive as a > > human. He's always just been an entity, it seems. Barry: > A nice description. But here is a definition from Wikipedia: > Poltergeist... German for noisy ghost > I guess everyone knows that Voldemort is French = vol-de-mort = flight > of/from death Geoff: It has also been pointed out in previous posts that it can also mean "theft of death". Looking at Voldemort's wish for immortality, it would seem that both these translations could fit - another example of JKR's playing with words.... From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 12:16:16 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:16:16 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167611 > > Magpie: > > Peeves is the personification of the spirit of > > chaos, period. His origins are mysterious, but he was never alive as a > > human. He's always just been an entity, it seems. Barry: > A nice description. Annemehr: No, it's the *definition* of "Poltergeist" in the Potterverse, as Carol pointed out (citing JKR) in message #167574. Barry: > But here is a definition from Wikipedia: > Poltergeist... German for noisy ghost Annemehr: That's nice, but it's irrelevant to the books we're discussing. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 16 13:38:26 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:38:26 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > I did look at the scene again and Hermione never tells Umbridge were > the weapon is hidden, Ron tells Harry he saw them enter the Forest > and they followed. So if we assume DD is correct that Snape waited > for Harry to return from his trip with Umbridge, there is still > something not quite right. > This is what DD says and unless we should assume DD is lying then > this information is a correct account of what Snape did. > > Pg 732 UKed Paperback > > `When, however you did not return from your trip into the Forest with > Dolorus Umbridge, Professor Snape grew worried that you still > believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's. He alerted > certain Order Members at once.' > > End Quote from Canon. wynnleaf Actually, I think this may be a plot hole of JKR's. Or not. Harry, Hermione, and Umbridge leave the room and head for the forest. According to Ron's story later, the remaining DA members must have *immediately* started a fight with the Inquisitorial Squad and somehow managed to overpower them just in time for a DA member to look out the window and see Umbridge, Harry and Hermione go into the forest. Of course, the DA members had no idea that Hermione was planning to lead Umbridge out of the castle in the first place, so another lucky chance that they just happen to finish the fight and look out the window at all -- and at just the right moment! Then, one presumes, they immediately set out after the first three. They weren't far behind - they couldn't have been. Maybe 15 minutes? Only the time it takes to walk (more likely run) from the window to the forest. Still, Harry, Hermione and Umbridge manage to get deep into the forest, confront the centaurs, get into a fight, alert Grawp who hears the noise (the DA members close behind hear nothing apparently), get rescued by Grawp and leave the centaurs -- all without the DA catching up. Then Harry and Hermione head back toward the castle, meeting up with Ron and Co. in a direct line between the confrontation with the centaurs and the castle -- meaning that the DA didn't get lost in the forest trying to find them. So what were the DA doing that they were only shortly behind Harry and Hermione, yet didn't catch up, didn't hear what Grawp heard, and yet were right there for Harry to bump into at just the right moment to meet the thestrals? JKR was obviously trying to make all this fit, and yet if you take it apart piece by microscopic piece, you can't make it fit exactly perfectly. So how did Snape know they went to the forest? He probably didn't actually *know* at all. He most likely simply surmised it after discovering that they weren't in the castle, and hearing from the Slytherins that Hermione had told Umbridge that she would lead her to some secret. It is purely your *assumption* that Snape actually knew for a fact that they went into the forest. Actually, seeing that no one could have told Snape they went to the forest, as well as realizing that the only other way to *know* they went would be the incredibly lucky chance of happening to glimpse them out a window, shows us that it's unlikely Snape *knew* they went at all. Since Snape would have absolutely no reason to think Umbridge or anyone else would be leaving the castle, why would he be peering out the window except pure chance? So that would mean that Snape's thinking they went to the forest would be a guess, not certain knowledge. First, Snape would have to discover they were gone from the room and question the Slytherins who'd tell him Hermione led Umbridge somewhere. He might not even have been able to question the Slytherins until after Pomfrey treated them in the hospital. Snape would take the injured students to the hospital, question them, and then search the castle assuming that Umbridge, Harry and the others would be there somewhere -- and it's a big castle and he had no Marauder's Map. Then, once he'd ascertained that they weren't there and knowing that it was Hermione leading Umbridge, not vice versa, his next best guess would be that Hermione led Umbridge into the forest. So now we have an excellent reason for why Snape would not know for some time that the children had gone into the forest. Dana It took him > an awful long time to start getting worried because as we see on how > long it takes the Order to arrive at the DoM and Snape's supposed > immediate alert and the immediate departure of the Order to the DoM > indicates Snape waited a very long time for Harry's return that never > came. wynnleaf But now you've laid that to rest. Snape couldn't have *known* they went to the forest at all (unless he by strange chance and for no particular reason was looking out windows and saw them). Therefore when he discovered the Slytherins had been overpowered and Umbridge and the others gone, he'd have had to take kids to the hospital wing, question them, and then search the castle. He'd have only figured out the Harry and Co. probably went to the forest (not even really certain), after discovering that they weren't in the castle. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the time between his contacting Sirius and his alert to the Order. Dana > I am not saying this will ever be but canon does not dispute Snape's > own claim in HBP that he was responsible for Sirius death and to > answer your question would Snape feel bad Sirius died? wynnleaf Not "feeling bad" over Sirius' death doesn't make Snape responsible for it. It's pretty clear in the fight that Sirius wasn't being targeted by the DEs any *more* than anyone else. If Tonks had died and Sirius lived, would we be wondering if Snape was responsible for her death? Sirius was no more likely to die or be injured in the fight than any other Order member there. He took the same risks as everyone else. Even if Snape had begged Sirius to go, he could not affect the outcome of who got injured, killed, etc. at the MOM. As it was, he told Sirius not to go. Regardless of past insulting remarks, Sirius would have gone *anyway* because he would have wanted to help save Harry. Sirius didn't go to prove something to Snape. He went to save Harry. The DE's were *not* planning on meeting Order members at the MOM. So there was no specific plan to kill Sirius that night, nor did Snape's actions in any way make Sirius go nor did they increase the risk of Sirius getting killed at the MOM. All the Order members who went took the same risk. Dana No, he > wouldn't he would consider it justice being served finally, just as > we see him actively trying to get Sirius soul sucked in PoA, I do not > believe his feelings changed about it one bit and why he is happily > boosting about it in HBP. (he is still claiming it lying or not so > either he did actively participate or is just so happy about it that > he just wished he did, there was no need for him to even claim it) wynnleaf Snape's *feelings* about Sirius dying have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he's guilty of Sirius' death. Nothing Snape did increased the likelihood that Sirius would die at the MOM. Snape -- as you've nicely shown us -- couldn't have *known* the kids went to the forest, so he would have taken some time to figure that out, fully explaining why the Order wasn't alerted right away when the kids went to the forest. Snape didn't ask Sirius to go; he told him to stay. Sirius did not go to the MOM to prove something to Snape, but to save Harry. Sirius stood the same risk of injury or death as other Order members. wynnleaf From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 14:32:35 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:32:35 -0000 Subject: Do Slytherins deserve their bad reputation? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167613 I'm inclined to believe they do. Here's why: 1) The password to the Slytherin common room (in the second year at least) is Pure Blood, which is typical of the attitude of most the members we've met so far. 2) Draco Malfoy and Pansy Parkinson were chosen to be fifth year Prefects. If those people were the only suitable ones available, if doesn't much about the House overall. 3) Every member of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad was a Slytherin and not member of Dumbledore's Army was. I doubt very much that this was a coincidence. Of course, this is just my impression. All the Houses have a few less than stellar members. If I was being sorted, I'd be whispering like Harry, "Not Slytherin, please not Slytherin." Coriandra2002 From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 14:47:01 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:47:01 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > I do think Dumbledore was badly mishandled. (frex: While I can > accept that magically there was no surer way to protect Harry than > sticking him with the Dursleys, that oddly rude little lecture > Dumbledore gave the Dursleys in HBP shook my acceptence that any > sort of wizard interference would have put Harry on the street. > It was an odd choice on JKR's part, IMO.) Well, I think we are back to the problem of the invisible stairs (i.e. the connections between different levels of the story not being very clear). JKR has lived with DD in her head for so long that when he says and does things it is perfectly obvious to HER why he is saying and doing them. She tends to forget it is not so obvious to anyone else. I think this particular instance, the problem began at the end of OOTP. JKR, I think, thought that she was being perfectly clear in DD's speech to Harry. Unfortunately, she thought he was being clear because SHE knew perfectly well what he was trying to say. She didn't understand that it wasn't very clear to someone who doesn't live with this character in their head. When it became evident that images of DD were beginning to circulate that she thought were badly flawed, she tried to "reel him in" in the first part of HBP. As you say, however, the cost of that was raising yet more questions about basic plot situations. BetsyHp: > But I think Dumbledore was a sort of dues ex machina (always > arriving in the nick of time to save the day, but missing for long > enough for things to get really tense first) so I'm not sure JKR > really thought too much about his characterization beyond a unique > quirk or two. Actually, I think there are two DDs, and herein is where at least some of the trouble arises. There is DD the plot device and DD the character, and the actions and attitudes of the one don't always mesh too well with the actions and attitudes of the other. DD the plot device appears in PS/SS to leave Harry at the Dursleys. DD the character now confronts the Dursleys in the first part of HBP. It is in some ways efficient to have a single character carry so much of the plot, but there are a lot of problems with that approach. The DD situation illustrates one of them. Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 16 15:13:33 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:13:33 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167615 Dana: > Pg 732 UKed Paperback > > `When, however you did not return from your trip into the Forest with > Dolorus Umbridge, Professor Snape grew worried that you still > believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's. He alerted > certain Order Members at once.' > > End Quote from Canon. > > If this is truly Snape's account of events then how does he know they > went into the Forest? Pippin: He could have found out from the IS members. They were hit with a couple of stunners, impedimenta, a disarming charm and a bat bogey hex, which means that at most only two of them were unconscious. There were at least five: Bulstrode, Warrington, Malfoy, Crabbe and an unnamed Slytherin sixth year girl. Any of them could have heard the DA say where they were going, or even seen it from the window themselves. But they would have no reason to tell Snape about it immediately. As far as they knew, there really was a weapon, and it wouldn't be something that Umbridge would want Snape to know about, since he had been placed on probation. Snape would also have to be careful that his questions didn't reveal too much -- he would have to keep up his pretence that he didn't know or care what Harry was trying to tell him. Suppose he finally gathers that Harry and Hermione had decoyed Umbridge into the forest and the rest of the DA had gone after them. Considering the state of the IS, Snape would logically conclude that if anybody needs rescuing, it is probably Umbridge, and he needn't be in a hurry to help her. The IS is unlikely to have told Snape that Umbridge threatened to Crucio Harry or that she was the one who sent dementors after him. As far as Snape knows, the worst thing she's done to Harry is keep him from playing Quidditch -- he may not even know about the Quill. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Apr 16 15:32:34 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:32:34 -0000 Subject: Do Slytherins deserve their bad reputation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167616 > Coriandra2002 > I'm inclined to believe they do. Here's why: > > 1) The password to the Slytherin common room (in the second year at > least) is Pure Blood, which is typical of the attitude of most the > members we've met so far. > > 2) Draco Malfoy and Pansy Parkinson were chosen to be fifth year > Prefects. If those people were the only suitable ones available, if > doesn't much about the House overall. > > 3) Every member of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad was a Slytherin and > not member of Dumbledore's Army was. I doubt very much that this was > a coincidence. > > Of course, this is just my impression. All the Houses have a few less > than stellar members. If I was being sorted, I'd be whispering like > Harry, "Not Slytherin, please not Slytherin." Magpie: It depends on what you mean by "bad reputation." As the books have gone on JKR has gotten more explicit about Slytherin being a house where blood matters, yes. Draco and Pansy were obvious choices for Prefects since they seem to be the leaders in their year--but Prefect isn't necessarily a prize for being a good person. Sometimes people are probably made Prefect because the school thinks it would be good for them as well. In terms of how they are within the school, though, there's also years of their reputation probably influencing how they get treated and how they act, which creates more of a reputation, which changes the way they're seen etc. It's been going wrong for years. This goes to your second point--no Slytherin would have been approached to join the DA by anyone involved, and Umbridge offered the house a way to gain an advantage that other houses would probably not have been looking for to begin with. So yes, Slytherin does seem to earn its bad reputation, but that doesn't mean the way Slytherin is viewed by others shows total understanding either. HBP seemed to show that Slytherin had value as a house and as a type. But as the shadow house it's been repressed and become more negative. -m From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 15:43:09 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Giant Squid and Dumbledore's animagus (WAS: Someone else missing from DD's funeral.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <512824.27455.qm@web35011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167617 Ginger wrote: I noticed a pattern here. The times when the squid is not present are times when DD's whereabouts are accounted for. In GoF, DD was on the shore with the rest of the judges. In HBP, he was, of course, dead. Therefore, I have come up with my latest blindingly brilliant <--- sarcasm<--- theory. Dumbledore's animagus form is the Giant Squid. Deborah writes: I have been reading the Giant Squid as a sort of Arthurian lady of the lake. I expect her to present Gryffindor's sword to Harry before all is said and done. I have read many people trying to give Dumbledore an animagus form (squid, bee, phoenix). While I don't doubt he is capable of having one, having been the professor of transfiguration prior to his stint as headmaster, wouldn't we have this information by now? Hermione tells us there were only 7 registered Animagus for the last century, one of whom is Professor McGonagall. I'd think Dumbledore would be on that list if he were one, or at the very least, on the previous century's list. How could Hermione have missed it? Or are we to assume that Dumbledore is among the many unregistered Animagi we have met (James, Sirius, Pettigrew, Rita), which seems to take away from setting them up as such a rare occurrence in the first place? I didn't get the impression Ginger is married to this theory, but I am curious as to why so many want to attribute an animagus to Dumbledore. Deborah From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 16:07:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:07:37 -0000 Subject: Adapting tradition via elves, ghosts, and poltergeists (Was: One Dore [etc.]) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167618 Magpie: > > Peeves is the personification of the spirit of chaos, period. His origins are mysterious, but he was never alive as a human. He's always just been an entity, it seems. > > Barry wrote: > A nice description. But here is a definition from Wikipedia: > Poltergeist... German for noisy ghost > Carol responds: Magpie's description is JKR's own, which I also quoted in an earlier post. I also cited the Lexicon's entry on Peeves, which gives a clear idea of Peeves the Poltergeist as JKR conceives him. Yes, your etymology is the one Wikipedia gives for "poltergeist," but it's not quiet accurate. "Geist" actually means "spirit," not "ghost," as in "zeitgeist," the spirit of the time (or age). Moreover, JKR is not using Wikipedia as her source for poltergeists, any more than she's using it for her depiction of the Giant Squid or owls. Her magical creatures, whether they're magical versions of common animals or adaptations of beings from mythology and folklore, do not exactly correspond with the depictions of other authors, ancient, medieval, or modern of similar creatures. Let me illustrate what I'm talking about using JKR's elves (house-elves being possibly just one species or variant of elves though we don't see any others). Here's part of what Wikipedia (which, BTW, is not the ultimate authority on all subjects) says about elves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf "The earliest preserved description of elves comes from Norse mythology. Although the concept itself is never clearly defined in the extant sources, elves appear to have been conceived as powerful and beautiful human-sized beings. They are commonly described as semi-divine beings associated with fertility and the cult of the ancestors." Carol again: You can see from this description where Tolkien's Elves came from (minus the fertility and ancestor cult aspects), but it has no relation to JKR's house-elves. Later on, there's this segment: "The elf makes many appearances in ballads of English and Scottish origin, as well as folk tales, many involving trips to Elphame or Elfland (the ?lfheim of Norse mythology), a mystical realm which is sometimes an eerie and unpleasant place. The elf is occasionally portrayed in a positive light, such as the Queen of Elphame in the ballad Thomas the Rhymer, but many examples exist of elves of sinister character." Carol: Again, no relation to the Pottervers but a definite connection to Tolkien's Faerie. Wikipedia resumed: "English folktales of the early modern period typically portray elves as small, elusive people with mischievous personalities. They are not evil but might annoy humans or interfere in their affairs. They are sometimes said to be invisible. In this tradition, elves became more or less synonymous with the fairies that originated from native British mythology . "Successively, the word elf, as well as literary term fairy, evolved to a general denotation of various nature spirits like pwcca, hobgoblin, Robin Goodfellow, the Scots brownie, and so forth. These terms, like their relatives in other European languages, are no longer clearly distinguished in popular folklore. "Significant for the distancing of the concept of elves from its mythological origins was the influence from literature. In Elizabethan England, William Shakespeare imagined elves as little people. He apparently considered elves and fairies to be the same race. "In Victorian literature, elves usually appeared in illustrations as tiny men and women with pointed ears and stocking caps." The article then mentions Snata's elves, the Keebler elves, and Snap, crackle, and Pop from the Rice Krispies commercials, all variations on this debased modern conception of elves. Sorry for the long segment, but my point is that not one of these elves from mythology, folklore, or literature exactly corresponds to JKR's house-elves. Like Shakespeare and Drayton and the Kellogg's ad writers, she has adapted the concept to her own uses. The same can be said of her ghosts, which don't exactly correspond to the Wikipedia definition, either. Wikipedia says of ghosts: "A ghost is usually defined as the apparition of a deceased person, frequently similar in appearance to that person, and encountered in places he or she frequented, or in association with the person's former belongings. The word "ghost" may also refer to the spirit or soul of a deceased person, or to any spirit or demon.[1][2] Ghosts are often associated with haunting, which is, according to the Parapsychological Association, "the more or less regular occurrence of paranormal phenomena associated with a particular locality (especially a building) and usually attributed to the activities of a discarnate entity; the phenomena may include apparitions, poltergeist disturbances, cold drafts, sounds of steps and voices, and various odors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost JKR's ghosts are neither apparitions nor souls/spirits. They are real (within her world) and they are "imprints of departed souls," to quote Snape, not the departed soul itself. They are certainly not demons, nor are they a "paranormal phenomenon." I think that you're trying to make JKR's ghosts and poltergeists into the paranormal phenomena they are sometimes depicted as being in horror movies and TV shows about exorcising spirits. that is simply not what JKR's ghosts and poltergeists are like, any more than her witches are wicked old women who eat children, as in "Hansel and Gretel." (That role she seems to have passed on to hags.) Carol, apologizing for the long post but trying to say that JKR's poltergeist does not conform to the definition you are trying to impose on him From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 16 16:45:35 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:45:35 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167619 > Dana: > > Pg 732 UKed Paperback > > > > `When, however you did not return from your trip into the Forest with > > Dolorus Umbridge, Professor Snape grew worried that you still > > believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's. He alerted > > certain Order Members at once.' > > > > End Quote from Canon. > > > > If this is truly Snape's account of events then how does he know they > > went into the Forest? > > Pippin: > He could have found out from the IS members. They were hit with > a couple of stunners, impedimenta, a disarming charm and a bat > bogey hex, which means that at most only two of them were > unconscious. There were at least five: Bulstrode, Warrington, > Malfoy, Crabbe and an unnamed Slytherin sixth year girl. Any of > them could have heard the DA say where they were going, or > even seen it from the window themselves. > > But they would have no reason to tell Snape about it immediately. > As far as they knew, there really was a weapon, and it wouldn't > be something that Umbridge would want Snape to know about, > since he had been placed on probation. Snape would also have > to be careful that his questions didn't reveal too much -- he > would have to keep up his pretence that he didn't know or > care what Harry was trying to tell him. > > Suppose he finally gathers that Harry and Hermione had > decoyed Umbridge into the forest and the rest of the DA had > gone after them. Considering the state of the IS, Snape > would logically conclude that if anybody needs rescuing, it is > probably Umbridge, and he needn't be in a hurry to help > her. > > The IS is unlikely to have told Snape that Umbridge > threatened to Crucio Harry or that she was the one > who sent dementors after him. As far as Snape knows, the > worst thing she's done to Harry is keep him from playing > Quidditch -- he may not even know about the Quill. wynnleaf Excellent post, Pippin. After my last post, I did think that possibly the IS overheard a DA member say something like "Look, they're going into the forest," although this assumes that the window they looked out of was in the same room as the IS fight. Still, this is a possible way for Snape to have learned for certain that they went into the forest, but as you say, he probably wouldn't have found this out for some time. wynnleaf From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 16 17:28:59 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:28:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Suggested timeline for the Battle of the Ministry Message-ID: <19905493.1176744539343.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167620 From: Dana >I am not arguing Snape being responsible for Sirius death just to >make that clear, well not in this context. What I am arguing is that >Snape as an Order Member should have been more concerned with Harry >safety and letting Umbridge take Harry into the Forest without an >apparent reason still falls within that category and if he had taken >this a little more seriously instead of just waiting to see if they >ever come out of it, then yes he could have prevented a lot of the >things that happened that night. Bart: A) Snape almost certainly knew the Pink Toad was not a DE. B) Toadie didn't take Harry & Hermy into the FF, it was the other way around. C) Snape, having heard the account from the Slytherin Squad, figured that it was a distraction, knew that Hermione (and even Harry) could easily outsmart the Toad. It was only when they didn't come back that Snape realized there was a problem. Now, the timeframe was purposefully kept vague by the authoress, but we can figure that it was at least 2 hours between Snape getting the head's up and the attack on the Ministry, and probably more like 4-5 hours. So I'm guesstimating the following timeline: Hour zero - Harry informs Snape about the problem. 00:15 - Hermione tricks the Toad. 00:20 - Snape determines that Harry was sent a fake message. Does not yet send out a general alert. 00:30-01:00 - Snape is informed as to Hermione's plan; the earlier time is if he goes to the Toad's office, the later time is assuming that he was called in to help by the slitherings (does Draco have a cousin Ralfoy who is always telling jokes?). 1:20 - H&H are saved from the centaurs by Grawp. 1:40 - Dumbledore's Army of Five Fighting Youngsters start gathering Thestrals. 2:00 - DAFFY is on their way. 2:00 - Snape figures that even Harry could have outsmarted Toadie by now. 3:00 - 4:00 DAFFY arrives at the Ministry 4:00 - Snape, realizing that the DAFFY's have gone to the Ministry, says "Oops!" and alerts them. 4:20 - The daffies start fighting the deathies. 4:30 - The deathies take one look and also say, "oops!" Bart > >If you have the specific care of a person and he is in the presence >of someone that has tried to destroy him all year even if she is >supposed to be one of the good guys, then would you leave that person >out of your sight long enough to let that someone take him to a >location that is known to contain some pretty dangerous creatures? >No, you wouldn't, at least I wouldn't. I see a lot of but Snape >couldn't have done this or that or couldn't have known this or that, >but it was his job to find out one way or the other and the >resourceful mind will find a way to do it even if it seems >impossible. > >The Order don't let Harry out of their sight, not even if he goes to >Hogsmeade with a large group of friends so why does Snape let this >happen without trying to find him because according to DD Snape never >went looking for him but just intended to search the forest at the >moment he already suspects him to be off to the DoM and yes, I do >agree with Neri, the time it takes the Order to arrive is suspicious >especially because DD wants us to believe Snape alerted them >immediately after he found out Harry's gone missing. So when did >Snape start worrying after half an hour, an hour or just when it >started to turn dark and the 4 others that have gone missing too, >that were not in the care of Umbridge did not arouse Snape to go look >for them sooner either? > >I did look at the scene again and Hermione never tells Umbridge were >the weapon is hidden, Ron tells Harry he saw them enter the Forest >and they followed. So if we assume DD is correct that Snape waited >for Harry to return from his trip with Umbridge, there is still >something not quite right. > >This is what DD says and unless we should assume DD is lying then >this information is a correct account of what Snape did. > >Pg 732 UKed Paperback > >`When, however you did not return from your trip into the Forest with >Dolorus Umbridge, Professor Snape grew worried that you still >believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's. He alerted >certain Order Members at once.' > >End Quote from Canon. > >If this is truly Snape's account of events then how does he know they >went into the Forest? He could not have known unless he watched >either Harry himself enter the Forest or the other 4 kids. If so then >he should have followed and not just sit back and wait. It took him >an awful long time to start getting worried because as we see on how >long it takes the Order to arrive at the DoM and Snape's supposed >immediate alert and the immediate departure of the Order to the DoM >indicates Snape waited a very long time for Harry's return that never >came. > >He should have made it his business to see to it, Harry remained safe >and if he had, then Harry would not have ended up at the DoM. > >So in that sense Snape's actions, to me, still makes him responsible >for the whole event to take place but not for the individual actions >of other people in these same events. Well at least not at this >moment. We could find out in DH Snape's timing was deliberate because >he knew the time DD was about to arrive at HQ from his previous >contact with Sirius and why he choose that moment because he knew if >DD was not there, it would make Sirius rush out to go to Harry's aid >and no one but DD could stop him and waiting would have given the DEs >enough time to finish the job (although we see they failed miserably >at it). Snape could not have foreseen Bellatrix killing Sirius off >but the chance that Sirius would have been caught by the MoM was ever >so great as we have seen with other Order Members on watch duty, >especially if the DEs would have left before the Order arrived. > >I am not saying this will ever be but canon does not dispute Snape's >own claim in HBP that he was responsible for Sirius death and to >answer your question would Snape feel bad Sirius died? No, he >wouldn't he would consider it justice being served finally, just as >we see him actively trying to get Sirius soul sucked in PoA, I do not >believe his feelings changed about it one bit and why he is happily >boosting about it in HBP. (he is still claiming it lying or not so >either he did actively participate or is just so happy about it that >he just wished he did, there was no need for him to even claim it) > >JMHO > >Dana > > > > > > > >Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel plans now! > >Phoenix Rising: New Orleans, May 17 - 21 http://www.thephoenixrises.org/ >Enlightening 2007: Philadelphia, July 12 - 15 http://enlightening2007.org/ >Sectus: London, July 19 - 22 http://www.sectus.org/index.php >Prophecy 2007: Toronto, August 2 - 5 http://hp2007.org/ > >Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > From tobyfoot23 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 18:30:39 2007 From: tobyfoot23 at yahoo.com (tobyfoot23) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:30:39 -0000 Subject: The Giant Squid and Dumbledore's animagus (WAS: Someone else missing from DD's funeral.) In-Reply-To: <512824.27455.qm@web35011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167621 Ginger: >---Hermione tells us there were only 7 registered Animagus for the >last century, one of whom is Professor McGonagall. I'd think >Dumbledore would be on that list if he were one, or at the very least, >on the previous century's list. How could Hermione have missed it? It is my understanding that the list Hermione was looking at was for Animagi that were (first) registered in the current century. Since we're told that DD is approx 150 years old, he could have been registered on last century's list, which Hermione did not check. IMO, we're all just making a big assumption that DD was an Animagus, but would fit with the story. Tobyfoot23, making her grand entrance from lurker to poster. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Apr 16 18:44:27 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:44:27 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167622 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Ken: > > > > I cannot believe that JKR chose to make these mistakes. A certain > > number of mistakes are unavoidable and we would not criticize > > her for a normal amount of mistakes. The quantity and kind of mistakes > > are jarring. Not killing but jarring. Many of the mistakes are the > > kind that *could* have been avoided if the timeline had been as > > carefully planned out as she claims the plot was. > > > > I don't think that Tolkien expected The Hobbit to go anywhere. > > Pippin: > We can make allowances for JKR's circumstances too. > She says that she set aside a certain amount of > time to plan her saga and bring it to market. If she didn't > succeed in that time she was going to give up. Like Harry, > she was living on the deeply begrudged generosity of the > ratepaying class. You can imagine what Vernon would > think of his tax money going to pay some flighty > divorcee to make up stories about wizards and dragons > instead of holding down a real job. > > She couldn't afford an infinite amount of time to > search for errors, nor hire someone to > do it, nor was there at that time an obsessed fanbase > who would have bid on the privelege of doing it for nothing. Ken: Yes, but she didn't stay destitute for very long, did she? Most of these errors have been made since she had the time and money to devote to avoiding them. The constrains she faced in the beginning did not persist for all that long into the series. I've "heard" her cite her limitations with "the maths" several times in explaining errors. I've never heard her appeal to her poverty. > > Ken: > > There is no point in criticizing the Silmarillion, Tolkien never > > finished it > > Pippin: > If there's no point in criticizing the Silmarillion because > it's not finished, how can there be any point in criticizing > the Harry Potter saga, which isn't finished either? > Ken: Each book in the HP series up until now *is* finished. Things that happen in DH might affect our view of some of the apparent errors but most of them are just errors. Tolkien *never* finished even part of the Silmarillion. The version of it that he had in mind when he wrote Lord of the Rings is not the version that his son published decades later. So you certainly can criticize any errors you see within LOTR but errors you see between it and The Silmarillion are actually more likely to be the son's than the father's. Likewise the upcoming "The Children of Hurin" will be as much son as father. Don't expect a warm, fuzzy story either. By contrast there already exists a complete version of the Harry Potter series that is 100% faithful to the author's intentions. We just don't have the last installment yet. Ken From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 16 19:37:43 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:37:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: One Dore closes another Dore opens Message-ID: <23808729.1176752263472.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167623 Geoff: >It has also been pointed out in previous posts that it can also >mean "theft of death". Looking at Voldemort's wish for immortality, >it would seem that both these translations could fit - another >example of JKR's playing with words.... Bart: Perhaps Professor Cooking Sherry should have studied numerology a bit more. "You're going to call you child Remus Lupin? Do you WANT him to be bitten by a werewolf????" Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 19:55:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:55:22 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167624 Ken wrote: > By contrast there already exists a complete version of the Harry > Potter series that is 100% faithful to the author's intentions. We > just don't have the last installment yet. Carol responds: I don't think any book or work of art has even been 100 percent faithful to the author's intentions, even to the extent that the author is fully aware of them. Tolkien said of LOTR, "This tale grew in the telling," and the same is no doubt true of the HP books. JKR has said that some of her characters grew and developed as she wrote about them. Anyone who has ever attempted to write fiction knows that characters will do that. They don't remain as they were originally conceived, and if allowed to do so, they will run away from the author and act in ways that the author did not initially plan. Plot developments also sprout unexpectedly with consequences for the next book, or developments that the author planned don't work out and have to be rewritten from scratch (the Weasley cousin who had to be edited out, for example). An author's unconscious mind also shapes the work without, of course, any such intention (or even perhaps any awareness) on the author's part. Having already published SS/PS, JKR could not go back and rewrite it to bring in what I take to be the new concept of a Squib. She had to live with Neville's remark that his family thought he was "all Muggle for ages"--hardly a thought that a pureblood family would have, but perhaps she hadn't yet come up with the idea that Neville, in contrast to Harry, was a pureblood. The importance of "blood" was quite probably just becoming clear to her. New themes and new ideas occurred to her as she went along. The DADA jinx placed by Voldemort many years earlier may or may not have been planned from the beginning of the series. Maybe she originally intended to have it begin with Harry's entrance into the school but couldn't find a way to make that work. In any case, no manuscript that I'm aware of ever perfectly followed an outline because the outline can't possibly anticipate new developments that occur in the writing. Maybe JKR should have been more systematic, keeping a record of dates and events and knowing exactly where to look to verify every detail. (Hm. Did Ron know about Draco's Hand of Glory? Or did he ever actually purchase the Hand of Glory, as far as Harry or the reader knows? Oops. That one slipped by.) And, of course, she *is* deliberately planting both hints and red herrings and misdirecting both the reader and Harry by having him overhear, or hear at secondhand, incomplete conversations. And sometimes, a character is simply wrong in his or her interpretation of an event or another character and we can't know that until the truth comes out. (I'm quite sure that JKR fully intended for Hermione's explanation of Tonks's uncharacteristic behavior in HBP to be wrong, for example. We have yet to find out who, if anyone, is right about Snape's.) So we're dealing, first, with a set of books that is still incomplete from our perspective as readers. It's premature to judge the whole based on 6/7. we're also dealing with a tricky, slippery author who likes to misdiredt use. And we're dealing with a human being who, like all human beings, makes mistakes. We've all misremembered scenes from her books (well, I have and I know others on this list who have). Human memory is not, unfortunately, as accurate as the objective memories that a wizard places in a Pensieve. It's unfortunate that the copyeditors haven't caught all the inconsistencies and called them to her attention to be corrected before publication, but copyeditors are human, too, and their time and resources are limited. JKR may be exempt from deadlines; copyeditors aren't. JKR is not writing about the real world and cannot, therefore, write from experience (though certain elements of the books reflect or perhaps parody their RW equivalents). She is not working from a thoroughly invented Secondary World complete with maps and a history (subject to revision as inconsistencies and improbabilities crop up). She's creating her world as she goes along, and certain elements, such as moving staircases at Hogwarts, tend to be left behind as the characters develop and the themes become more complex. Her vision of the later books and the characters who inhabit their pages could not possibly have been clear. All she had was a general idea of where the books were going, certain events that had to occur in each year, and she had to fit the whole series into a preconceived seven-year framework. Show me a book that doesn't contain any errors or inconsistencies and I'll show you a book written by perfect beings who don't exist on this planet. To err is human; to forgive divine. Let him who has never made a mistake cast the first tomato. Of course, we have every right to criticize JKR and point out her inconsistencies or perceived inconsistencies. We can try, as Pippin does with the Hand of Glory, to find what we consider a plausible explanation for the discrepancy between CoS and HBP on that point. We can argue, as Steve does, that the two eavesdropping accounts are just incomplete, not inconsistent, as they appear to other readers (including me). Or we can disagree with both of these interpretations and perceive the inconsistencies as Flints, for which there are plenty of precedents. But it really seems unfair to expect an author who sees herself as a writer of children's books, and who seems to be focusing primarily on plot, secondarily on characters and themes, and who seems to be quite consciously manipulating the point of view for her own purposes, to be overly concerned with world-building. Her world is our world with a difference, not a long-ago and faraway Secondary World. Let the reader worry about how Time-Turners work or how Hogwarts could have had modern plumbing when the CoS was built. Those things are not what JKR is focusing on, as far as I can determine. And, unlike Tolkien, she doesn't have time to write and rewrite the books "backwards." The previous books are already published and their essentials are established, flaws, inconsistencies and all. Aragorn started out as a hobbit name Trotter, for crying out loud. Imagine what would have happened had Tolkien retained that initial conception of his story. But he didn't have to publish the earlier "books" (using his division into six books) sequentially, with the events of the first books set in stone as Frodo approached Mount Doom. It's just not fair to JKR expect an equal consistency in the HP books. Carol, who thought that her own standards of perfection were impossibly high until she read this thread From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 16 19:55:40 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:55:40 -0000 Subject: One Dore closes another Dore opens In-Reply-To: <23808729.1176752263472.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Geoff: > >It has also been pointed out in previous posts that it can also > >mean "theft of death". Looking at Voldemort's wish for immortality, > >it would seem that both these translations could fit - another > >example of JKR's playing with words.... Bart: > Perhaps Professor Cooking Sherry should have studied numerology a bit more. > > "You're going to call you child Remus Lupin? Do you WANT him to be bitten by a werewolf????" Geoff: I'm not sure I quite catch your drift here.... You seem to be suggesting that if you, as a Lupin, gave your child the first name of Remus, you are throwing out a challenge to destiny to see that he is bitten by a werewolf. OK. But Voldemort isn't his given name; it was no mistake of a parent. Tom Riddle himself set up the anagram to give "flight/theft of death" And even that was a wangle, because he had to lose the letters for "I am" to make this snappy nom-de-guerre work. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 16 20:23:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:23:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do Slytherins deserve their bad reputation? Message-ID: <6818480.1176755013213.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167626 From: coriandra2002 >Of course, this is just my impression. All the Houses have a few less >than stellar members. If I was being sorted, I'd be whispering like >Harry, "Not Slytherin, please not Slytherin." Bart: There is an interesting book on the market, called "Sales Dogs". It's essentially written for sales managers, comparing various types of salesmen to various breeds of dogs (like the "chihuahuah"; knows all the technical details of the product, and can go on for hours and hours, or the "doberman", who always takes charge of the room, etc.). The idea is how to take advantage of each "breeds" strong points and cover their weak points. Now, let's take a look at house personalities, and police-type work: 1) Gryffindors: They would stagnate with clerical work or staying behind the lines, and are too foolhardy for undercover work. But for front line type work, such as making arrests, swat teams, marshalls, or backup for undercovers, witness protection, etc., they would do great. 2) Hufflepuffs: Their ability to handle tedium and hard work would make them good for positions requiring patience, such as management positions (desk sergeant up to precinct commander), clerical positions, evidence gathering, and lab assistants. Also good for stakeouts. But they would not be good for positions requiring rapid thinking such as undercover assignments or front line work. 3) Ravenclaw: Their high intelligence and quick thinking would make them good for crime scene investigation and lab work, dectection, profiling, etc. But they think too much for work that requires acting on reflex, such as front line work. Also, would probably not be good in management or other work that includes a lot of repetitive action. 4) Slytherin: These are your undercover guys; the ones you know will get out of a bad situation before it becomes untenable. Also, they know all the tricks, so they would be good for internal affairs. Just don't put them in charge. In the books, we only see the worst of Slytherin; I am STILL annoyed that JKR didn't put a single Slytherin into the DA (while whistling, "Weasley is Our King"). But the fact that the hat (AND Dumbledore) said that Harry would have done well in that house shows that, although the temptation is there. Besides, I've developed a fondness for Finny Black; even though he's a portrait, he is one of the very few adult types who was always straight with Harry (others include Minny the Cat, Nick, and, hmmm.... can anybody think of anybody else?). Bart Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 20:42:51 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:42:51 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167627 > >>Betsy Hp: > > It does mean that any theories based on time (minutes, hours, > > days, years) are doomed to possibly end up in the "oh dear, > > maths" trash pile. > > > >>Pippin: > A lot of theories based on what turned out to be sequencing errors > have bitten the dust. But we know that they were sequencing errors > because JKR fixed them. She swapped 'descendant' for 'ancestor', > she re-wrote the wand order, and she's had plenty of time to > insert some information about what Lupin was doing while Sirius > was in jail, Pettigrew was in hiding, and James was a-moldering in > his grave. It wouldn't even contradict anything that's already > there. But she hasn't. If that was the only gap in Lupin's history > it wouldn't amount to much, I agree. But he's been MIA in every > book. Betsy Hp: Yeah, but so has Charlie's quidditch cup. JKR's never fixed that. So does that mean there's some deeper mystery attached to Charlie being one of the best seekers ever without ever winning a season? Or does it mean that it was a color commentary that got messed up with JKR's inability to use a calculator? Of course you could well be right and there is something dark about Lupin's not talking about the time between the opening chapter of PS/SS and PoA. Or, he could have been a clerk in a store in France, carefully sewing patches onto his patches. > >>Pippin: > > IMO, if you can connect the dots from book to book with some > consistency, and the outcome would have some obvious relevance to > the plot, you've got a real clue, not a mistake. > > I guess we're not bothered by the same things, if you see > the Hand of Glory as a great big deal but the things I mentioned > in PS/SS didn't bother you. They jarred me on first reading because > they seemed senseless. > Betsy Hp: Oh, I can totally tell we're not. That you don't understand what a contradiction Draco having the hand is to what we'd learned about the character tells me such. It's the equivilant of Lupin mentioning his long term job at Fortescue's icecream shop (or more properly, Flitwick mentioning it as something everyone knows about). I mean, it doesn't change the plot of the series, but it sure plays havoc with our understanding of the character. [pulled from another post] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167571 > >>Pippin: > > So where is the problem with Draco getting the hand and Ron knowing > what it is and that he had one? > > As a prefect Ron had opportunities to be near Draco when Harry > wasn't there. It's not wizard contraband. It was openly for sale. > If Draco bought it before he planned to use it in a secret plot, > I'd expect him to brag. > What am I missing? Betsy Hp: You're missing what all the rest of us are missing: a scene or comment when the above was established. I'd also add that *how* Draco got the Hand should have been an important insight into the character. Did he defy his father's obvious distaste for the sort of people who'd own such a thing and buy it on his own? Did his mother defy Lucius and get the hand for Draco? Did Lucius change his mind? That's why Draco's ownership is such a flint, IMO, beyond Harry's sneaking the Marauder's map from Fake!Moody's office. While Harry snagging his map is completely in character, Draco getting the hand actually goes *against* how he's been presented up until now. If Lucius sneered at the Hand, Draco would sneer at the Hand from then on. Something occurred to change that, either with Lucius or with Draco. Or, more likely, JKR recalled mentioning the hand and Draco together and forgot that the mention had to do with Draco *not* getting the hand. [back to this post] > >>Pippin: > > There are multiple times in canon where items disappear or > reappear, and JKR doesn't always let us know immediately. The > leprechaun gold, various invisibility cloaks, the marauders map, > and so forth. IMO, something's up with that. The clue here is not, > maybe, that the hand itself is important but that we should be > alert that items may not be where we think they are. Harry's > invisibility cloak is AWOL at the moment. The complacent assumption > is that JKR so far omitted to write that he got it back...but we'll > see. Betsy Hp: This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Leprechaun gold fades as established, quite carefully, by canon. Harry leaves his invisibility cloak behind once, and Dumbledore returns it. I frankly think it was a bit sloppy not showing Harry snagging his map back (again, asking a question JKR didn't mean to ask) but JKR gave an interview and cleared it up. And I'd note that she was surprised that readers were confused. So, not a stylistic choice. If Harry suddenly shows up with invisibility cloak in hand, that'll be another sloppy mistake on JKR's part, IMO. > >>Betsy Hp: > > But I still think the books are meant to be a bit of an escape, a > > nice armchair adventure where good will triumph over evil. I'll > > be interested to see if they're meant to be something more. > >>Pippin: > What's Dolores Umbridge doing in a book like that? Betsy Hp: Playing the part of evil. > >>Pippin: > If good always triumphed over evil, would Sirius be dead? Or Cedric? > Or even the poor unicorn in Book One? > Betsy Hp: Of course! Killing the good and innocent (red shirts, IOWs) is how one establishes evil, or tells us just how evil the evil is. But the end will more than likely show good triumphant and evil thoroughly chastened if not out and out destroyed. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167614 > >>Lupinlore: > > Actually, I think there are two DDs, and herein is where at least > some of the trouble arises. There is DD the plot device and DD the > character, and the actions and attitudes of the one don't always > mesh too well with the actions and attitudes of the other. DD the > plot device appears in PS/SS to leave Harry at the Dursleys. DD the > character now confronts the Dursleys in the first part of HBP. It > is in some ways efficient to have a single character carry so much > of the plot, but there are a lot of problems with that approach. > The DD situation illustrates one of them. Betsy Hp: Oh my goodness, Lupinlore. Prepare yourself. ::takes a deep breath:: I. Agree. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167565 > >>Neri: > This is not what I meant. I never wrote that the HP series was a > parody. It most certainly isn't. What I did write was that the *WW* > is a parody. Betsy Hp: If that was the goal, I think JKR would have done better to write the Muggle world much more realistically, so that the reader gets the switch between realism and parody. Instead I think it gets a bit confusing. Plus, aren't we supposed to take the current WW war seriously? Isn't Voldemort supposed to be a real threat, not just a parody of one? > >>Neri: > > IOW, the HP series is a realistic/fantasy plot superimposed over a > parody *background*. > This paradoxical combination naturally results in a few clashes, > but mostly it works surprisingly well. The readers usually know > immediately what was intended as parody, and therefore should not be > taken seriously, and what was intended as realism. > Betsy Hp: Like how when "good guys" get tortured it's a heart-wrenching and terrible thing, but when "bad guys" get tortured it's cartoonish and funny? Or is it more that we shouldn't take the MoM or the WW news system seriously... except when they mess with our hero? Slavery is wrong, until it's Harry who owns the slave? The interesting this is, I think you may well be right. And I have a hope that JKR is using the parody technique to set up some interesting ethical and philisophical questions that will be resolved, or maybe just revealed in DH. My *fear* is JKR chose to use this sort of technique and it's run away from her and now she's stuck writing about so-called good guys who actually do some pretty horrible things all in the name of parody. > >>Neri: > The interesting thing is that, for me at least (and I think for many > other readers) JKR's parody successfully generates a *more* > believable world than if she was deliberately attempting serious > world building. > > Sure, it's fun to play world building in the Potterverse and I do > it a lot myself, but I don't see much point in blaming the Author > for not doing well something she has never intended to do. Betsy Hp: I get that. For me, the issues come in when the lack of some sort of basic foundation leads to a few jarring mistakes. And it also, IMO, steals a bit of depth from the series. But of course that's more of an aesthetics thing. I do wonder if JKR meant for her readers to see the WW as such a brutal and ugly place, but I think that goes back to the question or whether or not she *meant* to posit the various ethical dilemmas that pop up throughout the books http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167624 > >>Carol: > > But it really seems unfair to expect an author who sees > herself as a writer of children's books, and who seems to be > focusing primarily on plot, secondarily on characters and themes, > and who seems to be quite consciously manipulating the point of > view for her own purposes, to be overly concerned with world- > building. Her world is our world with a difference, not a long-ago > and faraway Secondary World. > Betsy Hp: For one, doesn't JKR bristle at the idea that she's writing "children's books"? For another, I think what's being pointed out is that *not* being "overly concerned with world- building" has not served her well. And finally, interestingly enough I read JKR more for her characters than her plot. Weird, huh? Betsy Hp From va32h at comcast.net Mon Apr 16 22:16:16 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:16:16 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167628 Betsy Hp wrote: > That you don't understand what > a contradiction Draco having the hand is to what we'd learned about > the character tells me such. (snip) > You're missing what all the rest of us are missing: a scene or > comment when the above was established. I'd also add that *how* > Draco got the Hand should have been an important insight into the > character. Did he defy his father's obvious distaste for the sort of people who'd own such a thing and buy it on his own? Did his mother defy Lucius and get the hand for Draco? Did Lucius change his mind? That's why Draco's ownership is such a flint, IMO, beyond Harry's > sneaking the Marauder's map from Fake!Moody's office. While Harry > snagging his map is completely in character, Draco getting the hand > actually goes *against* how he's been presented up until now. If > Lucius sneered at the Hand, Draco would sneer at the Hand from then > on. Something occurred to change that, either with Lucius or with > Draco. Or, more likely, JKR recalled mentioning the hand and Draco > together and forgot that the mention had to do with Draco *not* > getting the hand. va32h here: I don't think Draco's getting the hand behind his father's back is a change in character for Draco. One of the first things we hear Draco say - ever - is "I think I'll bully Father" into letting him bring a forbidden broom to school. Of course we know he didn't *succeed* in that quest, but he was certainly willing to try. And at this stage of the story, Lucius is not only in jail, but he is Voldemort's least favorite Death Eater, and Draco is quite puffed up about being given the assignment that is supposed to redeem the Malfoy name. I have no trouble seeing Draco willing to defy the wishes of a father whose incompetence got him in jail and on the wrong side of Voldemort. We aren't shown Draco acquiring the Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder either, but apparently he did. So my assumption was that he obtained the two objects at the same time - perhaps he saw the Darkness Powder in the Weasley's Wizard Wheezes catalog and thought of the Hand - and ordered them both by mail or asked one of the DEs assigned to his project to obtain them. I do agree that Ron shouldn't have recognized it, unless Harry gave a remarkably detailed description four years ago to Ron - but the dialogue for Ron is certainly written as if Ron recognized it as a matter of course, and that is a continuity blip. But it's not keeping me awake at night, quite honestly. Betsy Hp: > For one, doesn't JKR bristle at the idea that she's > writing "children's books"? For another, I think what's being > pointed out is that *not* being "overly concerned with world- > building" has not served her well. And finally, interestingly enough > I read JKR more for her characters than her plot. Weird, huh? va32h here: Actually I thought it was the complete opposite. I certainly don't think she finds it insulting to be considered a children's author, if that is what you mean. I am having trouble finding an indicative quote, because the word's "Children's author" bring up pretty much every interview on accio-quote - because the interviews all begin "children's author JK Rowling says..." But then I don't seem to find anything written anywhere that says she hates being called a children's author either... However I did find this quote: "I loathe books that have inconsistencies and leave questions unanswered. Loopholes bug the h**l out of me ... so I try to be meticulous and make sure that everything operates according to laws, however odd, so that everyone understands exactly how and why." Syndney Morning Herald 2001. So I am not sure I would say that Jo is *NOT* concerned with world building. I'd say she's human - and as such makes mistakes. And apparently her editors are human too, because really, we avid readers are certainly a bright lot, but we aren't possessed of singular brilliance. If JKR and her various editors failed to catch or correct plot anomalies - they are probably not considered substantial enough to notice or correct. va32h From hpcentaur at yahoo.com Mon Apr 16 22:35:18 2007 From: hpcentaur at yahoo.com (hpcentaur) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:35:18 -0000 Subject: What was James Potter's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167629 What was James Potter's Patronus animal? hpcentaur From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 01:13:53 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:13:53 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167630 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > While Harry snagging his map is completely in character, Draco > > getting the hand actually goes *against* how he's been presented > > up until now. If Lucius sneered at the Hand, Draco would sneer > > at the Hand from then on. Something occurred to change that, > > either with Lucius or with Draco. Or, more likely, JKR recalled > > mentioning the hand and Draco together and forgot that the > > mention had to do with Draco *not* getting the hand. > >>va32h here: > I don't think Draco's getting the hand behind his father's back is > a change in character for Draco. One of the first things we hear > Draco say - ever - is "I think I'll bully Father" into letting him > bring a forbidden broom to school. Of course we know he didn't > *succeed* in that quest, but he was certainly willing to try. Betsy Hp: Well, yes, just as Draco was willing to *ask* for the Hand. However, while I seriously doubt Lucius sneered at the idea of Draco owning a racing broom (when he was old enough to have one), he doesn't seem to think highly of the idea of Draco owning something connected to thieves. And Draco, all the way through the end of HBP, never seems less than worshipful of his dad. For him to, not just defy his father, but to do something his dad thinks beneath him, is a pretty big change, IMO. >>va32h: > And at this stage of the story, Lucius is not only in jail, but he > is Voldemort's least favorite Death Eater, and Draco is quite > puffed up about being given the assignment that is supposed to > redeem the Malfoy name. I have no trouble seeing Draco willing to > defy the wishes of a father whose incompetence got him in jail and > on the wrong side of Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Ooh, you're not taking into consideration the Malfoy family take on how Lucius ended up in jail. I seriously doubt either mother or son agree that it was Lucius's incompetence. Draco (as per the end of OotP) blames Harry, and Narcissa (a lot more correctly, IMO) blames Bellatrix. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Draco, in his secret heart of hearts, might be blaming his dad for the mess he's in. But I'm not sure Draco ever got around to confronting that feeling. I think the closest he got was his rejection of Snape. > >>va32h: > We aren't shown Draco acquiring the Peruvian Instant Darkness > Powder either, but apparently he did. So my assumption was that he > obtained the two objects at the same time - perhaps he saw the > Darkness Powder in the Weasley's Wizard Wheezes catalog and thought > of the Hand - and ordered them both by mail or asked one of the DEs > assigned to his project to obtain them. Betsy Hp: I *know*. Lord, and it would have been so *easy* for Ron to just say something to the effect of, "he had a hand of glory". Then Harry could make the connection, and we readers could assume Draco got it when he got his other supplies. But there wouldn't be the suggestion that JKR thought she'd had Draco get the hand back in CoS. (And perhaps in future editions, this mistake will be fixed.) > >>va32h: > I do agree that Ron shouldn't have recognized it, unless Harry gave > a remarkably detailed description four years ago to Ron - but the > dialogue for Ron is certainly written as if Ron recognized it as a > matter of course, and that is a continuity blip. But it's not > keeping me awake at night, quite honestly. Betsy Hp: Me neither. But this *is* an example of a continuity error on JKR's part. > >>Betsy Hp: > > For one, doesn't JKR bristle at the idea that she's > > writing "children's books"? For another, I think what's being > > pointed out is that *not* being "overly concerned with world- > > building" has not served her well. And finally, interestingly > > enough I read JKR more for her characters than her plot. Weird, > > huh? > >>va32h here: > Actually I thought it was the complete opposite. I certainly don't > think she finds it insulting to be considered a children's author, > if that is what you mean. > Betsy Hp: I think it was more that she didn't like the idea that her books were *merely* children's books, in that they were somehow lesser than. I can't recall the quote, but I think she said something to the effect of not coming at the series as if she were writing children's books. (And now that I think on it, I think she did specifically say she's not at all insulted to be called a children's author.) > >>va32h: > However I did find this quote: "I loathe books that have > inconsistencies and leave questions unanswered. Loopholes bug the > h**l out of me ... so I try to be meticulous and make sure that > everything operates according to laws, however odd, so that > everyone understands exactly how and why." Syndney Morning Herald > 2001. > > So I am not sure I would say that Jo is *NOT* concerned with world > building. I'd say she's human - and as such makes mistakes. And > apparently her editors are human too, because really, we avid > readers are certainly a bright lot, but we aren't possessed of > singular brilliance. If JKR and her various editors failed to catch > or correct plot anomalies - they are probably not considered > substantial enough to notice or correct. Betsy Hp: Well, that certainly puts paid to the idea that she's *not* trying to effectively build a logical world. While we obsessive readers have found quite a verity of mistakes, how important they are will come down to how well loved JKR's books are after the end is upon us, I think. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Apr 17 02:07:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:07:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building And The Potterverse References: Message-ID: <004901c78095$2222b1d0$23b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167631 >> >>va32h here: >> I don't think Draco's getting the hand behind his father's back is >> a change in character for Draco. One of the first things we hear >> Draco say - ever - is "I think I'll bully Father" into letting him >> bring a forbidden broom to school. Of course we know he didn't >> *succeed* in that quest, but he was certainly willing to try. Magpie: I don't think his getting something behind his father's back is so OOC either, but not based on the bullying line. That line is about claiming Lucius is on board with anything Draco wants to do. It's exactly that fantasy father he claims to have in PS that's replaced in the BB scene by the real Lucius who can't be bullied and doesn't dote on Draco. One of the many ways we see this is Lucius not caring if Draco wants the Hand of Glory or not. I can fill in Draco's having bought it himself or getting it later (actually, I might even imagine a whole psychological thing where Draco needed to get the Hand not because he thought he'd need it so badly, but because it was a way of sort of undoing the way Lucius behaved in the scene, if that makes sense. He might tell everyone that his father just bought it for him as if he loved to shower him with gifts). It did, however, ping me as a technical mistake more jarring than Harry getting his map back. Because this is a supporting character with fewer scenes and things to juggle, and in one important scene he doesn't have something, and Ron's line years later seems like it's referencing the CoS scene. Even more, I could swear JKR once referred to the Hand Draco got "in CoS" when really she just established it existed and Draco had seen and liked it. It could have been handled easily by just having them describe the shrivelled hand and have Harry say it's the Hand of Glory and explain what it does, having been there in CoS, rather than having Ron suggest they have reason to know Draco has a Hand they'd have little reason to see, but know he has because they remember the B&B scene. >>>va32h: >> And at this stage of the story, Lucius is not only in jail, but he >> is Voldemort's least favorite Death Eater, and Draco is quite >> puffed up about being given the assignment that is supposed to >> redeem the Malfoy name. I have no trouble seeing Draco willing to >> defy the wishes of a father whose incompetence got him in jail and >> on the wrong side of Voldemort. > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, you're not taking into consideration the Malfoy family take on > how Lucius ended up in jail. I seriously doubt either mother or son > agree that it was Lucius's incompetence. Draco (as per the end of > OotP) blames Harry, and Narcissa (a lot more correctly, IMO) blames > Bellatrix. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Draco, in his > secret heart of hearts, might be blaming his dad for the mess he's > in. But I'm not sure Draco ever got around to confronting that > feeling. I think the closest he got was his rejection of Snape. Magpie: Draco seems to be, if anything, working extra hard to not shake his view of his father. It's all or nothing--if he succeeds he'll redeem both of them. Any anger he has at his father I don't think could really be looked at during the year. If he even started down that road he'd probably crack, so he only ever expresses it by challenging Snape. When Snape even brings up his father he storms out. I would like to think Lucius has become a hot button subject for Draco (unlike early in the year when he was able to imagine he was doing this for Lucius, who'd been wrongly imprisoned, and would fix everything asap). >> >>va32h: >> We aren't shown Draco acquiring the Peruvian Instant Darkness >> Powder either, but apparently he did. So my assumption was that he >> obtained the two objects at the same time - perhaps he saw the >> Darkness Powder in the Weasley's Wizard Wheezes catalog and thought >> of the Hand - and ordered them both by mail or asked one of the DEs >> assigned to his project to obtain them. > > Betsy Hp: > I *know*. Lord, and it would have been so *easy* for Ron to just say > something to the effect of, "he had a hand of glory". Then Harry > could make the connection, and we readers could assume Draco got it > when he got his other supplies. But there wouldn't be the suggestion > that JKR thought she'd had Draco get the hand back in CoS. (And > perhaps in future editions, this mistake will be fixed.) Magpie: Right. It's funny, because she's trying to do it the same way. We only need to know the Darkness Powder exists and then it's easy enough to know that Draco's supposed to have purchased it. The Hand of Glory is only surprising because--darn it!--we get this line indicating the author forgot she's talking about something Draco didn't have. If only she'd done it the way you describe, we could just assume he bought it. (It would totally screw up the B&B scene to try to have Lucius buy Draco the Hand, which is why we remember he didn't get it.) >> >>va32h here: >> Actually I thought it was the complete opposite. I certainly don't >> think she finds it insulting to be considered a children's author, >> if that is what you mean. >> > > Betsy Hp: > I think it was more that she didn't like the idea that her books were > *merely* children's books, in that they were somehow lesser than. I > can't recall the quote, but I think she said something to the effect > of not coming at the series as if she were writing children's books. > (And now that I think on it, I think she did specifically say she's > not at all insulted to be called a children's author.) Magpie: Being somebody who also hates the idea that books written for children are supposed to somehow be lesser than books for adults, I believe what she said was that she just wrote the story she wanted to write and it turned out to be a children's book. In the past people have used that quote to try to prove they're not children's books, but of course she's actually validating that's exactly what they are. If they weren't they wouldn't be published by the people who published them. As the series has gone on they've become YA. None of which implies they're supposed to lack continuity, of course. Obviously there's reason for a kids' book to be *more* consistant so they can follow it. I think she's trying to be consistent, but having tons more stuff in her head, it's a lot harder for her than it is for us, who get our canon in neat book-shaped packages. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 02:34:50 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:34:50 -0000 Subject: Do Slytherins deserve their bad reputation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167632 > Coriandra2002: > 1) The password to the Slytherin common room (in the second year at least) is Pure Blood, which is typical of the attitude of most the members we've met so far. Goddlefrood: The passwords for admission to the House Common Rooms can hardly be used to show the prejudices of the House itself. Perhaps it can be shown to be a prejudice on the part of the password keeper. In this case a poor refelction on the guardian of Slytherin, as opposed to Slytherin House itself :) By this token The Fat Lady's first password "Caput Draconis", meaning approximately "off with their heads", would be a poor reflection on Gryffindor as it would equate them to The Queen of Hearts in the Alice books and suggest Gryff's were mad, which of course they are ;) > Coriandra2002 > 2) Draco Malfoy and Pansy Parkinson were chosen to be fifth year Prefects. If those people were the only suitable ones available, if doesn't much about the House overall. Goddlefrood: Perhaps not great when compared to the other non-Slytherin prefects. Ron, of course, was the perfect choice from Gryffindor as a beacon of respectability and responsibility ;). Draco and Pansy were the best choices from within their own house, Dumbledore, if no-one else, would agree with that :) > Coriandra2002 > 3) Every member of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad was a Slytherin and not member of Dumbledore's Army was. I doubt very much that this was a coincidence. Goddlefrood: The six-gilled shark is hardly a good example of a well balanced judge of character. She was seemingly unpopular with other Houses and on that basis alone would have been unlikely to find any willing members of the IS from elsewhere than Slytherin. She also probably bribed them and / or put them and / or their families under threat of Dementor attack. A nasty woman, as I've said before. Slytherin House, by reasonable inference from Uncle Horace's testimony, only became a little ostracised from the other three Houses during and immediately after Tom Riddle's time at Hogwarts. Tom was, naturally, a well balanced individual who thought Slytherin House should take a new course :) Apart from Phineas Nigellus, who has been put forward as a decent Slyth, I also have a fondness for Uncle Horace, and believe him to be decent enough, even if he is a little ideologically challenged ;) when it comes to blood status. That the resolution of the series will also involve a resolution of the conflicts between the Houses is something I have little doubt about. The Sorting Hat will get them all to rally round for the greater good. At least, so I divine :) Goddlefrood From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 03:06:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:06:05 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: <004901c78095$2222b1d0$23b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167633 va32h: > >> I certainly don't think she finds it insulting to be considered a children's author, if that is what you mean. > >> > > > > Betsy Hp: > > I think it was more that she didn't like the idea that her books were *merely* children's books, in that they were somehow lesser than. I can't recall the quote, but I think she said something to the effect of not coming at the series as if she were writing children's books. (And now that I think on it, I think she did specifically say she's not at all insulted to be called a children's author.) > > Magpie: > Being somebody who also hates the idea that books written for children are supposed to somehow be lesser than books for adults, I believe what she said was that she just wrote the story she wanted to write and it turned out to be a children's book. In the past people have used that quote to try to prove they're not children's books, but of course she's actually validating that's exactly what they are. If they weren't they wouldn't be published by the people who published them. As the series has gone on they've become YA. Carol responds: I'm not sure which interviews the three of you have in mind, but right before OoP came out, JKR was referring to herself as a writer of children's books. Here are the relevant excerpts from the BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman from 19 June 2003: JEREMY PAXMAN: Let's talk a little bit about the next book. Harry and Ron and Hermione are all going to be older. How are they going to change? JK ROWLING: Quite a lot because I find it quite sinister, the way that, looking back at the Famous Five books for example, I think 21 adventures or 20 or something, they never had a hormonal impulse - except that Anne was sometimes told that she would make someone a good little wife whenever she unlaid the picnic things. JEREMY PAXMAN: But that's the usual pattern of children's books isn't it? Swallows and Amazons is the same isn't it? The children never age. But your.... JK ROWLING: And it reaches its apotheosis in Peter Pan obviously, where it is quite explicit, and I find that very sinister. I had a very forthright letter from a woman who had heard me say that Harry was going to have his first date or something and she said "Please don't do that, that's awful. I want these books to be a world where my children can escape to." She literally said "free from hurt and fear" and I'm thinking "Have you read the books? What are you talking about free from hurt and fear? Harry goes through absolute hell every time he returns to school." So I think that a bit of snogging would alleviate matters. JK ROWLING: Yeah. I went into the kitchen having done it.... JEREMY PAXMAN: What, killed this person? JK ROWLING: Yeah. Well I had re-written the death, re-written it and that was it. It was definitive. And the person was definitely dead. And I walked into the kitchen crying and Neil said to me, "What on earth is wrong?" and I said, "Well, I've just killed the person". Neil doesn't know who the person is. But I said, "I've just killed the person. And he said, "Well, don't do it then." I thought, a doctor you know....and I said "Well it just doesn't work like that. You are writing children's books, you need to be a ruthless killer." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0619-bbcnews-paxman.htm So JKR clearly considers her books to be "children's books," and she has a clear idea of what they should and should not be. They should include "hurt and fear," but they should include "snogging" as well when the kids are adolescents. And they should included death with no holds barred. A children's author has to be "a ruthless killer." Evidently, she doesn't make the "children's books," "young adult books" distinction that Magpie is making. And she clearly disapproves of children's books that don't allow their characters to suffer the pangs and awkwardness of adolescence. I didn't search for any additional quotes on the subject since I think that these, which refer to a book in which Harry is fifteen and his best friends turn sixteen suffices to make the point. Carol, noting that this is the same interview in which JKR references her carefully planted clues and red herrings, indicating that she also sees the books to some extent as mysteries or detective stories From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 03:06:03 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:06:03 -0400 Subject: On Wizarding Money Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704162006y579bfaa4va74dae09ea423dd9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167634 (I wrote this earlier in the week but i'd hit my 5 posts and i didn't want to go over by making a new thread) I have a theory on why they seem to be in crazy subdivisions (that is, the fact that there are 17 sickles to a galleon, 29 knuts to a sickle, for a total of 493 - which isn't divisible by, well, pretty much anything except 17 and 29.) Now, the reason that JKR chose these is obvious - they're crazy numbers, it's something of a parody of the old british system, etc. But how would these numbers come about in the WW itself? Well, let's look at one particular real-world example of a "crazy number" - in fact, let's pick a british example. Now, the pre-decimal was actually pretty reasonable generally. 12 and 20 make 240, which is divisible by pretty much everything. But what of the Guinea? That's 21 shillings, not 20. Quite an odd number to be using. But consider the reason the Guinea is worth 21 shillings - the historical coin of that name contained slightly more gold than a sovereign. Furthermore, silver and gold coins have historically floated in value as the relative amount of each metal in the economy shifts. So, while clearly no sane wizard or goblin would devise a system where the money always exchanges at one to 17 or 29 or 493, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation why the exchange rates are as shown in 1991. Perhaps they are adjusted every 10 years, or every year, to reflect the market value of the metals. Maybe the knut is pegged to a 'basket' of each, resulting in funny values when exchanged into only one. For example, four galleons and one sickle are worth almost exactly 2000 knuts. Maybe it's not pegged at all, but similarly floats with the value of whatever bronze alloy it's made from. Perhaps the values change on the day and most items are only officially priced in one of the three coins. With the three coins being effectively three different systems, the "17 sickles an ounce" price, while corrected to a galleon in later editions, would not strictly be an error. Also, such a system would explain Ron's remark about never having seen a galleon before - perhaps the Weasleys mostly keep their money as sickles and knuts for whatever reason - we don't know that he's never seen seventeen or fifty or eighty sickles in one place. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 03:29:06 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:29:06 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167635 Neri chimes in: The whole pre-HBP argument about whether DDM!Snape is responsible for Sirius's death seems terribly outdated to me. If Snape is DDM then the DoM battle night would only be one additional debacle (and not nearly the worst) in the ongoing disaster of his secret agent career in VW2. It started with the fiasco of the Occlumency lessons and continued with his failure to find out in advance about the coming DoM operation (several list members noted this long before HBP, but at the time we didn't know for certain that Snape was indeed a spy). Then when the DoM operation did start he failed to realize immediately what it was, and in addition failed to just keep an eye on Harry, which would have foiled the operation even without realizing what it was. Then there's making the third part of the Unbreakable Vow, which most DDM theorists must ascribe to Snape being careless, outwitted or blackmailed because the alternative is even worse. Then he failed in winning Draco's trust (despite being his favorite teacher for five years and a friend of the family), failed to prevent the attacks that nearly killed Katie, Ron, Slughorn and Harry, failed to find out in advance about the RoR operation from his fellow DEs and failed in discovering Draco's plan or stopping him (which Harry very nearly succeeded with far fewer resources). Then he had to kill his own supreme commander (!!!) and on top of it he also failed in getting Draco and Narcissa out of Voldemort's hands, which Dumbledore hoped to do. The DDM!Snapers figure that the DADA jinx was to blame for some of the above (it could hardly be blamed for all of it). That would have been a better excuse if it didn't look like Snape had known about the jinx and still wanted the job. It seems he had underestimated the jinx. Or overestimated himself. During the above two years we don't know about a single item of information that secret agent Snape had managed to bring from the enemy camp to save the day. It does look like he had brought the information about Draco's mission, but due to his own abysmal handling of this situation it didn't help any. Overall I'd say right now DDM!Snape is looking like a serious contender for the title of the worst secret agent in the history of both literature and RL. The only positive things he had managed ? blocking the curses on Dumbledore and Katie ? had no apparent connection with his secret agent career. He could have done them without being a spy in the enemy's camp. So right now, blaming DDM!Snape for irresponsibility during the night of the MoM battle seems rather like abusing a corpse. He has so many worse things to explain first. Not to mention that at the moment DDM!Snape is somewhat hypothetical anyway. If, however, Snape is *not* DDM, then it is almost certain that his actions during the night of the MoM operation will be revisited, and there will be some new revelations about it. If this will be the case then JKR had surely laid the groundwork for it in the end of OotP. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 03:44:28 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:44:28 -0000 Subject: Suggested timeline for the Battle of the Ministry In-Reply-To: <19905493.1176744539343.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167636 > Bart: > : > > Hour zero - Harry informs Snape about the problem. > 00:15 - Hermione tricks the Toad. > 00:20 - Snape determines that Harry was sent a fake message. Does not yet send out a general alert. > 00:30-01:00 - Snape is informed as to Hermione's plan; the earlier time is if he goes to the Toad's office, the later time is assuming that he was called in to help by the slitherings (does Draco have a cousin Ralfoy who is always telling jokes?). > 1:20 - H&H are saved from the centaurs by Grawp. > 1:40 - Dumbledore's Army of Five Fighting Youngsters start gathering Thestrals. > 2:00 - DAFFY is on their way. > 2:00 - Snape figures that even Harry could have outsmarted Toadie by now. > 3:00 - 4:00 DAFFY arrives at the Ministry > 4:00 - Snape, realizing that the DAFFY's have gone to the Ministry, says "Oops!" and alerts them. > 4:20 - The daffies start fighting the deathies. > 4:30 - The deathies take one look and also say, "oops!" > Neri: If you assume Hour Zero = 7:30 PM you'll find a pretty good match with my timeline: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108037 BTW, they were six youngsters, not five. Neri From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 03:42:16 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:42:16 -0000 Subject: Are HP Books Child's Tales? (Was Re: World Building And The Potterverse) In-Reply-To: <004901c78095$2222b1d0$23b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167637 > > Betsy Hp: > > I think it was more that she didn't like the idea that her books were *merely* children's books, in that they were somehow lesser than. I can't recall the quote, but I think she said something to the effect of not coming at the series as if she were writing children's books. > Magpie: > Being somebody who also hates the idea that books written for children are supposed to somehow be lesser than books for adults, I believe what she said was that she just wrote the story she wanted to write and it turned out to be a children's book. In the past people have used that quote to try to prove they're not children's books, but of course she's actually validating that's exactly what they are. If they weren't they wouldn't be published by the people who published them. As the series has gone on they've become YA. Goddlefrood: JKR has stated the following, apart from in interviews with less than small nosed Englishmen :): "When did the idea for Harry Potter first enter your head? I didn't know then that it was going to be a book for children - I just knew that I had this boy. Harry. During that journey I also discovered Ron, Nearly Headless Nick, Hagrid and Peeves. But with the idea of my life careering round my head, I didn't have a pen that worked!" Later in the same interview: "And Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban? The idea that children would queue up in bookshops to buy copies of my books delighted me. But there are other more disconcerting sides to that level of publicity - having your photograph appear regularly in the papers is not something I ever anticipated. But all the time, children are reading the books. And we know now that adults are reading the books, too. And they like them. That's what I remember when I'm feeling besieged." Both from Lindsay Fraser. "Harry Potter - Harry and me," The Scotsman, November 2002. Can be summoned from: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scotsman.html Additionally on NPR Radio on 20th October 1999 JKR answered: "Sean Bullard question01: Yes. You know, it sounds so much better when you're reading it. The first question ... "did you write the book for children or adults"? J.K. Rowling: Um ... I wrote it for me. Er ... so both. Because ... er ... I wrote something that I knew I would like to read now, but I also wrote something that I knew I would have liked to have read aged 10. So I, I never really wrote with um, with anyone in mind. I ... I ... I still don't write with an imaginary focus group in mind. I have been asked time without number 'why are the books so popular?', and the tru ... I, and ... I don't want to analyse that. I ... I don't want to decide that there's a formula; I really don't want to look at that too closely, 'cos I want to carry on writing them the way I want to write them and not um, you know, start trying to put ingredient X in there. It's for other people to decide that, not me I think." Audio link to this interview is available here: http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/1999/991020.jkrowling.html So, as we see from the above, JKR wrote them primarily for herself with no particular audience in mind, at least initially. The books work for all ages, as this group clearly attests. Btw while Scholastic may be considered as a Children's poublisher Bloomsbury primarily is not. If the books were not recognised as transcending classification by age group it would not be likely that Bloomsbury would publish an adult edition. Therefore, I agree with Magpie to an extent :) and also with Betsy Hp, but state that M. Paxman, as the French call him ;), often puts words into other's mouths. Not meaning any offense thereby :) Goddlefrood, another large hootered, opinionated Englishman :) From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Apr 17 03:38:42 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building And The Potterverse References: Message-ID: <006e01c780a1$e59b2af0$23b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167638 Carol: > Evidently, she doesn't make the "children's books," "young adult > books" distinction that Magpie is making. And she clearly disapproves > of children's books that don't allow their characters to suffer the > pangs and awkwardness of adolescence. Magpie: The distinction I'm making is one from a publisher's and librarian's pov, not one really about content. But I would say at the same time that they've really retained the style of the earlier books. By YA standards the HP books are barely sexual. They have far more explicit violence and sex where there is violence or sex. But while I'd say the early books are clearly children's books I had to accept the correction of librarians who said that the age range really does go into the YA range by the later books. I think she's acknowleging that in what she's saying about the reader--obviously earlier books didn't include Harry dating because he was 11, but now that he's older the books are changing. I think what JKR is saying is what she's said all along, that the story she wanted to tell fit comfortable into what would be considered juvenile (in the US) publishing and she's happy with that. She would never, imo, say "they're not really children's books" as if that was limiting, or "they're just children's books" as if that meant they weren't as serious. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Apr 17 04:02:05 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:02:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... References: Message-ID: <008301c780a5$2b276630$23b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167639 Neri chimes in: During the above two years we don't know about a single item of information that secret agent Snape had managed to bring from the enemy camp to save the day. It does look like he had brought the information about Draco's mission, but due to his own abysmal handling of this situation it didn't help any. Overall I'd say right now DDM!Snape is looking like a serious contender for the title of the worst secret agent in the history of both literature and RL. Magpie: Doesn't it rather make Dumbledore the worst commander in history? A lot of the things you've listed here seem like they (just like the claims that Snape in OotP was supposed to know that Harry would be able to get to the MoM) put a bit too much responsibility on Snape while, imo, often ignoring the things JKR put in that explain why things went the way they did. In the OotP scenario it comes down to, as was said earlier in the thread, superspy!Snape expected to know that Harry will be able to do all sorts of things Harry can't and didn't do. With HBP at least we do have clear things that blatantly do make Snape look guilty, like killing Dumbledore. No idea how that's going to be explained if he's DDM. But some of the others have good reasons Snape the super spy would not be able to fix it. Whether or not Snape wanted the DADA job is hardly more important than the fact that Dumbledore gave it to him, so isn't DD the fool there? Concerning Draco, I don't know why anyone would consider Snape as mishandling that situation. It read to me far more obviously as a situation coming to a head because of individuals driven by different powerful agendas. Snape is dealing with a teenager who is changed. His previous relationship with him is why Snape is a figure Draco is challenging and rebelling against. It's not a reason that Snape should be able to know what Draco is doing (even the question of Legilimancy is for once actually answered in the text where we're told he can't read his mind because he's doing Occlumency). Dumbledore is no more able to stop the necklace or the mead than Snape is. Not to mention, it's possible that Dumbledore could be keeping Snape from taking more decisive measures with Draco. Harry tells DD Draco's up to something in the RoR and Dumbledore dismisses him. Snape might have gotten as far and would have gotten the same response. Whichever man Snape is, Dumbledore is in control of the plot in HBP. The final confrontation with Draco seems like something DD was working towards. Neri: The only positive things he had managed - blocking the curses on Dumbledore and Katie - had no apparent connection with his secret agent career. He could have done them without being a spy in the enemy's camp. Magpie: But that's really neither here nor there, because we're in Harry's pov and Harry is not privvy to any secret information Snape would give Dumbledore. We don't know what information Lupin is getting from the werewolves either, but presumably that doesn't make him incompetent. Neri: So right now, blaming DDM!Snape for irresponsibility during the night of the MoM battle seems rather like abusing a corpse. He has so many worse things to explain first. Not to mention that at the moment DDM!Snape is somewhat hypothetical anyway. Magpie: To me, it seems more significant than that (the blaming him for the MoM battle) because it's so bizarre. Snape's the guy responsible for the victory, so why is he being criticized for not watching Harry every second (which nobody's ever done), not figuring out Harry had flown to the MoM miles and miles away (something that came about by chance) and whatever else a real spy would have done? The only reason Harry and his friends are saved is because Snape alerted the Order. Neri: If, however, Snape is *not* DDM, then it is almost certain that his actions during the night of the MoM operation will be revisited, and there will be some new revelations about it. If this will be the case then JKR had surely laid the groundwork for it in the end of OotP. Magpie: Wouldn't he be revealed to be just as incompetent if not moreso? Why on earth did he send a squad of Order members to the MoM when Voldemort had sent a team of DEs to get in and out with the Prophecy? When there was no reason whatsoever for him to send anyone to help at all? Everything went exactly as Voldemort planned, so why did LVM!Snape decide to send in the cavalry? Just to spice things up? -m From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 03:53:07 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do Slytherins deserve their bad reputation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704162053y1aae4119g1766e1e9c373e5af@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167640 > Goddlefrood: > By this token The Fat Lady's first password "Caput Draconis", > meaning approximately "off with their heads", would be a poor > reflection on Gryffindor as it would equate them to The Queen of > Hearts in the Alice books and suggest Gryff's were mad, which of > course they are ;) Random832: Except it means "Dragon's Head", not anything like that. > > Coriandra2002 > > > 3) Every member of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad was a > Slytherin and not member of Dumbledore's Army was. I doubt very > much that this was a coincidence. The lack of Slytherins in the DA can be put up to Harry, Hermione, etc, not bothering to get to know any. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 04:09:07 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:09:07 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > Neri chimes in: > It started with the fiasco of the Occlumency lessons zgirnius: If he is not to be credited with the lives he saved at Hogwarts, surely he should not be blamed for his failures as a teacher? > Neri: > and continued > with his failure to find out in advance about the coming DoM operation > (several list members noted this long before HBP, but at the time we > didn't know for certain that Snape was indeed a spy). zgirnius: It seems to me all that he failed to discover was the planned date of that operation, a detail any competent evil overlord would give out only on a need-to-know basis. The Order knew Voldemort was after the prophecy (and this could be the information Snape provided at the Order meeting at the start of OotP). And they knew he planned to use Harry to get it (though Snape discovered this through teaching Harry Occlumency, not more conventional spying on the enemy. Snaep did not devise the plan for dealing with this matter, though. That appears to have been Dumbledore, based on Dumbledore's statements to Harry at the end of OotP. > Neri: > Then when the > DoM operation did start he failed to realize immediately what it was, zgirnius: He did realize immediately what it was, it seems to me. He checked on Sirius anyway, which was only prudent. Just because Snape was expecting Voldemort to send Harry a fake vision 'to make him do something' does not rule out the possibility that Harry might see something unintended. > Neri: > and in addition failed to just keep an eye on Harry, which would have > foiled the operation even without realizing what it was. zgirnius: Here we start to enter the murk of timeline issues. How long did it take for Snape to check that the vision was indeed not genuine? This depends on an unknown quantity, the speed of Patronus communication across long distances. Harry had left with Umbridge very shortly after Snape himself left the office, so even assuming near-instant communicaton, Snape could have missed them even if he came straight back. > Neri: > and on > top of it he also failed in getting Draco and Narcissa out of > Voldemort's hands, which Dumbledore hoped to do. zgirnius: The locations of the two Malfoys not in Ministry custody are unknown to us at present. > Neri: > That would have been > a better excuse if it didn't look like Snape had known about the jinx > and still wanted the job. It seems he had underestimated the jinx. Or > overestimated himself. zgirnius: This is of course debatable. I don't think he wanted the job particularly. > Neri: > During the above two years we don't know about a single item of > information that secret agent Snape had managed to bring from the > enemy camp to save the day. zgirnius: Snape confirmed that Voldemort was getting stronger in GoF. He brought some unspecified piece of intelligence to an Order meeting in OotP, which I believe was about Voldemort's desire to get the prophecy. That the information was not used in the best possible way by his commander in chief, by the latter's own admission, is hardly his fault. Dumbledore 'was told' about Voldemort's wrath at learning of the destruction of the diary. I know who I think brought that tidbit, which was a supporting bit of evidence that led Dumbledore to the conclusion that the Diary had been a Horcrux. --zgirnius, who thinks all flavors of Snape are hypothetical at least until 7/21/2007. From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Apr 17 04:42:09 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:42:09 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167642 Wynnleaf: < big snip> > Snape's *feelings* about Sirius dying have nothing whatsoever to do > with whether or not he's guilty of Sirius' death. Nothing Snape did > increased the likelihood that Sirius would die at the MOM. > > Snape -- as you've nicely shown us -- couldn't have *known* the kids > went to the forest, so he would have taken some time to figure that > out, fully explaining why the Order wasn't alerted right away when > the kids went to the forest. Snape didn't ask Sirius to go; he > told him to stay. Sirius did not go to the MOM to prove something > to Snape, but to save Harry. Sirius stood the same risk of injury > or death as other Order members. Dana: You snipped the first part of my post where I stated that I did not hold Snape responsible for Sirius death, in the last part of my post I just indicated that it would be possible, because canon does not contradict it, that Snape's own claim in being responsible for Sirius death could still be true. It are his words, not mine and if he wants to feel, be or just claim to be responsible, then I have no problem with it what so ever, I wouldn't even be surprised if he indeed did something actively to increase the chance of Sirius being caught or killed but that was besides the point. My point was that Snape allowed Harry to be in Umbridge care, without keeping an eye on the situation, someone that already proved several times she was out to get him. It was the reason DD was no longer at Hogwarts, she asked Snape for veritaserum twice and now held Harry at wand point for the second time (the first after she caught him at the RoR). DD sacrificed himself to keep Harry within the castle walls but it is not enough for Snape to stick around and this while we know he is such a good listener at keyholes ;o). He could have gone around the corner send his patronus to Sirius without leaving the vicinity of Umbridge office but he doesn't. You state that Snape couldn't have known Harry had gone into the Forest but why then is DD referring to him knowing, more then once? Why would he not have said; Snape searched the castle but you were no where to be found and no one had seen you or Dolores Umbridge or any of your friends and Snape grew worried she might have taken you to the forest or that you have gone to the DoM. He says no such thing. He says Snape grew worried because Harry did not come *out* of the Forest and then claims that Snape intended to search for Harry *IN* the Forest. So unless DD is lying then Snape told DD this himself and therefore he knew. Also in previous posts I already mentioned that it might just be a result of sloppy writing to just get the plot pushed forward but it could very well have been intentional. I am not blaming Snape for anything other then doing a bad job of taking care of Harry as an Order member and this makes him just as responsible for the disaster at the DoM as DD, especially because Snape IS a spy and he SHOULD have known what LV was up to and he claims as much in HBP when he tells Bella he was ordered to stay behind and if he didn't know then he is the most dreadful spy ever. Just as he could have found a way to make sure he never lost Harry out of his sight after he realized (as DD claims) LV had planted the vision to get Harry to the DoM and with Harry's track record he should have known better but the guy loses Harry out of his sight for several hours enough for Harry to wander the Forest, have an encounter with the centaurs and Gwarp, have a chat with his friends on what to do next, fly to the DoM and then wander around DoM before getting into the fight with the DEs and then when he is almost defeated the Order shows up and we learn they left right away, after they got the message from Snape. No, Snape tells DD that he was so surprised Harry still believed LV got Sirius, Snape did not realize that he might still try to get the DoM, because that is what it actually says. Sorry Headmaster, how could I have known Harry would not trust me enough to take care of things, it is his arrogance always trying to be the hero, never wants to leave it to the adults, always takes matter into his own hands and now his actions got his dear Godfather killed. If the both of them had listened to me, none of this would have happened. He lost Harry out of his sight and in the care of a woman that wanted to distroy DD, his Order and Harry but Snape was not to blame because the poor guy how could he have known. How? Because he should have made it his business to know that is how. JMHO Dana From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 05:00:30 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:00:30 -0000 Subject: Caput Draconis In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704162053y1aae4119g1766e1e9c373e5af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167643 > > Goddlefrood: > > By this token The Fat Lady's first password "Caput Draconis", > > meaning approximately "off with their heads" > Random832: > Except it means "Dragon's Head", not anything like that. Goddlefrood now: In Pig Latin it certainly might (mine or Random832's, take your pick), then again it also means "North Node", as it is likely to have come from some astrological source or another ;). Easily traceable if interested. The main point is that the Fat Lady has many and varied passwords throughout the books and no inferences should be drawn from the use of passwords by her or by any other password guardians as the thread starter did in order to support a contention that Slyths are bad, when clearly they not all are. All the best with the trace :) Goddlefrood From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 17 05:43:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:43:27 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: <004901c78095$2222b1d0$23b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167644 Magpie: Even more, I could swear JKR once > referred to the Hand Draco got "in CoS" when really she just established it > existed and Draco had seen and liked it. It could have been handled easily > by just having them describe the shrivelled hand and have Harry say it's the > Hand of Glory and explain what it does, having been there in CoS, rather > than having Ron suggest they have reason to know Draco has a Hand they'd > have little reason to see, but know he has because they remember the B&B > scene. Pippin: The interview quote: Question: Did you ever make a study of herbs and other Hogwarts subjects, or did you create all those classes from inspiration? J.K. Rowling responds: Most of the magic is made up. Occasionally I will use something that people used to believe was true ? for example, the "Hand of Glory" which Draco gets from Borgin and Burkes in Chamber of Secrets. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm This is from 2000 a year after CoS was published. It seems she was telling us, way back then, that Draco did get a hand of glory from Borgin and Burkes during CoS (though he didn't get it in the scene we saw.) I don't think it's even the same one that's described in CoS -- that would be why Ginny calls it a shrivelled arm, whereas what Harry saw was a withered hand on a pillow. As Ron expects Ginny to remember what a Hand of Glory is, and she wouldn't have been included in the Trio's discussions of Draco's visit to B&B's, it seems he thinks she should have independent knowledge of it -- and why should she not? After all, it's like Nicholas Flamel, a bit of real world knowledge that even a Muggle might be aware of. This seems to me no more than the sort of confusion that was sown when the pub Harry and his friends frequented in PoA was the Three Broomsticks, while Hagrid had said in PS/SS that the pub in Hogsmeade was The Hogs Head. There was a lot of debate over whether that was a Flint, but it does seem to have been planned all along that there were two different pubs -- and no real reason why there shouldn't have been, except storytelling convention. Jarring, it was, but goshdarnit, it's the storytelling convention that's illogical not the circumstances. JKR just delights in setting up situations where following convention instead of logic is going to lead us in the wrong direction. I don't think the Draco story is all about him learning to be independent of his father. It's tempting to see Draco's character note as that scene in Flourish and Blotts where Draco and his father sneer with identical expressions, but that's a bit of a red herring. As others have pointed out, Draco does defy his father as much as he thinks he can get away with. He talks incessantly about Harry, sneers at him in public, wishes he could find out who the Heir is so that he could help him, and all in defiance of his father's wishes. The note that defines who Draco is comes earlier, IMO, in PS/SS, in Draco's first scene, when Draco didn't sound sorry that Harry's parents were dead. Draco wasn't trying to be offensive. He was still trying to make friends and hadn't discovered who Harry's parents were. He was a boy who knew nothing of death and had never been taught that it should mean anything to him. Wanting the hand of a hanged corpse for a plaything was part of that. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 06:11:36 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:11:36 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167645 > Dana: > My point was that Snape allowed Harry to be in Umbridge care, without > keeping an eye on the situation, someone that already proved several > times she was out to get him. It was the reason DD was no longer at > Hogwarts, she asked Snape for veritaserum twice and now held Harry at > wand point for the second time (the first after she caught him at the > RoR). zgirnius: Actually, her target of choice was Dumbledore and not Harry, as shown by the example you mention. She had Harry dead to rights for the illegal DA, but when she saw in it a way to get Dumbledore, she forgot all about Harry. It was also her interest in feeding him Veritaserum in her office, the second time because she wanted to know who Harry had been talking with. Dana: > He could have gone around > the corner send his patronus to Sirius without leaving the vicinity > of Umbridge office but he doesn't. zgirnius: He would be sending and receiving a message using a secret means of communication invented by Dumbledore and known to Order members alone. It seems to me this might be something one might wish to do privately, rather than in the hallway next to a room that contains the sons of three Death Eaters. Especially if one is a spy who has failed to describe this means of communication to the Dark Lord. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 17 06:40:02 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:40:02 -0000 Subject: What was James Potter's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpcentaur" wrote: > > What was James Potter's Patronus animal? Geoff: Unusually for me, I'm not diving into my books to check, but my memory seems to suggest that we are not told a bout James' Patronus, nor any belonging to the Marauders, for that matter. I think that there seems to be some confusion in the minds of members between the fact that James' Animagus form is a stag and that is also the form of Harry's Patronus. Unless something comes up in Book 7, I suspect that it is a coincidence - or a red herring produced by JKR. From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Apr 17 06:44:30 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:44:30 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167647 zgirnius: > Actually, her target of choice was Dumbledore and not Harry, as > shown by the example you mention. She had Harry dead to rights for > the illegal DA, but when she saw in it a way to get Dumbledore, > she forgot all about Harry. It was also her interest in feeding > him Veritaserum in her office, the second time because she wanted > to know who Harry had been talking with. Dana: Her target choices where both Harry and Dumbledore but in this case it was Dumbledore not Umbridge that shifted the focus. She never forgets what she came for and why she kept trying to get the girl to talk. zgirnius: > He would be sending and receiving a message using a secret means > of communication invented by Dumbledore and known to Order members > alone. It seems to me this might be something one might wish to do > privately, rather than in the hallway next to a room that contains > the sons of three Death Eaters. Especially if one is a spy who has > failed to describe this means of communication to the Dark Lord. Dana: Snape has no problem taking Tonks patronus, not even meant for him, just a year later. The DE kids wouldn't have know what it meant and who it would be from. They only had seen Harry use it against Dementors (Harry thought Malfoy and his friends were Dementors too as was their intention), they don't know it can be used as means of communication. Besides they were a little busy to notice what was going on in the corridors so it would not have been any real risk. I find it interesting that Snape's need for keeping his cover is always used as excuse for his inactions but at the same time him being a spy is at great personal risk. How much risk is it if someone never actually does anything because he needs to keep his cover? Dana From getitright10 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 05:51:01 2007 From: getitright10 at yahoo.com (getitright10) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:51:01 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: <46227067.000001.03732@ACER-C28991BD48> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167648 > Shelley: > I still think that it is possible that Petunia is a witch that refused her Witchhood- that there could be some formal process for doing what it is that JW proposes: to de-power a wizard into Muggleness. > Tammy Responds > Shelly while I agree that it is possible that Petunia refused her heritage, if she did it could be considered a mistreatment of Dudley for the Dursleys > to not allow him to decide for himself if he wanted to be a Wizard or not. Kenny adds: I don't think Petunia's a witch. I think too many people have assumed that Petunia didn't know/want to know much about the WW. I pose the theory that maybe she did. Maybe she was quite involved with her sister and her magical self. Maybe a resentment grew over time, but I think that at one point she knew what was going on in the WW and was close with Lily. Maybe it was the war that pushed them apart. I think she took Harry in because he's her (then orphaned) nephew, and that's all. No more, no less. I think she despised magic and Harry because 1)if her sister was never a witch, she may not have been murdered; 2)Harry's a reminder of Lily AND of the WW (which "took" Lily away from her);3) wouldn't you be kinda frazzled knowing Voldemort just tried to kill your nephew and he may still be on loose -- how is she REALLY supposed to protect Harry, even with all the blood ties. Would that be convincing enough? I don't know. But I got away from my point: I think she's just keeping up appearances. She's coping the best way she knows how. Kenny From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 10:04:36 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:04:36 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167649 (The not so good Snape - part 3 (a)) "We Slytherin's are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." Phineas Nigellus in Ootp Chapter Twenty Three - Christmas on the Closed Ward Goddlefrood: Part 3 (a) now of this series. I intend to split this part into slices for easier digestion. Further posts on this Snape thesis will follow in due time :) Severus is a deeply horrible person, our witness JKR. He may not be entirely without his merits, however. I do not believe he is good, but at the same time I do not believe he is now working for Lord Voldemort, if he ever was in any wholehearted way. Snape's choice, IMO, has been to save his own neck by taking a comfortable backseat and leaving the real business of fighting to others. How's that for starters? I have a little confession to make first before I get to the meat. Here is a small comment I wrote back in August 2005, I have more or less maintained this view in the intervening period: "My initial reaction was that Snape was a two faced a**ehole but after thinking further I am not so sure. It may well turn out that he was only interested in number one all along." This was in a different forum than this. The only addition to it that I now have is that I think there is someone else behind Severus who is an influence on his actions due to their interest in him. This post will, partially, explore who that person might be. A little on his teaching style first. I exclude Potions as he clearly is a reasonable and certainly an effective teacher of that subject, even though his method is somewhat similar to how I describe his other teaching (writes instructions on blackboard and basically says "get on with it" ;)) In his DADA teaching year in HBP, as far as I'm concerned, the only useful thing Snape taught his class was non-verbal spells, and he didn't really teach that did he? He expected people to do it. The rest of what we saw of his DADA teaching had previously been covered, and in my view quite a lot better than Severus managed it, by his predecessors in the position. This would apply equally to the matter that many have interpreted as his final "lesson" to Harry while escaping from Hogwarts having eliminated Dumbledore. "Learn it, do it, but I'm not going to show you how, so there" ;P It may turn out that someone finds a use for Snape's method, that Harry did not appear to like, of repelling Dementors. This method was not explained, something I always find suspicious in the books. Leads me to think we will find out more :) When he taught Harry Occlumency in OotP he didn't give any practical instruction, he once more just expected Harry to do it, again without explaining how it might be achieved. There was also an element of Severus's resentment of Harry in play, but surely he could have tried a little harder, or am I being harsh? I'll turn now to his pettiness, oh yes, he is a deeply petty man. One prime example comes from the very first book, from what is called the troll incident and its aftermath. Once the troll is unconscious in the girl's lavatory Minerva gives a ten points to Harry and Ron between them. Five each as it happens. From the next chapter (Quidditch) there is this (p.134 - all quotes from Bloomsbury Paperback): 'Library books are not to be taken outside the school,' said Snape. 'Give it to me. Five points from Gryffindor.' This after Harry had, hem hem, inadvertently borrowed Quidditch Through the Ages from the library. Well done, Severus, halfway to redress already ;). Harry's troll bonus gone, IOW. In the next chapter (The Mirror of Erised) on p. 144: 'Five points from Gryffindor, Weasley, and be grateful it isn't more.' Ron loses his troll bonus this time and Snape has evened the score. He was present when the points were awarded and he would have smarted from that in my view, all rather petty, I think you can agree. I do not think Snape ever likes it when Gryffindor get awarded points, in fact he seems to resent it. He certainly takes points away at the drop of a hat. Think Hermione's know-it-allness and other, similar incidents. Next up is a matter I can not agree on with some here and elsewhere, that being his alleged child abuse. He is no worse than many teachers I have come across and actually better than many in this regard. Having attended a Public School (private school for our American friends) some years ago now, I could tell you of many worse teachers in terms of abuse than Severus. The one who whacked boys in a livid rage with spiked running shoes, for one, another who took a run up across whatever space was available with a gym shoe, for another, and a third who ultimately lost his job for unpleasantness that is not worth getting into and inappropriate for this, or any other, forum. Suffice to say had I had a teacher like Snape I would have been pleased that the only difficulty he may have given me was the occasional cross word and the odd insult. Hardly abuse as far as I'm concerned. Children should not have to always live in ivory towers, it's a dangerous world out there, whether you're a wizard or a muggle, and a little installation of moral fibre stands people in good stead for later life. I'll never be a social worker of course, but there it is. Backwards and forwards we go once again, this time to my views regarding Severus's debt to James, I do not believe it is relevant to how Snape now acts towards Harry, but it may have been during PS. It goes somewhat to Snape's motives, so is worth exploring a little here. Without being too much in thrall to Dumbledore I would say that Snape did indeed have a life-debt to James. The point, that has perhaps been missed, not by me, is that Snape could not fulfill this debt while James was alive. This I infer from what Dumbledore explained to Harry at the end of PS. Snape may have felt a pang of remorse for the only time in his life at not having fulfilled the debt and therefore protected Harry so that his own conscience was somewhat appeased. This is an important distinction. James found out that Sirius had laid a trap for Snape and then intervened before the jape could cost Snape his life or health. This is stated to be while Snape was in the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack. I do not think this debt, whatever its nature will have any further relevance to the way the sereis plays out in DH. Generally though the idea is valid that any debt is painted as different between the instance of Snape/James and Harry/Pettigrew. The point may be that the former does not seem to be based on any magical contract whereas the latter arguably is. Expansion on request :) This is where I leave you, for now, further material will come shortly, possibly tomorrow night (for me), here's a little interim quote to say auf wiedersehen, from PS "The Man With Two Faces", p.210: 'Tried to frighten me, as though he could, when I had LV on my side.' The sadly deluded Professor Quirrelll there ;) Goddlefrood, with more to come ... From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Apr 17 14:26:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:26:19 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse/Who was responsible for Sirius' death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167650 > Pippin: > The interview quote: > Question: Did you ever make a study of herbs and other Hogwarts > subjects, or did you create all those classes from inspiration? > J.K. Rowling responds: Most of the magic is made up. Occasionally > I will use something that people used to believe was true ? for > example, the "Hand of Glory" which Draco gets from Borgin and > Burkes in Chamber of Secrets. > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm > > This is from 2000 a year after CoS was published. > > It seems she was telling us, way back then, > that Draco did get a hand of glory from Borgin and Burkes during > CoS (though he didn't get it in the scene we saw.) I don't > think it's even the same one that's described in CoS -- > that would be why Ginny calls it a shrivelled arm, whereas what Harry > saw was a withered hand on a pillow. Magpie: It sounds actually like she might just be using "gets" to refer to Borgin handing it to him. Saying "which Draco gets from Mr. Borgin in CoS" doesn't sound like she's giving us any extra information, which would be strange (as in, telling us that little did we know, but Draco bought the hand from Mr. Borgin in Cos). She sounds like she's referencing the scene we've seen. Either she's mistakenly thinking that she wrote it as Draco walking out with the Hand because Borgin gave it to him, or she's using "gets" to refer to Borgin taking it down off the shelf when Draco says "Can I have that?" I think the shrivelled arm is the same as the withered hand. Pippin: > As Ron expects Ginny to remember what a Hand of Glory is, and > she wouldn't have been included in the Trio's discussions of > Draco's visit to B&B's, it seems he thinks she should have > independent knowledge of it -- and why should she not? After > all, it's like Nicholas Flamel, a bit of real world knowledge that > even a Muggle might be aware of. Magpie: Yes, I would assume all the Wizards, especially the Purebloods, would know what a Hand of Glory was and recognize it by sight. Pippin: > > This seems to me no more than the sort of confusion that was > sown when the pub Harry and his friends frequented in PoA was > the Three Broomsticks, while Hagrid had said in PS/SS that the > pub in Hogsmeade was The Hogs Head. > > There was a lot of debate over whether that was a Flint, but > it does seem to have been planned all along that there were > two different pubs -- and no real reason why there shouldn't have > been, except storytelling convention. Jarring, it was, but > goshdarnit, it's the storytelling convention that's illogical not > the circumstances. JKR just delights in setting up situations > where following convention instead of logic is going to lead > us in the wrong direction. Magpie: I think this is a Flint. Why overcomplicate something planted early by adding a second Hand of Glory to be recognized by something so vague as Ginny calling it an arm while Harry called it a hand on a pillow? It's not like our questions about it add anything one way or the other in terms of the story. Two different pubs come into the story. The stuff introduced in B&B's shop seems to be there to establish the existance of the stuff Draco's going to use later-we assume the necklace is the same one and not a different necklace. (I also believe the curse Snape throws at James in the Pensieve is to establish Sectumsempra.) Pippin: > I don't think the Draco story is all about him learning to > be independent of his father. It's tempting to see Draco's > character note as that scene in Flourish and Blotts where Draco > and his father sneer with identical expressions, but that's a bit > of a red herring. As others have pointed out, Draco does defy > his father as much as he thinks he can get away with. He > talks incessantly about Harry, sneers at him in public, wishes > he could find out who the Heir is so that he could help him, > and all in defiance of his father's wishes. Magpie: Yes, I don't think Draco's having the Hand is supposed to say anything one way or the other about Draco's independence. The only reason that's even coming up is because people are trying to fanwank when he got the Hand. If Ron hadn't implied that this was something he was known to have had, which makes us remember when he didn't get it, we wouldn't wonder about it at all. We'd just know that Draco knew about the Hand and so got it himself knowing it would be of use here. Pippin: > > The note that defines who Draco is comes earlier, IMO, in PS/SS, > in Draco's first scene, when Draco didn't sound sorry that > Harry's parents were dead. > > Draco wasn't trying to be offensive. He was still trying to make > friends and hadn't discovered who Harry's parents were. He > was a boy who knew nothing of death and had never been > taught that it should mean anything to him. Wanting the hand > of a hanged corpse for a plaything was part of that. Magpie: I agree. The character stuff that I get from Draco and the Hand of Glory was that it a) establishes the existance of the Hand of Glory, which will be used later b) Shows us Draco is attracted to the gruesomeness of it and c) Is part of the Lucius/Draco dynamic established throughout the scene. Dana: You state that Snape couldn't have known Harry had gone into the Forest but why then is DD referring to him knowing, more then once? Magpie: Because Dumbledore is speaking after the fact. Snape's knowing Harry was in the forest and hadn't come back was the reason for his alerting the Order, so by the time Dumbledore is telling Harry the story Snape has long known that Harry was there. There's no reason for Dumbledore to go through how Snape found out about it. The important information is that when Harry didn't come back from the forest, Snape checked it out. I just don't see anything sloppy about this particular thing. The Order loses sight of Harry all the time. He doesn't have to assure Harry that Snape wanted to protect him from Umbridge's punishments. Dana: He lost Harry out of his sight and in the care of a woman that wanted to distroy DD, his Order and Harry but Snape was not to blame because the poor guy how could he have known. How? Because he should have made it his business to know that is how. Magpie: But Umbridge isn't out to destroy the Order--she doesn't even know the Order exists. She's a teacher trying to impose discipline on her school and keep Harry from helping Dumbledore, which he is not doing. Umbridge causes trouble in the scene partially because she has no idea what's going on. Being with Umbridge does not put Harry into the kind of danger you're implying, it puts him in danger of Umbridge's discipline, which Dumbledore allowed him to be in danger of as well when he was at the school. He didn't seem to make it his business to know exactly what went on when Harry and Umbridge were together. Harry's not even *in* Umbridge's care in the forest. Hermione is leading Umbridge, not vice versa. Harry's being with Umbridge is only connected to Sirius' death by the many circumstances that happen to also happen at the same time. Dana: Snape has no problem taking Tonks patronus, not even meant for him, just a year later. The DE kids wouldn't have know what it meant and who it would be from. Magpie: Tonks' Patronus is communicating simple school business that Snape can openly take care of. That's completely different from Snape taking a SECRET message from Harry and then openly whipping out the Patronus to say, "Sure Harry, watch while I check and make sure Padfoot--a nickname known by Voldemort--isn't at the Ministry, but safe at home!" Harry himself knows not to speak outright in this scene, so why would Snape? He's speaking to Snape as an Order member here. That's something to be kept secret in front of all these people. And this actually is a scene that the DE kids would probably relate to their parents, who would understand what Snape was doing there. Harry's just warned him about Padfoot at the place where it is. Not a good idea for Snape to obviously react to that at all. Dana: I find it interesting that Snape's need for keeping his cover is always used as excuse for his inactions but at the same time him being a spy is at great personal risk. How much risk is it if someone never actually does anything because he needs to keep his cover? Magpie: Snape is supposed to be doing stuff all the time. Undercover. That's what spies do. For instance, in this sequence Snape is checking to make sure Sirius is all right and then sending the help to the Ministry that saves Harry. There's no reason for him to be doing stuff in front of Umbridge and the IS, except, it seems, for him to blow his cover completely so that we can see he's undercover. And he's not following Harry whenever he's with Umbridge because that's not something an Order member does anyway. We still keep coming back to the fact that Snape is the one who is responsible for saving Harry in his friends at the MoM. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Apr 17 14:46:41 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:46:41 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167651 > Goddlefrood: > > Severus is a deeply horrible person, our witness JKR. He may not > be entirely without his merits, however. I do not believe he is > good, but at the same time I do not believe he is now working for > Lord Voldemort, if he ever was in any wholehearted way. Snape's > choice, IMO, has been to save his own neck by taking a comfortable > backseat and leaving the real business of fighting to others. > How's that for starters? Magpie: Odd.:-) Because Snape is central to the struggle. He's not taking a backseat. He's agreeing to spy on the DEs at personal risk, and taking UVs that risk his own death. And confronting Quirrell and muttering counter-hexes and making up Potions riddles and going after Sirius. Goddlefrood: > In his DADA teaching year in HBP, as far as I'm concerned, the > only useful thing Snape taught his class was non-verbal spells, > and he didn't really teach that did he? He expected people to do > it. Magpie: I think he did teach it, since Hermione has gotten so good at it after a while she's no longer doing any spells verbally. Ernie gives a thumbs up to one of his classes. How else do any of the teachers ever teach spells except to tell people to just do it, after all? That's how McGonagall gets them to turn one thing into another. The spells where we actually learn something about the psychology of it are few and far between, and non-Verbal spells really do just seem to be about thinking the spell instead of saying it. I don't know how else one would explain it. It's a physical thing you need to practice. Goddlefrood: The rest of what we saw of his DADA teaching had previously > been covered, and in my view quite a lot better than Severus > managed it, by his predecessors in the position. This would apply > equally to the matter that many have interpreted as his final > "lesson" to Harry while escaping from Hogwarts having eliminated > Dumbledore. "Learn it, do it, but I'm not going to show you how, > so there" ;P Magpie: I don't think this really holds up as a problem with Snape. We barely see any of his classes and JKR is filling in stuff that sounds vaguely DADA-like and introducing concepts we might need later, such as Inferi. I don't think the kids actually have been taught about Dementors before in actual school. Snape's final "lesson" to Harry, if we call it such, *is* showing him how to do it. Or telling him. Learn to keep your mouth and your mind shut. This is something Harry has trouble with, but it's still the way all teachers at the school teach (with the occasional exception for specific spells). Think about Wilkie Twycross, for instance. He seems to just keep repeating the advice for Apparating and expecting the kids to do it. Eventually they can. Goddlefrood: > > It may turn out that someone finds a use for Snape's method, that > Harry did not appear to like, of repelling Dementors. This method > was not explained, something I always find suspicious in the books. > Leads me to think we will find out more :) Magpie: I admit, it leads me to think the opposite. When I read it I thought it was just a random thing JKR came up with to have Harry say something about Snape's lessons. Goddlefrood: > When he taught Harry Occlumency in OotP he didn't give any > practical instruction, he once more just expected Harry to do it, > again without explaining how it might be achieved. There was also > an element of Severus's resentment of Harry in play, but surely > he could have tried a little harder, or am I being harsh? Magpie: Again, this seems to be the way *all* magic is taught. And in this case Snape was perhaps a particularly bad teacher because he is probably, like Draco, a natural Occlumens. Sometimes the natural is the worst kind of teacher. He is telling Harry what to do, and Harry is particularly unsuited to do this particular thing. But I don't think it's impossible that Snape is teaching Harry the way he himself learned. He's no more or less harsh than the Apparition teacher, it seems to me. And of course we also know that Harry is actively working against the lessons, not able to practice on his own. Snape clearly *has* told him how to do it. There's one time where Harry is doing a last- minute practice session by trying to "rid himself of all thought and emotion." So Snape isn't just throwing things at him, he's also telling him to practice detaching from his thoughts and emotions on his own, which would make the lessons easier. Harry isn't doing it. Goddlefrood: > Without being too much in thrall to Dumbledore I would say that > Snape did indeed have a life-debt to James. The point, that has > perhaps been missed, not by me, is that Snape could not fulfill > this debt while James was alive. This I infer from what Dumbledore > explained to Harry at the end of PS. Snape may have felt a pang of > remorse for the only time in his life at not having fulfilled the > debt and therefore protected Harry so that his own conscience was > somewhat appeased. This is an important distinction. Magpie: I agree--and about the possible magical element that exists with Peter and not Snape. Dumbledore seems to be talking about Snape's character when he talks about his debt to James, a character that's petty, as you say, but also feels consciously that he owes James and wants to be even with him. He didn't repay that debt while James was alive...and wound up making it worse by not only not saving James, but having some responsibility for James' death. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 17 14:54:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:54:01 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167652 > Kenny adds: > > I don't think Petunia's a witch. I think too many people have > assumed that Petunia didn't know/want to know much about the > WW. I pose the theory that maybe she did. Maybe she was quite > involved with her sister and her magical self. Maybe a resentment > grew over time, but I think that at one point she knew what was > going on in the WW and was close with Lily. Maybe it was the war > that pushed them apart. Pippin: Try this -- She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix. No, seriously, wipe the coffee off your keyboard and think about it. We know you don't have to be magical to be in the Order, because there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia reads the newspapers and the magazines, listens to the news, always has her eye on what the neighbors are up to. She'd make a very good spy. And it would be helpful to Dumbledore to have a Muggle's view of things-- he can follow the Muggle media, but not with a Muggle's eyes. He doesn't have the intuitive knowledge to separate tabloid stuff about water-skiing budgies from what might be an actual report of wizard interference, but Petunia does. I've always thought there was a parallel between her and Snape. Both driven by jealousy, yet both seeming to have at their core not so much envy as outrage that life's gifts are distributed so unfairly. Lupin says James was what Snape always wanted to be -- I can certainly see that between Lily and Petunia. It would certainly extend the parallel further if they were both spies. I can't see Lily recruiting Petunia, but maybe Dumbledore did. Maybe young Petunia nursed a hope, like Filch, that she could somehow learn enough to become a witch. And then, when she grew up enough to realize how vain that hope was, she quit. She got involved with Vernon and hoped she had left the WW behind. Sirius says you can't quit the Death Eaters. That implies that you can leave the Order if you choose. Having released Petunia from his orders, Dumbledore could issue no commands or threats, he could only hold her to a bargain. Perhaps the bargain Dumbledore made with his ex-spy was this: if you will take your sister's child into the house on Privet Drive until he comes of age, the Order will keep your secret, you'll never see them at Privet Drive and no Muggle will ever have to know that you once worked with us. That is why no Order member (except Dumbledore himself) ever came to Privet Drive to visit when the Dursleys were there. It explains why Petunia trusted Mrs. Figg to babysit Harry but wouldn't let anyone else do it, even when it caused her massive inconvenience. She knew that Mrs. Figg was a Squib, and wouldn't be alarmed if Harry did any childish magic. It would also explain why Hagrid expected Petunia would have told Harry everything, even though the general wizard assumption is that Muggles know absolutely nothing. It would explain why Petunia hustles Harry away from the oddly dressed strangers who seem to know who they are even though Harry's never seen them before. It would explain why the Order can accost Vernon and Petunia at Kings Cross, but doesn't seem able to follow up on Moody's threat to send someone along if they haven't heard from Harry in three days. I note that Petunia reacts very differently from Vernon in this scene. Vernon blusters angrily, but Petunia is immediately terrified. And of course it explains why Dumbledore can presume to be so familiar with Petunia when he's polite even to the gang of DE's that's trying to murder him. It's why he can leave a baby on her doorstep with only a letter of explanation, send her a Howler, or barge into her house with only the pretense of an invitation. They're old acquaintances, and Petunia is desperate that Vernon never, ever finds this out. That's why "Remember my last" is such a threat. Thoughts? Pippin From getitright10 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 15:52:34 2007 From: getitright10 at yahoo.com (getitright10) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:52:34 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167653 Pippin adds: She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix. We know you don't have to be magical to be in the Order, because there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia reads the newspapers and the magazines, listens to the news, always has her eye on what the neighbors are up to. She'd make a very good spy. And it would be helpful to Dumbledore to have a Muggle's view of things-- he can follow the Muggle media, but not with a Muggle's eyes. He doesn't have the intuitive knowledge to separate tabloid stuff about water-skiing budgies from what might be an actual report of wizard interference, but Petunia does. Kenny responds: I really like this idea. It isn't too far fetched for me at all. It does make sense, and I am still a firm believer that Lily and Petunia simply weren't so at odds as what seems to be the collective consensus. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Apr 17 17:17:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:17:50 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... Message-ID: <32269306.1176830270186.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167654 From: Neri >So right now, blaming DDM!Snape for irresponsibility during the night >of the MoM battle seems rather like abusing a corpse. He has so many >worse things to explain first. Not to mention that at the moment >DDM!Snape is somewhat hypothetical anyway. > >If, however, Snape is *not* DDM, then it is almost certain that his >actions during the night of the MoM operation will be revisited, and >there will be some new revelations about it. If this will be the case >then JKR had surely laid the groundwork for it in the end of OotP. I have stated before that the fact that JKR never revealed the reason why Dumbledore trusted Snape so much means that either Snape is DDM, or JKR has played a nasty trick on her readership. I'd go for the latter. As far as the third part of the UV, there is one way it could have been done with Snape as DDM, and was STRONGLY hinted at in HPB: Dumbledore was terminal and on life support, with said life support almost certainly coming from Snape. So, if nothing else killed Dumbledore beforehand, when the time came, it would be Snape's job to "pull the plug." Therefore, the third part of the UV, like the first two, were things Snape was going to do anyway. If Snape had waited an additional half an hour or so, the OOPs would not have gotten to the MoM on time. And notice how, through written sleight of hand, Snape failed to give an answer about his part in the attack to Trixie (other than that he wasn't allowed to leave his post). Which means that it is still unknown to the Tommy and the DE's that Snape is the one who alerted the Order. Oops. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Apr 17 17:29:31 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:31 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suggested timeline for the Battle of the Ministry Message-ID: <4749038.1176830971976.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167655 From: Neri >Neri: >If you assume Hour Zero = 7:30 PM you'll find a pretty good match with >my timeline: >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108037 > >BTW, they were six youngsters, not five. Bart: I'm not surprised, since we both got it from the same source material. On the other hand, it took me a good twenty minutes to come up with DAFFY, and then you remind me that I missed Ginny! Hmmmm... Six Teens, Upholding Potter's Instincts and Dreams. STUPID. It'll do. Bart From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Apr 17 17:28:07 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:28:07 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167656 > Pippin: > Try this -- > > She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix. > > No, seriously, wipe the coffee off your keyboard and think about it. > > We know you don't have to be magical to be in the Order, because > there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia reads the newspapers and the magazines, > listens to the news, always has her eye on what the neighbors > are up to. She'd make a very good spy. And it would be helpful > to Dumbledore to have a Muggle's view of things-- he can > follow the Muggle media, but not with a Muggle's eyes. He > doesn't have the intuitive knowledge to separate tabloid stuff > about water-skiing budgies from what might be an actual > report of wizard interference, but Petunia does. > I can't see Lily recruiting Petunia, but maybe > Dumbledore did. Maybe young Petunia nursed a hope, > like Filch, that she could somehow learn enough to become a > witch. And then, when she grew up enough to realize how vain > that hope was, she quit. She got involved with Vernon and > hoped she had left the WW behind. > > Sirius says you can't quit the Death Eaters. That implies that > you can leave the Order if you choose. > > Having released Petunia from his orders, Dumbledore could > issue no commands or threats, he could only hold her to a > bargain. Perhaps the bargain Dumbledore made with his > ex-spy was this: if you will take your sister's child into the > house on Privet Drive until he comes of age, the > Order will keep your secret, you'll never see them at Privet > Drive and no Muggle will ever have to know that you once > worked with us. > > That is why no Order member (except Dumbledore > himself) ever came to Privet Drive to visit when the Dursleys > were there. It explains why Petunia trusted Mrs. Figg to babysit > Harry but wouldn't let anyone else do it, even when it caused > her massive inconvenience. She knew that Mrs. Figg was a > Squib, and wouldn't be alarmed if Harry did any childish magic. > > It would also explain why Hagrid expected Petunia would > have told Harry everything, even though the general wizard > assumption is that Muggles know absolutely nothing. > It would explain why Petunia hustles Harry away from the > oddly dressed strangers who seem to know who they are > even though Harry's never seen them before. > > It would explain why the Order can accost Vernon and Petunia > at Kings Cross, but doesn't seem able to follow up on Moody's > threat to send someone along if they haven't heard from Harry > in three days. I note that Petunia reacts very differently from > Vernon in this scene. Vernon blusters angrily, but Petunia is > immediately terrified. > > And of course it explains why Dumbledore can presume to be > so familiar with Petunia when he's polite even to the gang of > DE's that's trying to murder him. It's why he can leave a baby > on her doorstep with only a letter of explanation, send her > a Howler, or barge into her house with only the pretense of > an invitation. They're old acquaintances, and Petunia is > desperate that Vernon never, ever finds this out. That's why > "Remember my last" is such a threat. > > Thoughts? > > Pippin > Hickengruendler: I really like this theory. I still think the most likely explanation is, that Petunia has a witch as sister and has her knowledge from either being part of a conversation or overhearing them, and that she has really just average knowledge for anyone, who is related to a Muggleborn. And further, I thought that the real mystery about Petunia is not what exactly she *is*, but what exactly she *knows*. But your theory is really the first Petunia theory, that I liked. (I always hate dthe Petunia is a witch one and it's just impossible that she's a Squib, since Squib is nothing more than a technical term for a muggle, who is born to wizards). It seems possible. One slight problem, though: In HBP, when Dumbledore visits the Dursleys, while admitting that they corresponded, he acts, as if he saw Petunia for the first time. ("You must be Petunia.") Hickengruendler From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 17 18:46:37 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:46:37 -0000 Subject: World Building And The Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Ken wrote: > > > By contrast there already exists a complete version of the Harry > > Potter series that is 100% faithful to the author's intentions. We > > just don't have the last installment yet. > > Carol responds: > > I don't think any book or work of art has even been 100 percent > faithful to the author's intentions, even to the extent that the > author is fully aware of them. Tolkien said of LOTR, "This tale grew > in the telling," and the same is no doubt true of the HP books. JKR > has said that some of her characters grew and developed as she wrote > about them. Anyone who has ever attempted to write fiction knows that > characters will do that. Ken: Do remember that this thread has grown with the telling too! It started with one reader expressing happiness over the fact that JKR didn't waste time on world building details and this reader expressing the wish that she had gone a little farther in that direction instead of constantly hiding behind "the maths". That was a relatively limited criticism on my part and much of what you say later in your post must be directed at expansions in the scope of the thread made by others. I don't disagree with what you say above but it falls a little wide of the mark set by the statement of mine that you quote. LOTR and HP are faithful to the authors' intentions, to the full extent of their individual abilities to fulfill those intentions. The Silmarillion that we have is not. Criticizing either work for its internal errors is at least arguably fair. Criticizing the differences between LOTR and The Silmarillion is not fair. I certainly agree with your essay in general. Much of what you discuss is on a different level than what I call world building. To me world building is the physical framework that the story operates in. It must be stable and predictable even when new elements are introduced. The world building you address is, to me, the layer on top of that, the social world. The level of consistency I expect there is much lower because I have the real world as an irrefutable example of how inconsistent human behavior and society are. To an extent errors on this level make the story seem more organic, more realistic, and so while we might not agree with any particular choice the author makes we have to allow that some of these "errors" are by intent. Since this author makes so many framework errors some readers are less willing than they would otherwise be to forgive errors that in another story, even by the same now more mature author, might be viewed more generously. > Carol: > > Aragorn started out as a hobbit name Trotter, for crying out loud. > Imagine what would have happened had Tolkien retained that initial > conception of his story. But he didn't have to publish the earlier > "books" (using his division into six books) sequentially, with the > events of the first books set in stone as Frodo approached Mount Doom. > It's just not fair to JKR expect an equal consistency in the HP books. > > Carol, who thought that her own standards of perfection were > impossibly high until she read this thread > Ken: I remember reading the name Trotter somewhere, the source I read did not mention that Trotter/Aragorn was a Hobbit though. That would have made for a far different story. An unworkable one? Only if you imagine that everything else played out the same and a Hobbit was the heir to the throne of Gondor! Who is to say what is fair? You make arguments to support the notion that we are being unfair to a children's author. My reaction is driven partly by the perception that she no longer sees herself as a children's author. Maybe I am wrong about that. If she wants to be more than a children's author, or even if she wants to be a children's author but one that can stand rightfully in the same company with the likes of Tolkien then we are not being unfair. She will have to do better in her next effort if that is her goal. I think she is reasonably close as it is and that is part of my frustration. The amount of effort it would have taken to eliminate most of these errors is quite trivial compared to the effort she already devoted to the series. For the want of a nail.... Ken PS: No one should miss the opportunity now at hand to see the only remaining Silmaril (which some call Venus). It is shining brightly in the west just before and well after sunset on any clear evening until August or so. Oddly enough it really does shine with the light of the Two Trees. It appears as the Evening Star roughly once each year so it isn't a rare sight. For some reason it has seemed particularly striking this time. The Silmarillion says: "Now when first Vingilot was set to sail in the seas of heaven, it rose unlooked for, glittering and bright; and the people of Middle-earth beheld it from afar and wondered, and they took it for a sign, and called it Gil-Estel, the Star of High Hope." The Star of High Hope for Harry and friends, perhaps? From katmandu2007 at mail2world.com Tue Apr 17 18:23:13 2007 From: katmandu2007 at mail2world.com (katmandu_85219) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:23:13 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167658 Hi Everyone! I feel that Sirius died while performing his responsibilities. He was Harry's guardian. It was his responsibility to look after him. Any parent would have rushed out to find Harry. Sirius was flippant and truly enjoyed the fight with his cousin. But that didn't cause his death. He was simply outmatched. Probably hadn't been practicing much in the way of dueling. Still, nobody should have expected him to stay at home when Harry needed him most. What do you think???? Hope everyone is having a great day! Katmandu From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Apr 17 19:04:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:04:32 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167659 Pippin: > Try this -- > She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix. Hickengruendler: > One slight problem, though: > In HBP, when Dumbledore visits the Dursleys, while admitting that they corresponded, he acts, as if he saw Petunia for the first time. ("You must be Petunia.") Ceridwen: I thought of two possibilities immediately: 1) Petunia and Dumbledore never actually met. Lily was the contact between Muggle Petunia and the Order. That way, as few people as possible knew about Petunia and her involvement, and Petunia never met any other Order members who might later be betrayed through her torture if it came to that. She may have corresponded with Dumbledore, or he with her, during this time. I'm not 100% convinced that "Remember my last" means she should remember the last in a series of letters, just his last correspondence with her, which could very well have also been the first. If Lily was the contact between Petunia and the Order, then she may have been the *only* contact Petunia had, bar none. If Petunia was working for the Order, the note Dumbledore left with Baby!Harry would not only tell her what had happened to her sister and James, but would also give the intelligence that the war was over... for now. Or, 2) Dumbledore understands Petunia's desire not to be associated with him or with the Order in front of Vernon, and says this to sound genuine in the circumstances. There is the remote possibility that Petunia has actually changed over the years, many people do, but I think that would be the least possible explanation. If we're playing with Double-naught!(00!)Petunia, then perhaps her vitriolic, over-the-top hatred of her sister and the WW was just a teensy bit put on. Not all the way because I can see someone who works with talented people (or magical people) wondering why they weren't talented or magical as well, and even feeling resentful of people, the closer the person the more resentment they might feel. And once VWI cut into her cozy little corner of Muggledom, then that resentment taking over and becoming real. Ceridwen. From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Apr 17 19:35:23 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:35:23 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167660 Magpie: > Because Snape is central to the struggle. He's not taking a > backseat. He's agreeing to spy on the DEs at personal risk. Dana: I was wondering about his spying for the Order and the so-called great personal risk, he endures because of it. Then it occurred to me, what would have put Snape more at risk, returning to LV or not returning? I'd say not returning and sure there was a slight chance, LV would not buy Snape's excuses for not showing up when summoned, but not going at all was a sure death sentence. And of course like Snape claims himself, he had 16 year of information to offer, so the chance of him being killed on the spot, was pretty low. And as we have been elegantly told, you do not hand in your resignation; it is a lifetime of service or death. I think it truly was a bigger *personal* risk to not return. And do we see Snape, do anything that truly risks his DE friends? I do not think so or least not this time around. And no, Snape sending the Order could not really be considered putting them at risk either, because if Lucius had done the job properly, they would have been gone already. Not sending the Order would also not have been an option because he would have lost his cover with DD. Sure I do not think LV was happy, Snape send them at all but I do not believe DD would have found it very believable if Snape had done nothing after hearing Harry tried to warn him besides it provided him with the perfect cover because now he COULD blame it all on Harry (No, Harry was not really at risk and he would indeed have lived to tell the tale, because it is not difficult to imagine LV had ordered his DEs to leave Harry to him, why would he otherwise go to the trouble of getting the prophecy, if Harry was dead, what would he need it for). It seems to me the personal risk is indeed very *personal* because it only includes keeping Snape safe. Not bringing his DE friends in danger, eliminates the risk of being considered a double crosser and the DEs are much less forgiving then the Order (it doesn't matter if Bella accuses him of this later because there is no proof Snape did anything against LV and therefore he is off limits), of course we see with Karkaroff how unforgiving LV really is. Snape pretty much hates every Order Member so one less is just one less to hate. We do not see him go to any real trouble keeping anyone of them safe, at least not at any *personal* risk. He does not seem to provide them any information to keep them one step ahead of LV. At least we do not see any Order activity after he (supposedly) contacted Sirius. I do not believe Sirius would have set back and do nothing but I do not mind anyone calling me biased ;) It seems to me that Snape's actions only include him keeping his cover spotless, either by actively doing nothing or by doing something that keeps him on both sides of the fence and when finally someone is actually able to motivate him into real action, it is against the Order. JMHO Dana From bionicpags at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 19:02:25 2007 From: bionicpags at yahoo.com (Paul) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:02:25 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are a hor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167661 HI! I am dying to know what your thoughts are on this Potterevelation I just had! Here it goes! Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side (James's mother's sister) - did you ever notice that Moaning Myrtle has the EXACT same pair & shape of glasses as James and Harry Potter and no one else who we have met in the Wizarding World has those style of glasses? When Voldemort killed Moaning Myrtle -fifty years ago - Voldemeort made the glasses a horcrux and somehow James stole them back the night of the attack using his invisibility cloak and then gave the glasses and the cloak to Dumbledore on that fateful night before he died to be given to Harry. Harry has had this Horcrux all this time, protecting "his Mother's eyes" and the fact that Voldemort could never get at that final Horcrux because he was either protected by the Dursleys or Hogwarts! WHADDYATHINK????? Paul From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 19:44:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:44:53 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167662 --- "getitright10" wrote: > > Pippin adds: > She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix. > We know you don't have to be magical to be in the > Order, because there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia ... make > a very good spy. And it would be helpful > to Dumbledore to have a Muggle's view of things--... > > Kenny responds: > I really like this idea. It isn't too far fetched for > me at all. It does make sense, and I am still a firm > believer that Lily and Petunia simply weren't so at > odds as what seems to be the collective consensus. > bboyminn: When you say 'ex-Phoenix', I hope you mean 'The Order of...' and not the bird. I first say that I don't believe this theory, but at the same time acknowledge that it has some merit. Petunia could very well be Dumbledore's secret eyes and ears on the muggle world. That is not really that far fetched an idea. Still, I don't buy it. But I do want to make one correction, JKR /never/ said Petunia wasn't a witch. She said she wasn't a Squib and later said that Petunia never had and never would do magic. But again, she never flat our said Petunia wasn't a witch. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Tue Apr 17 20:06:35 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:06:35 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167663 Dana: > > My point was that Snape allowed Harry to be in Umbridge care, without > keeping an eye on the situation, someone that already proved several > times she was out to get him. It was the reason DD was no longer at > Hogwarts, she asked Snape for veritaserum twice and now held Harry at > wand point for the second time (the first after she caught him at the > RoR). DD sacrificed himself to keep Harry within the castle walls but > it is not enough for Snape to stick around and this while we know he > is such a good listener at keyholes ;o). He could have gone around > the corner send his patronus to Sirius without leaving the vicinity > of Umbridge office but he doesn't. > > You state that Snape couldn't have known Harry had gone into the > Forest but why then is DD referring to him knowing, more then once? > Why would he not have said; Snape searched the castle but you were no > where to be found and no one had seen you or Dolores Umbridge or any > of your friends and Snape grew worried she might have taken you to > the forest or that you have gone to the DoM. He says no such thing. > He says Snape grew worried because Harry did not come *out* of the > Forest and then claims that Snape intended to search for Harry *IN* > the Forest. So unless DD is lying then Snape told DD this himself and > therefore he knew. Julie: First, I don't see why Snape *wouldn't* allow Harry to be in Umbridge's care. She did get Dumbledore removed from Hogwarts, and she's certainly no fan of Harry's, but I don't see any evidence that Snape--or any other teacher--is concerned about Harry's physical safety when he's with her. There is no evidence anyone except Ron and Hermione are even aware of the blood pen punishment Umbridge uses on Harry, and Harry made it clear he wasn't going to tell anyone else, certainly not Snape! Additionally, Snape knows she's tied to the idiots at the Ministry not to Voldemort, so he would have no concern that she'd turn Harry over the him or his Death Eaters. She may bend the rules to suit herself, but she plays within them, and there's no reason for Snape to fear for Harry here, in fact, it may make him a bit complacent when he realizes Harry is with Umbridge--the brat certainly can't get into more trouble (example, trying to find a way to the Ministry) if he's with Umbridge. Also, when Dumbledore relays the information about Snape informing the Order, he is relaying a condensed version as anyone would. There is no reason to go through each step Snape took--"Snape went to Umbridge's office, he learned from the still-conscious Slytherins that you'd gone to the forest with Professor Umbridge, then he took the unconscious Slytherins to the Infirmary, then he....etc, etc." He skipped to the pertinent points. I don't know at what point Snape actually knew they went into the forest, but he would have gotten the information directly or inferred it. So I agree Snape did know, but I don't see that it would indicate any lack on Snape's part. He knows where Harry is, who he's with, and really doesn't have any reason to suspect actual danger to Harry until too long a period of time passes. Dana: > > Also in previous posts I already mentioned that it might just be a > result of sloppy writing to just get the plot pushed forward but it > could very well have been intentional. I am not blaming Snape for > anything other then doing a bad job of taking care of Harry as an > Order member and this makes him just as responsible for the disaster > at the DoM as DD, especially because Snape IS a spy and he SHOULD > have known what LV was up to and he claims as much in HBP when he > tells Bella he was ordered to stay behind and if he didn't know then > he is the most dreadful spy ever. > > Just as he could have found a way to make sure he never lost Harry > out of his sight after he realized (as DD claims) LV had planted the > vision to get Harry to the DoM and with Harry's track record he > should have known better but the guy loses Harry out of his sight for > several hours enough for Harry to wander the Forest, have an > encounter with the centaurs and Gwarp, have a chat with his friends > on what to do next, fly to the DoM and then wander around DoM before > getting into the fight with the DEs and then when he is almost > defeated the Order shows up and we learn they left right away, after > they got the message from Snape. > > No, Snape tells DD that he was so surprised Harry still believed LV > got Sirius, Snape did not realize that he might still try to get the > DoM, because that is what it actually says. Sorry Headmaster, how > could I have known Harry would not trust me enough to take care of > things, it is his arrogance always trying to be the hero, never wants > to leave it to the adults, always takes matter into his own hands and > now his actions got his dear Godfather killed. If the both of them > had listened to me, none of this would have happened. > He lost Harry out of his sight and in the care of a woman that wanted > to distroy DD, his Order and Harry but Snape was not to blame because > the poor guy how could he have known. How? Because he should have > made it his business to know that is how. Julie: We probably will have to agree to disagree, as others besides myself have pointed out perfectly valid arguments why Snape wouldn't be worried that Umbridge was with Harry (and though she was out to "destroy" DD and Harry, she was trying to do so through manipulation of official channels, not by driving stakes into their hearts, and Snape probably had little concern that she would ever achieve even that much). And valid reasons why he wouldn't suspect Harry *could* get to the Ministry, no matter how much he wanted to get there (it doesn't matter if he knows Harry doesn't trust him, since that's not the point). Without some significant chance occurences, especially the Threstrals being unexpectedly available, Harry would have been as powerless to leave Hogwarts as Snape supposed him to be. Julie, who will leave Snape's supposed failure as a spy for another post From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 20:05:36 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:05:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704171305y6547a6cfxf92897f5d9fa168c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167664 On 17 Apr 2007 12:35:59 -0700, Dana wrote: > It seems to me that Snape's actions only include him keeping his > cover spotless, either by actively doing nothing or by doing > something that keeps him on both sides of the fence and when finally > someone is actually able to motivate him into real action, it is > against the Order. This last is not in evidence. It's not been established that killing DD _was_ against the Order - If DDM, having done that, he can go deep undercover in the DE organization --Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 20:26:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:26:44 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167665 > zgirnius: > Snape confirmed that Voldemort was getting stronger in GoF. Alla: He did, but doesn't JKR inserts there DD saying that he could have figure it out without Snape? ( paraphrasing) Could that be a hint that the only information Snape brings is the one that could be deciphered without him and he would be safe saying it anyways? zgirnius: > He brought some unspecified piece of intelligence to an Order meeting > in OotP, which I believe was about Voldemort's desire to get the > prophecy. That the information was not used in the best possible way > by his commander in chief, by the latter's own admission, is hardly > his fault. Alla: Possibly, but I was always suspicious of **him** coming to the kitchen. Isn't Snape name never mentioned there? I could be wrong - OOP is the book which I barely reread. Sooo, I think even though it could have been Snape, it can also be one of DD other spies, whom we learn about in DH. zgirnius: > Dumbledore 'was told' about Voldemort's wrath at learning of the > destruction of the diary. I know who I think brought that tidbit, > which was a supporting bit of evidence that led Dumbledore to the > conclusion that the Diary had been a Horcrux. > > --zgirnius, who thinks all flavors of Snape are hypothetical at least > until 7/21/2007. > Alla: Yeah, that is a possibility of course :) From tlfolsom80 at aol.com Tue Apr 17 19:59:39 2007 From: tlfolsom80 at aol.com (Tammy Folsom) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:59:39 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys References: Message-ID: <4625272B.000004.03760@ACER-C28991BD48> No: HPFGUIDX 167666 > Shelley: > I still think that it is possible that Petunia is a witch that Refused her Witchhood- that there could be some formal process For doing what it is that JW proposes: to de-power a wizard into Muggleness. > Tammy Responds > Shelly while I agree that it is possible that Petunia refused Her heritage, if she did it could be considered a mistreatment of Dudley for the Dursleys > to not allow him to decide for himself If he wanted to be a Wizard or not. Kenny adds: I don't think Petunia's a witch. I think too many people have assumed that Petunia didn't know/want to know much about the WW. I pose the theory that maybe she did. Maybe she was quite involved with her sister and her magical self. Maybe a resentment grew over time, but I think that at one point she knew what was going on in the WW and was close with Lily. Maybe it was the war that pushed them apart. I think she took Harry in because he's her (then orphaned) nephew, And that's all. No more, no less. I think she despised magic and Harry because 1)if her sister was never a witch, she may not have been murdered; 2)Harry's a reminder of Lily AND of the WW (which "took" Lily away from her);3) wouldn't you be kinda frazzled knowing Voldemort just tried to kill your nephew and he may still be on loose -- how is she REALLY supposed to protect Harry, even with all the blood ties. Would that be convincing enough? I don't know. But I got away from my point: I think she's just keeping up appearances. She's coping the best way she knows how. Kenny From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 20:49:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:49:46 -0000 Subject: Caput Draconis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167667 Goddlefrood wrote: > > > By this token The Fat Lady's first password "Caput Draconis", meaning approximately "off with their heads" > > > > Random832: > > Except it means "Dragon's Head", not anything like that. > Goddlefrood responded: > > In Pig Latin it certainly might (mine or Random832's, take your pick), then again it also means "North Node", as it is likely to have come from some astrological source or another ;). > > Easily traceable if interested. > > The main point is that the Fat Lady has many and varied passwords throughout the books and no inferences should be drawn from the use of passwords by her or by any other password guardians as the thread starter did in order to support a contention that Slyths are bad, when clearly they not all are. Darol responds: "Caput draconis" means "dragon's head" (literally, "head of the dragon") in Latin, not pig Latin (which is merely a children's anguagelay in ichwhay the first yllablesay is--well, never mind. You get the idea). It isn't even the sort of pseudo-Latin that JKR often uses for her spells, which I believe more nearly qualifies as dog Latin. :-). As for "Caput Draconis" also meaning "north node," that's not quite accurate (though you're correct that it's an astrological term). Caput Draconis is *the name of* the moon's north node, which in astrology is associated with fate or some such thing. (Don't ask me; I'm no astrology expert.) It may relate in some way to Harry's fate, but given JKR's treatment of Divination in the books, I suspect that it doesn't/ It's interesting, though, that "Caput Draconis" would be the very first password to the Gryffindor common room that we're given in the books. I don't know about anyone else, but I immediately thought of Draco = dragon), not yet realizing that he was named for a star or constellation in the Black family tradition, and of the Hogwarts motto, "Draco dormiens numnquam titillandus." Nevertheless, the Fat Lady has no special insight into Draco Malfoy, a brand-new first-year in another House entirely. What significance the password may have, if any, is probably unconnected with him. (By the same token, "Mimbulus mimbletonia" is probably unconnected with Neville--just a lucky coincidence for him that the password for once was one he could easily remember.) To return to the topic of "pureblood" as password for the Slytherins, I'm not sure that the Slytherin common room has a guardian like the portrait of the Fat Lady. I don't recall any such portrait in the Cos scene in which Harry and Ron were polyjuiced as Crabbe and Goyle. Although it does appear that the Fat Lady chooses the passwords for Gryffindor, as does Sir Cadogan, it's not clear who chooses the passwords for Slytherin. Their prefects, possibly? Or Phineas Nigellus, who has nothing better to do most of the time? Maybe there's a portrait hanging over their common room, but, if so, Harry didn't notice at the time and consequently, the narrator doesn't mention it. Or maybe JKR just didn't think it was important. It's just a detail, like the password to the Prefects' bathroom being "pine fresh," that in her view was appropriate to the occasion but neither a red herring nor a clue. Carol, wondering irrelevantly whether the male and female prefects share a bathroom or whether Cedric just forgot to mention that he meant the male prefects' bathroom From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 21:01:27 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:01:27 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: <008301c780a5$2b276630$23b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167668 > zgirnius: > If he is not to be credited with the lives he saved at Hogwarts, > surely he should not be blamed for his failures as a teacher? > Neri: Who's talking about Snape as a teacher? *Agent* Snape was ordered by his supreme commander to make Harry voldy-proof, because this was critical for the war effort, and he failed. If this was his only failure you could blame Harry (as most people did pre-HBP, although Dumbledore himself admitted that Snape put his personal problems with James before Order objectives here) but since then it turned out to be only the first in a long list of Snape's failures. > zgirnius: > It seems to me all that he failed to discover was the planned date of > that operation, a detail any competent evil overlord would give out > only on a need-to-know basis. The Order knew Voldemort was after the > prophecy (and this could be the information Snape provided at the > Order meeting at the start of OotP). And they knew he planned to use > Harry to get it (though Snape discovered this through teaching Harry > Occlumency, not more conventional spying on the enemy. > Neri: As you say, the Order already knew Voldy was after the prophecy. You didn't need to be a hotshot agent to figure that much out, and security measures were taken against it. What the Order was lacking, what a spy in the enemy camp could contribute, was precisely the planned date of the operation, as well as the means. Since DDM!Snape was not able to find that out his spying mission did not contribute anything to the Order and was, in practice, worthless. > zgirnius: > He did realize immediately what it was, it seems to me. He checked on > Sirius anyway, which was only prudent. Neri: If Snape realized immediately that an operation was underway, then he should have also realized that Sirius could be only a false bait to lure Harry to the DoM, and therefore the fact that Sirius was safe in HQ did not in any way mean everything was fine. If Snape realized that an operation was underway he should have alerted the whole Order at once, tell them to send people to the DoM (the DEs could be captured) and above all locate Harry as fast as possible. > zgirnius: > Here we start to enter the murk of timeline issues. How long did it > take for Snape to check that the vision was indeed not genuine? Neri: Alerting the Order would take the same time it took checking if the vision was genuine. Finding that the vision was not genuine does *not* mean an operation wasn't underway. In summary, Snape either failed to realize an operation was underway, or did realize it but failed to alert the Order immediately about it. And he was the spy who was supposed to discover what the enemy was scheming. > zgirnius: > The locations of the two Malfoys not in Ministry custody are unknown > to us at present. > Neri: Their location doesn't matter much. If Voldy wants them dead he'll find them like he found Karkaroff. This is why Dumbledore's plan was to fake their death, and Snape failed this too. > zgirnius: > This is of course debatable. I don't think he wanted the job > particularly. Neri: Everything is debatable if you want to debate it, but at the moment it appears Snape wanted the DADA job a lot. > zgirnius: > Snape confirmed that Voldemort was getting stronger in GoF. > He brought some unspecified piece of intelligence to an Order meeting > in OotP, which I believe was about Voldemort's desire to get the > prophecy. That the information was not used in the best possible way > by his commander in chief, by the latter's own admission, is hardly > his fault. > Dumbledore 'was told' about Voldemort's wrath at learning of the > destruction of the diary. I know who I think brought that tidbit, > which was a supporting bit of evidence that led Dumbledore to the > conclusion that the Diary had been a Horcrux. > Neri: As I was saying, during his the VW2 spying career we don't know about a single item of information Snape managed to bring from the enemy camp *to save the day*. > --zgirnius, who thinks all flavors of Snape are hypothetical at least > until 7/21/2007. Neri: Well, lets say DDM!Snape seems considerably more hypothetical now than he seemed after OotP. In fact, even the term DDM was only invented after HBP. Before that it wasn't needed at all, as DDM!Snape was the consensus. > Magpie: > Doesn't it rather make Dumbledore the worst commander in history? Neri: If you read my posts you know I'm far from being thrilled by Dumbledore's performances as a commander. One of his recurring mistakes seems to be relying too much on Snape and too little on Harry (he admits to both in the end of OotP, and yet repeats both in HBP). However, Dumbledore at the very least can show a few significant contributions. Like capturing eight DEs single-handed, or winning a duel against Voldy (admittedly only by points, not KO), or uncovering Voldy's most important secret, or finding and destroying a Horcrux. It is this kind of contributions that is so suspiciously absent from the file of secret agent Snape. Besides, Dumbledore at least has the decency to be nice, polite, and admit to mistakes once in a while. And when Dumbledore makes a really critical mistake he gets killed. When DDM!Snape makes a critical mistake someone else gets killed. > Magpie: > Concerning Draco, I don't know why anyone would consider Snape as > mishandling that situation. It read to me far more obviously as a situation > coming to a head because of individuals driven by different powerful > agendas. Snape is dealing with a teenager who is changed. His previous > relationship with him is why Snape is a figure Draco is challenging and > rebelling against. It's not a reason that Snape should be able to know what > Draco is doing (even the question of Legilimancy is for once actually > answered in the text where we're told he can't read his mind because he's > doing Occlumency). Dumbledore is no more able to stop the necklace or the > mead than Snape is. Neri: Another long list of excuses, but DDM!Snape was deeply involved in the Draco affair from the beginning, and the bottom line is that and he failed in preventing the consequences. Again. > Magpie: > Not to mention, it's possible that Dumbledore could be > keeping Snape from taking more decisive measures with Draco. Harry tells DD > Draco's up to something in the RoR and Dumbledore dismisses him. Snape might > have gotten as far and would have gotten the same response. Whichever man > Snape is, Dumbledore is in control of the plot in HBP. The final > confrontation with Draco seems like something DD was working towards. > Neri: Indeed, the only way to have a DDM!Snape who isn't a complete failure is to have a Dumbledore who is a complete failure. But I doubt that what we're going to discover in DH is that Dumbledore was a complete failure. > Magpie: > But that's really neither here nor there, because we're in Harry's pov and > Harry is not privvy to any secret information Snape would give Dumbledore. > We don't know what information Lupin is getting from the werewolves either, > but presumably that doesn't make him incompetent. > Neri: The werewolves didn't attack Harry or Hogwarts yet. The DEs did, twice in two books. Imagine that the werewolves would have attacked while Lupin was sitting oblivious in his office, or behaving as if nothing of importance had happened for several hours, and Snape got killed in the attack while bravely defending Harry. I suspect we'd have hundreds of threads in HPfGU about Lupin's incompetence. > Magpie: > Wouldn't he be revealed to be just as incompetent if not moreso? Why on > earth did he send a squad of Order members to the MoM when Voldemort had > sent a team of DEs to get in and out with the Prophecy? When there was no > reason whatsoever for him to send anyone to help at all? Everything went > exactly as Voldemort planned, so why did LVM!Snape decide to send in the > cavalry? Just to spice things up? Neri: Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The really interesting question is how to explain Snape's strange behavior in the end of OotP *in light of what we know post-HBP*. Forget what you believed before HBP, what seemed likely then and what didn't seem likely. Major things have changed and it's time for reassessment. The fact that Dumbledore was vouching for Snape counts now much less than it counted pre-HBP (he was also vouching for Snape in the end of HBP and minutes later was AKed off the astronomy tower). It appears highly suspicious that Dumbledore makes things appear like everybody in the Order had acted "at once" (he repeats this expression three times within half a page!) while canon clearly shows that several hours must have passed. It looks like Dumbledore is covering for somebody. For whom? The assumption that this must be a flint because we got the official explanation from Dumbledore and the night's events will never be revisited isn't that obvious anymore. And if the night events will be revisited, the revelations will probably be important, not just who did exactly what and when for completeness sake. So lets reassess. How does Snape's behavior during that night look like? As you correctly points out, it doesn't look like LVM!Snape. Neither does it look like a DDM!Snape. Snape's behavior here is contradictory (what else is new...). At first he's totally cool with what's happening, and several hours later he sends the Order to the DoM. One explanation could be that he's slow on the uptake, but I don't think this is so. Snape's behavior suggests to me two things: he has his own agenda, and he is torn between contradicting objectives. Here are the details: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149239 Neri From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Apr 17 21:09:16 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:09:16 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167670 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > Magpie: > > > Because Snape is central to the struggle. He's not taking a > > backseat. He's agreeing to spy on the DEs at personal risk. > > Dana: what would have put Snape more at risk, returning to LV or not > returning? > > I'd say not returning and sure there was a slight chance, LV would > not buy Snape's excuses for not showing up when summoned, wynnleaf "Slight chance??" Remember that Voldemort would have seen Snape's actions regarding Quirrell in SS/PS. He'd know from Pettigrew that Snape had sought to have Sirius kissed by dementors -- who everyone including Snape thought was a loyal Voldemort supporter. He'd know that Snape had done nothing to search for Voldemort in the interim, and hadn't come when Voldemort first called. Further, there was always the risk that Voldemort's occlumency skills were now a lot better (living 12 years in spirit form). Dana but not > going at all was a sure death sentence. And as we have been > elegantly told, you do not hand in your resignation; it is a lifetime > of service or death. I think it truly was a bigger *personal* risk to > not return. wynnleaf So I assume you don't believe Dumbledore when he told Draco that he could hide Draco and his mother and that Voldemort wouldn't be able to find them? Surely if Dumbledore could have hidden Draco and Narcissa, he could have hidden Snape just as well. Karkarov, who was killed when he ran, wasn't supported by Dumbledore. Snape had been protected by Dumbledore in the past and could have requested his help in hiding from Voldemort. Dana And of course like Snape > claims himself, he had 16 year of information to offer, so the chance > of him being killed on the spot, was pretty low. wynnleaf Dumbledore appears rather worried when Snape left at the end of GOF, and Snape looks pretty stressed as well. Since Dumbledore completely trusted Snape, his concerns were far more likely to be for Snape's safety. > Dana > And do we see Snape, do anything that truly risks his DE friends? I > do not think so or least not this time around. wynnleaf I'm not sure what you mean. The DE's at the MOM weren't at risk when Snape sent the Order? They certainly did fare badly didn't they? Malfoy ends up in prison, and supposedly he was a friend. You think Snape assumed all of the DE's would be gone by then and therefore out of danger from the Order? IMO, if Snape is really trying to be loyal to Voldemort and act in his best interest, Snape is incompetent and stupid. Lucky for him, Voldemort doesn't appear to know who sent the Order members. Or do you mean Snape didn't take any risks? You don't consider the Unbreakable Vow a risk? Wow. If Snape had not been there to protect Draco when Harry hit him with the Sectumsempra, he'd have died. Protecting Draco was not some easy walk in the park, and failure would be at the forfeit of Snape's life. >Dana > Not sending the Order would also not have been an option because he > would have lost his cover with DD. wynnleaf So basically, even though Dumbledore continued to trust Snape even after learning about Snape's unbreakable vow, he would have lost his trust in Snape if Snape had said something like "I never knew they went into the forest," or "I never thought they could make it to London" or some other such reason for not knowing that the group had gone to London. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. On the one hand, we have Dumbledore willing to trust Snape even through something that appears highly suspicious (the UV), versus losing his trust in Snape because of something that even Evil!Snape could come up with several reasonable excuses to explain. Dana Sure I do not think LV was happy, > Snape send them at all but I do not believe DD would have found it > very believable if Snape had done nothing after hearing Harry tried > to warn him wynnleaf Dumbledore is starting to sound very wishy washy in your scenario. He trusts Snape even though Snape's been a death eater, even though Snape delivered the prophecy to Voldemort, even though he made an unbreakable vow with Narcissa (and yes, Dumbledore had to have known about it eventually), yet he looses his trust over this? >Dnna > It seems to me the personal risk is indeed very *personal* because it > only includes keeping Snape safe. wynnleaf So basically, you're saying that Dumbledore has it all wrong when he thought Snape (in the first war) was taking great personal risks, because Dumbledore didn't figure out that Snape really had no other choice. Snape had no other choices due to the fact that Dumbledore couldn't have hidden Snape from Voldemort successfully? Oh, or maybe Dumbledore just doesn't realize that he *can't* really hide people successfully. Is that what you mean? >Dana > Snape pretty much hates every Order Member so one less is just one > less to hate. wynnleaf Huh? Canon? We know he hates the Maruaders, but that's only two Order members. Where's your canon for Snape's opinion of anyone else? His comment to Tonks about her patronus seems more targeted at his opinion of Lupin. He seems to get along find with McGonagall and even seems sort of glad at her return at the end of OOTP. I see no animosity from him toward Arthur or Molly or their older sons, or Shacklebolt, or anyone else. He does seem to have a problem with Moody, but Moody never believed in Snape's turning away from Voldemort, so that's understandable. I don't see that he *hates* Moody. Dana We do not see him go to any real trouble keeping anyone > of them safe, at least not at any *personal* risk. He does not seem > to provide them any information to keep them one step ahead of LV. wynnleaf How could you possibly know this? Harry is not an Order member, and therefore we never see one Order meeting, where presumably any such information is passed along. We have no particular information that Lupin is doing any good as a spy, either, because we never see his reports. Dana At > least we do not see any Order activity after he (supposedly) > contacted Sirius. I do not believe Sirius would have set back and do > nothing but I do not mind anyone calling me biased ;) wynnleaf Snape must have contacted Sirius the first time. When Snape contacted the Order the second time, 4 Order members were present including Sirius. They certainly must have heard from Sirius whether or not this was a completely new situation to Sirius (he'd heard nothing previously), or whether he'd gotten an earlier communication from Snape. wynnleaf From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 21:41:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:55 -0000 Subject: Draco's Hand of Glory and Teen!Snape's cutting curse (Was: World Building) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167671 Magpie: > > The stuff introduced in B&B's shop seems to be there to establish the existance of the stuff Draco's going to use later-we assume the necklace is the same one and not a different necklace. Carol responds: I agree with this idea and with most of your post, but I'd also like to mention that the interview Pippin cites is from October 2000, after both Poa and Gof had been published, and CoS came out in July 1998 (the manuscript having been completed months before). JKR was wrote those three books in quick succession, had to rewrite a large portion of GoF that didn't work out, and then rush to meet an unrealistic deadline. Most of the chapters in CoS and all of the chapters in two longer books (one of them very long) came between the interview and that chapter--time enough for her to become fuzzy on the details and to come to *believe* that Draco had actually acquired the Hand of Glory in CoS. I don't think she checked the detail as she wrote HBP because the idea that Draco already had the Hand of Glory (perhaps stashed in that secret chamber beneath the Malfoy drawing room) was so firmly established in her own mind. I do disagree with your little aside, "(I also believe the curse Snape throws at James in the Pensieve is to establish Sectumsempra)," however. James wasn't "cut always." He had no problems casting more spells or defending himself to Lily. He was in no danger, nor is there any indication that he needed either a complex countercurse to stop the bleeding or dittany to prevent him from having a scar on his forehead like his future son. There's no motive *before* the "Worst Memory" scene for Severus to invent that spell, but plenty of reason to seek revenge after it--or after the so-called Prank. I think he used that little cutting spell (perhaps "Sectum") and developed it into something much worse, something Dark and deadly, Sectum*sempra*, in response to that incident. He wanted a spell especially developed "For enemies" to get back at James and Sirius. (He must not have used it, however, or they'd have been found like Draco lying in a pool of their own blood and Severus would have been expelled.) So, yes, there's some foreshadowing here, and a revelation of motive, but I don't think they're the same spell. Too many differences and insufficient reason for him to have invented anything worse than the toenail hex and Langlock before that time. Carol, snipping large portions of Magpie's post that I agree with From wolfiesmom98 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 21:46:14 2007 From: wolfiesmom98 at yahoo.com (WOLFIESMOM98) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:46:14 -0000 Subject: will they return to Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167672 Harry has said that he will not return to Hogwarts but surely he'll change his mind. He knows that without a diploma, he can't hope to become an auror which is his ambition. As 7th years, one or two of our trio might become headboy or girl. Is Harry even eligible since he was not a prefect? I personally believe that Hermione is a shoe-in for headgirl but headboy seems wide open, any guesses? wolfiesmom98 From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Apr 17 21:53:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:53:19 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward?/The Dursleys/James' Patronu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167673 > Magpie: > > > Because Snape is central to the struggle. He's not taking a > > backseat. He's agreeing to spy on the DEs at personal risk. > > Dana: > I was wondering about his spying for the Order and the so-called > great personal risk, he endures because of it. Then it occurred to > me, what would have put Snape more at risk, returning to LV or not > returning? > > I'd say not returning and sure there was a slight chance, LV would > not buy Snape's excuses for not showing up when summoned, but not > going at all was a sure death sentence. Magpie: It would definitely have made LV put out a hit on Snape if Snape didn't return, but Snape would be in the safety of Hogwarts with Dumbledore. As a spy he's making himself vulnerable to Voldemort by going to him after all the things he's done. There was a big chance he'd have been killed on the spot or LV wouldn't believe his excuses. Spying is dangerous by definition. With LV back Snape is in danger; he's allegedly agreed to use the danger to Dumbledore's advantage rather than just protect himself. Dana: > And do we see Snape, do anything that truly risks his DE friends? I > do not think so or least not this time around. And no, Snape sending > the Order could not really be considered putting them at risk either, > because if Lucius had done the job properly, they would have been > gone already.> > Not sending the Order would also not have been an option because he > would have lost his cover with DD. Sure I do not think LV was happy, > Snape send them at all but I do not believe DD would have found it > very believable if Snape had done nothing after hearing Harry tried > to warn him besides it provided him with the perfect cover because > now he COULD blame it all on Harry (No, Harry was not really at risk > and he would indeed have lived to tell the tale, because it is not > difficult to imagine LV had ordered his DEs to leave Harry to him, > why would he otherwise go to the trouble of getting the prophecy, if > Harry was dead, what would he need it for). > Magpie: Sending the Order did risk his DE friends, obviously. It got them all put in jail and attacked. I see no suggestion that not sending them *wasn't* an option. Saying so doesn't make it so. It just seems like that whole idea is made up to explain away stuff in the text that is a problem for LV!Snape, trying to both explain why Snape sent the Order because it's important while also claiming sending the Order wasn't important. I'm not sure what he would be blaming on Harry there. Harry didn't warn Snape to send the Order to the MoM. He told him Sirius was there. All Snape had to do is make sure Sirius was okay. It seems like LV is more forgiving than DD here--LV would understand why Snape had to send the Order members who got his DEs captured while Dumbledore wouldn't forgive him for not sending them...even though this is all in response to Harry doing something Snape had no reason to know about. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for Dumbledore to think "Snape didn't send the Order because he had no way of knowing Harry was no longer at Hogwarts" than for LV to say "Snape sent the Order because Dumbledore might think he had a chance of knowing Harry was no longer at Hogwarts." Dana: > It seems to me the personal risk is indeed very *personal* because it > only includes keeping Snape safe. Magpie: I don't think there's any doubt that "personal" means Snape. That's what Snape is doing by pretending to be a DE when he's not. If he's found out he will be killed. Dana: Not bringing his DE friends in > danger, eliminates the risk of being considered a double crosser and > the DEs are much less forgiving then the Order (it doesn't matter if > Bella accuses him of this later because there is no proof Snape did > anything against LV and therefore he is off limits), of course we see > with Karkaroff how unforgiving LV really is. Magpie: But he did put his DE friends in danger. He sent the Order to the MoM and got them arrested and attacked. There's no indication that Dumbledore is ordering him to put DEs in danger as a matter of course. Dana:> > Snape pretty much hates every Order Member so one less is just one > less to hate. We do not see him go to any real trouble keeping anyone > of them safe, at least not at any *personal* risk. He does not seem > to provide them any information to keep them one step ahead of LV. At > least we do not see any Order activity after he (supposedly) > contacted Sirius. I do not believe Sirius would have set back and do > nothing but I do not mind anyone calling me biased ;) Magpie: I'm not sure what you're definition of "real trouble" is. None of the Order members have gone to any trouble to keep Snape safe either. Snape doesn't have to personally worry about every Order member. Snape has taken actions that contribute to the safety of people on the good side. We don't know what information he's giving them--why would you assume he's not giving them anything important? Just because he's not keeping them "one step ahead" of LV (which would not only make for a boring story, but would be unrealistic) doesn't mean he's not pulling his own weight. LV, too, seems to be okay with Snape not keeping him one step ahead of Dumbledore. And question Snape's contacting Sirius? Sirius himself would know whether or not he was contacted, wouldn't he? And Are you suggesting also that Snape contacted Sirius because he thought that would make him go to the MoM? Snape can't be both expecting the Order to find nothing at the MoM and also trying to get Sirius killed by the DEs at the MoM. Dana: > It seems to me that Snape's actions only include him keeping his > cover spotless, either by actively doing nothing or by doing > something that keeps him on both sides of the fence and when finally > someone is actually able to motivate him into real action, it is > against the Order. Magpie: He hasn't kept his cover spotless--not on the DE side. The've questioned the very inactivity and action for the other side you're describing, only for Dumbledore. He has taken action plenty of times in canon in situations that are, whether Harry likes it or not, on Harry's side. Even when he could have done nothing. I'm not saying that Snape is definitely DDM and that he couldn't be LV!Snape, but it just seems like the definition for DDM!Snape here is exaggerated in ways LV!Snape is not. So LV!Snape can show his evilness by sending the Order to the MoM if we imagine he was hoping they'd show up too late, while DDM!Snape falls short if he hasn't shown personal distress over the fate of all the Order members, and openly proved loyalty to Harry in front of hostile witnesses, and worried when Harry's out of his sight for too long, even though all of these things go against Snape's character. Neri: As you say, the Order already knew Voldy was after the prophecy. You didn't need to be a hotshot agent to figure that much out, and security measures were taken against it. What the Order was lacking, what a spy in the enemy camp could contribute, was precisely the planned date of the operation, as well as the means. Since DDM!Snape was not able to find that out his spying mission did not contribute anything to the Order and was, in practice, worthless. Magpie: We don't actually know that the Order "already" knew that Voldemort was after the Prophecy. It's obvious to us because we read the book. It's certainly possible that that information came from Snape. Dumbledore knows as well as anyone where Snape is stationed--at Hogwarts--so why would he be part of a plan that's taking place elsewhere? As it is, Snape *does* find out the planned date of the operation and the means as well. He tells the Order about it, and they arrive to save Harry. Maybe they don't know as far in advance about the date as they might have wanted, but Snape does exactly what you're saying he's needed to do here. Neri: If Snape realized immediately that an operation was underway, then he should have also realized that Sirius could be only a false bait to lure Harry to the DoM, and therefore the fact that Sirius was safe in HQ did not in any way mean everything was fine. If Snape realized that an operation was underway he should have alerted the whole Order at once, tell them to send people to the DoM (the DEs could be captured) and above all locate Harry as fast as possible. Magpie: Who says nobody has considered this anyway, though? Isn't Sirius with more Order members after Snape's message? None of them know the very thing that Snape doesn't know, which is that Harry has left Hogwarts. Sirius has been contacted about the vision and is now with other people--why aren't they already on their way to the Order and trying to locate Harry? Probably for the same reason Snape isn't-- because Harry's location is not a mystery. He is at Hogwarts. Once that surprising piece of information that he isn't comes forth Snape...alerts the whole order at once and tells them to send people to the DoM. Neri: Alerting the Order would take the same time it took checking if the vision was genuine. Finding that the vision was not genuine does *not* mean an operation wasn't underway. In summary, Snape either failed to realize an operation was underway, or did realize it but failed to alert the Order immediately about it. And he was the spy who was supposed to discover what the enemy was scheming. Magpie: I thought everybody knew what the enemy was scheming. If Sirius knows Harry's been given a vision, that information has been passed on and the Order can act on it--aren't they already aware they need to watch the Prophecy room? They all have the information at this point, right? Neri: As I was saying, during his the VW2 spying career we don't know about a single item of information Snape managed to bring from the enemy camp *to save the day*. Magpie: Didn't he bring the important information that Voldemort had targetted the Potters and possibly the Longbottoms? He didn't save the day due to Peter, but he did bring day-saving information. Beyond that, of course, we aren't reading the story of Snape and Dumbledore's plans against LV, so we can't say one way or the other what information Snape is bringing or not bringing. Neri: Well, lets say DDM!Snape seems considerably more hypothetical now than he seemed after OotP. In fact, even the term DDM was only invented after HBP. Magpie: Yes, because the killing of Dumbledore seems to be an act that makes Snape definitively ESE, enough to outweigh the previous DDM!Snape stuff. Neri: Like capturing eight DEs single-handed, or winning a duel against Voldy (admittedly only by points, not KO), or uncovering Voldy's most important secret, or finding and destroying a Horcrux. It is this kind of contributions that is so suspiciously absent from the file of secret agent Snape. Magpie: He wouldn't have won that battle or duel without Snape's telling him to get to the MoM. It's not surprising Snape has no such duels or battles himself, of course, since that's the nature of a spy. The most successful spies probably have no such glories on their resume. Neri: Besides, Dumbledore at least has the decency to be nice, polite, and admit to mistakes once in a while. And when Dumbledore makes a really critical mistake he gets killed. When DDM!Snape makes a critical mistake someone else gets killed. Magpie: Actually, Dumbledore's critical mistakes have gotten other people killed too, among other things. The stakes are pretty high. Snape hasn't gotten himself killed yet, but neither had Dumbledore until he died. Neri: Another long list of excuses, but DDM!Snape was deeply involved in the Draco affair from the beginning, and the bottom line is that and he failed in preventing the consequences. Again. Magpie: It's not a long list of excuses so much as what the situation was-- it seemed like you were describing it differently. Snape did fail to prevent the consequences, but so did Dumbledore. Again. Snape and Dumbledore were both obviously taking a huge gamble in the Draco storyline--Dumbledore says as much. I think we're meant to be frustrated at everything going pear-shaped, but Snape isn't any more incompetent than anybody else in the series. Only when compared to a version of Snape who's made to make everything come out differently. Neri: Another long list of excuses, but DDM!Snape was deeply involved in the Draco affair from the beginning, and the bottom line is that and he failed in preventing the consequences. Again. Magpie: They can all be partial failures. Again. Seems like this is a situation the books have embraced since the beginning. Neri: The werewolves didn't attack Harry or Hogwarts yet. The DEs did, twice in two books. Imagine that the werewolves would have attacked while Lupin was sitting oblivious in his office, or behaving as if nothing of importance had happened for several hours, and Snape got killed in the attack while bravely defending Harry. I suspect we'd have hundreds of threads in HPfGU about Lupin's incompetence. Magpie: We no doubt would have threads about Lupin's incompetence, but JKR still might have written it specifically so that Lupin was unable to stop it. My point in HBP is that it's not written so that it all hinges on Snape and Dumbledore being idiots. It hinges on them making mistakes and being surprised by the younger generation who aren't as predictable as the older one thinks it is and things they don't know and being too arrogant about their (or Dumbledore's) own plans. Neri: Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The really interesting question is how to explain Snape's strange behavior in the end of OotP *in light of what we know post-HBP*. Forget what you believed before HBP, what seemed likely then and what didn't seem likely. Major things have changed and it's time for reassessment. The fact that Dumbledore was vouching for Snape counts now much less than it counted pre-HBP (he was also vouching for Snape in the end of HBP and minutes later was AKed off the astronomy tower). Magpie: Actually, I think Dumbledore's vouching for Snape is as important as ever, as is the mysterious reason for *why* he vouched for him. Neri: It appears highly suspicious that Dumbledore makes things appear like everybody in the Order had acted "at once" (he repeats this expression three times within half a page!) while canon clearly shows that several hours must have passed. Magpie: Didn't he say that when Harry didn't come back from the forest (that part referring to the "several hours") that he notified the order and that's when they all acted at once? I admit I go with a Flint on this one and dramatic stuff with the dawn and all that. Neri: How does Snape's behavior during that night look like? As you correctly points out, it doesn't look like LVM!Snape. Neither does it look like a DDM!Snape. Snape's behavior here is contradictory (what else is new...). At first he's totally cool with what's happening, and several hours later he sends the Order to the DoM. One explanation could be that he's slow on the uptake, but I don't think this is so. Magpie: But it does look like DDM!Snape to me. He is cool with what's happening because Harry's at Hogwarts and Sirius is at Grimmauld Place. When one of those things doesn't seem to be true, he gets in touch with the Order again. It's just hard for me to ever see Snape's behavior as wrong in this sequence (it can be slow-witted or whatever, but not LV!Snape-ish) because the whole rescue of Harry hinges on it. To me it's like looking at Snape killing Dumbledore and saying, "It doesn't look like DDM!Snape--but it doesn't look like LV!Snape either." When to me it *does* look like LV!Snape. (Although I suspect that will turn out to be a false impression--but I could be wrong.) Debi: A Stag, the same animal that Harry's is. This is where James got the nickname "Prongs" Magpie: No, that's his animagus form. Not his Patronus. bboyminn: But I do want to make one correction, JKR /never/ said Petunia wasn't a witch. She said she wasn't a Squib and later said that Petunia never had and never would do magic. But again, she never flat our said Petunia wasn't a witch. Magpie: She said she was A MUGGLE. Flat-out. -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Apr 17 22:02:34 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:02:34 -0000 Subject: Draco's Hand of Glory and Teen!Snape's cutting curse (Was: World Building) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167674 >Carol said: > I do disagree with your little aside, "(I also believe the curse Snape > throws at James in the Pensieve is to establish Sectumsempra)," however. > > James wasn't "cut always." He had no problems casting more spells or > defending himself to Lily. He was in no danger, nor is there any > indication that he needed either a complex countercurse to stop the > bleeding or dittany to prevent him from having a scar on his forehead > like his future son. > > There's no motive *before* the "Worst Memory" scene for Severus to > invent that spell, but plenty of reason to seek revenge after it-- or > after the so-called Prank. I think he used that little cutting spell > (perhaps "Sectum") and developed it into something much worse, > something Dark and deadly, Sectum*sempra*, in response to that > incident. He wanted a spell especially developed "For enemies" to get > back at James and Sirius. wynnleaf Snape may not have developed it to "get back at James and Sirius." That is, it may not be a revenge tool. We don't know whether Snape developed the spell as an offensive or defensive tool. If he created Sectumsempra after the werewolf prank, it could well be defensive. Remember, in Snape's mind the werewolf "prank" was an intentional attempt on his life. So having a nasty defensive curse could well have been his idea of defense, rather than offense. (He must not have used it, however, or > they'd have been found like Draco lying in a pool of their own blood > and Severus would have been expelled.) > wynnleaf Well, it would depend on how drastic the curse always works. Harry was swinging his wand around wildly. The curse may not necessarily have always cut so extensively. Further, Snape at some point got or developed a countercurse. We don't know whether he'd have used it or not. If he thought James or Sirius was trying to kill him, he probably wouldn't have used the countercurse. But on the other hand, we really don't know how drastically he might have intended to use it -- wild huge cuts, or smaller ones. And, btw, we don't really know how deep the cuts are. And the curse is "cuts always" not "bleeds always." Just because the cuts stay open doesn't necessarily mean the blood won't clot. wynnleaf From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 22:20:02 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <214395.308.qm@web35012.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167675 pippin_999 wrote: Pippin: Having released Petunia from his orders, Dumbledore could issue no commands or threats, he could only hold her to a bargain. Perhaps the bargain Dumbledore made with his ex-spy was this: if you will take your sister's child into the house on Privet Drive until he comes of age, the Order will keep your secret, you'll never see them at Privet Drive and no Muggle will ever have to know that you once worked with us. That is why no Order member (except Dumbledore himself) ever came to Privet Drive to visit when the Dursleys were there. Deborah writes: Didn't Arthur and the Weasley boys pick up Harry for the Quidditch World Cup from the Dursleys' residence, by using floo powder? Would Arthur not count, having not been an original Order member? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 23:03:50 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:03:50 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167676 > > zgirnius before: > > Snape confirmed that Voldemort was getting stronger in GoF. > > Alla: > > He did, but doesn't JKR inserts there DD saying that he could have > figure it out without Snape? ( paraphrasing) > > Could that be a hint that the only information Snape brings is the one > that could be deciphered without him and he would be safe saying it > anyways? zgirnius: I could be a hint to us from the author, all other things being equal. Not from Dumbledore to Harry, though, he belibes in Snape at that point in my view. And we don't know the timing of the conversation, just when Harry learns of it, so it could have been a confirming clue at a time when Dumbledore wasn;t sure. He had some idea it was coming from Trelawney's second prophecy, oif which Snape might or might not know. I don't, however, consider all other things equal. > Alla: > > Possibly, but I was always suspicious of **him** coming to the kitchen. > Isn't Snape name never mentioned there? I could be wrong - OOP is the > book which I barely reread. zgirnius: Yes, you are wrong. He most certainly does appear, giving a report at the Order meeting from which Harry is excluded, the day he arrives at 12 GP. > OotP: > Fred heaved a deep sigh. > 'Shame. I really fancied finding out what old Snape's been up to.' > 'Snape!' said Harry quickly. 'Is he here?' > 'Yeah,' said George, carefully closing the door and sitting down on one of the beds; Fred and Ginny followed. 'Giving a report. Top secret.' ... and a follow up after the meeting ends... > OotP: > The three of them looked cautiously over the banisters. The gloomy hallway below was packed with witches and wizards, including all of Harry's guard. They were whispering excitedly together. In the very centre of the group Harry saw the dark, greasy-haired head and prominent nose of his least favourite teacher at Hogwarts, Professor Snape. Harry leant further over the banisters. He was very interested in what Snape was doing for the Order of the Phoenix > Dana: > I was wondering about his spying for the Order and the so-called > great personal risk, he endures because of it. zgirnius: The one unavoidable risk of his job as a spy is facing Voldemort while hiding information from him or lying to him. Thed consequences of discovery are quite serious. Naturally, if Snape is neither lying nor concealing information from Voldemort, there is no risk. I an just convinced that Snape has hidden information. Voldemort is in no hurry to kill Dumbledore. If he knew that Dumbledore had tangled with a certain curse on a certain black ring over the summer, I think he would find a different way to torture the Malfoys than leaving the task of killing the man who is destroying his Horcruxes to an unqualified teenager. I also don't think he knows about Snape's role in sending the Order to the MoM, because that I don't think he would forgive. It was a disloyal act for a Death Eater. Naturally, since I believe he is a spy for the Order, I think he has a lot more to hide than that. Assuming these other risks you insist he ought to assume (such as thanking Harry and assuring him Sirius will be taken care of in front of Umbridge and Draco) is suicidal or sloppy, not risky. > Dana: >Then it occurred to > me, what would have put Snape more at risk, returning to LV or not > returning? zgirnius: Absolutely staying away, unless Dumbledore offered him protection. I think he would have, personally, for his service in the first war. Dumbledore's words to and concern for him before he leaves to go back to Voldemort suggest to me Snape volunteered. > Dana: > And of course like Snape > claims himself, he had 16 year of information to offer, so the chance > of him being killed on the spot, was pretty low. zgirnius: Yes, and I am sure Snape spent a good deal of time putting together his story and preparing himself. I actually think being killed on the spot was a reasonable chance, though a lot less than 50%. Voldemort must have been in a foul mood. But once Snape had a chance to say anything in his own defense, I think the odds improved in his favor, so long as he did not slip in his Occlumency. Death is of course not the only unpleasant thing thta can happen to someone Voldemort is peeved at, though. > Dana: > And do we see Snape, do anything that truly risks his DE friends? I zgirnius: Sending the Order seems to me the perfect example of this. If he did not do it, there would be basically no chance of failure. Instead Lucius is in jail and Bella is in trouble with the boss. Finally, we do not see Snape act to protect individual Order members. He does engage in dangerous activities that further that agenda, though, like trying to apprehend Black and his accomplice in PoA. He also does protect Harry, who of course is not an Order member, but surely matters. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 23:29:21 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:29:21 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167677 > Neri: > Who's talking about Snape as a teacher? *Agent* Snape was ordered by > his supreme commander to make Harry voldy-proof, because this was > critical for the war effort, and he failed. zgirnius: Dumbledore's survival prior to the start of HBP was equally crucial to the war effort, and Snape managed to save his life. > Neri: > As you say, the Order already knew Voldy was after the prophecy. You > didn't need to be a hotshot agent to figure that much out, and > security measures were taken against it. zgirnius: This is not what I said. I did not say the Order *already* knew, I suggested it knew *because* Snape brought that information. > > zgirnius: > > He did realize immediately what it was, it seems to me. He checked on > > Sirius anyway, which was only prudent. > > Neri: > If Snape realized immediately that an operation was underway, then he > should have also realized that Sirius could be only a false bait to > lure Harry to the DoM, and therefore the fact that Sirius was safe in > HQ did not in any way mean everything was fine. zgirnius: Right. And how do you know he assumed this? Everything was still fine as long as Harry stayed at Hogwarts. >Neri: > If Snape realized that > an operation was underway he should have alerted the whole Order at > once, tell them to send people to the DoM (the DEs could be captured) > and above all locate Harry as fast as possible. zgirnius: Harry's location was known, he was at school. Dumbledore actually never explains what the contingency plans were for this eventuality, so the decision may not have been Snape's. > > zgirnius: > > The locations of the two Malfoys not in Ministry custody are unknown > > to us at present. > > > > Neri: > Their location doesn't matter much. If Voldy wants them dead he'll > find them like he found Karkaroff. This is why Dumbledore's plan was > to fake their death, and Snape failed this too. zgirnius: If their death was faked after Dumbledore's funeral, we don't know about it yet. It could have been. > Neri: > Everything is debatable if you want to debate it, but at the moment it > appears Snape wanted the DADA job a lot. > zgirnius: Not to me. This has always seemed wrong to me. > Neri: > Well, lets say DDM!Snape seems considerably more hypothetical now than > he seemed after OotP. In fact, even the term DDM was only invented > after HBP. Before that it wasn't needed at all, as DDM!Snape was the > consensus. zgirnius: I wouldn't know about that. All I can say is that my very strong impression from my first read of HBP was DDM!. > > Magpie: > Whichever man > > Snape is, Dumbledore is in control of the plot in HBP. The final > > confrontation with Draco seems like something DD was working towards. > > > > Neri: > Indeed, the only way to have a DDM!Snape who isn't a complete failure > is to have a Dumbledore who is a complete failure. But I doubt that > what we're going to discover in DH is that Dumbledore was a complete > failure. zgirnius: I disagree. Dumbledore appears to have been *right* about Draco on the level of making personal judgments. (He's not a killer). If what he said and did for Draco pays dividends in DH, that will be to Dumbledore's credit. From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Apr 17 23:32:08 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:32:08 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167678 zgirnius: > The Order knew Voldemort was after the prophecy (and > this could be the information Snape provided at the > Order meeting at the start of OotP). houyhnhnm: The meeting on the day Harry arrived at 12 GP was a major meeting, according to Fred, but I think the Order was alerted to Voldemort's interest in the prophecy much sooner than that. Ron tells Harry on that first evening, while the meeting was still going on, that "some of them are standing guard over something. They're always talking about guard duty." Also according to Ron, the blow-up between Percy and Arthur took place "the first week back after term ended" when "We were about to come and join the Order." They must have been at 12 GP for about a month before Harry joined them, although there is nothing to indicate how long the guard duty had been going on. But it is possible that the Order knew Voldemort was after the prophecy within a couple of weeks after LV's return to a body. And the information had to have come from Snape. From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 17 22:32:23 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:32:23 -0000 Subject: What was James Potter's Patronus In-Reply-To: <462533D7.00000A.03876@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debi" wrote: > > A Stag, the same animal that Harry's is. This is where James got the > nickname "Prongs" > Ryan: No, James got the nickname "Prongs" because his animagus form is a stag. The form of James's patronus has never been mentioned. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Apr 18 00:30:43 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:30:43 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167681 zgirnius: > > The Order knew Voldemort was after the prophecy (and > > this could be the information Snape provided at the > > Order meeting at the start of OotP). houyhnhnm: > The meeting on the day Harry arrived at 12 GP was a > major meeting, according to Fred, but I think the Order > was alerted to Voldemort's interest in the prophecy much > sooner than that. Ron tells Harry on that first evening, > while the meeting was still going on, that "some of them > are standing guard over something. They're always talking > about guard duty." Ceridwen: Since I agree that the information about LV wanting the prophecy came from Snape, I snipped most of that. I thought the guard duty Ron mentions when Harry joins them all at Headquarters was the guard duty on Harry. Mrs Figg gets very upset when she finds that Mundungus has gone off to perhaps manage his illicit enterprise, and throws catfood tins at him for having left. Wasn't it his turn to guard Harry when the Dementor attack occurred? Since, like Alla, I don't care to read OotP that much (I get twitchy reading about Umbridge), I might have this wrong, but didn't Mrs Figg either say or imply that there was a guard on Harry's house all that summer to that point? Ceridwen. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 00:56:14 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:56:14 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167682 > Magpie: > Odd.:-) Because Snape is central to the struggle. He's not taking a backseat. He's agreeing to spy on the DEs at personal risk, and taking UVs that risk his own death. And confronting Quirrell and muttering counter-hexes and making up Potions riddles and going after Sirius. Goddlefrood: Our views differ on this, which is commendable, as I often state. I suggest that Severus is taking no great risks in his spying and is not really supplying any information that would be unobtainable through other sources. Harry's dreams for one. Dumbledore makes a mistake, which he later admits, in not giving enough credence to Harry in OotP. Severus has hoodwinked LV into believing that he never turned. This is something I find odd due to the statement made by Albus in the GoF Pensieve. In a fully packed Wizengamot DD declared that Snape had turned at great personal risk. The implication being that had LV known Snape had turned then Severus would now have been the late lamented. The UV was to have been in a later edition, but I'll make my comments on it here ;). I have a simple explanation for the UV, one that is not yet contradicted by canon. Severus IMO did not know, despite his initial boast what Draco had been assigned to do by LV. What is clear is that LV had no real expectation that Draco would succeed. One of LV's little vendettas against the Malfoys for Lucius's failure in the MoM. As Dumbledore states Lucius is safe in Azkaban and despite the anomally that the Dementors have now left that institution, coupled with our lack of knowledge as to how it is currently being guarded, the conclusion drawn is that he's safe from a revenge attack, even from LV. Almost certainly we will have a visit to Azkaban in DH during the course of which these matters should become clearer, at least I hope so ;). Basically what that then means is that Snape, in order to save his own skin, had to complete Draco's task. It does not show a great personal risk on his part, what it shows to me at least, is his recklessness and arrogance :) The other examples brought in are also somewhat counterintuitive. The sadly deluded Professor Quirrell was one of the teachers assisting in protecting the Philosopher's Stone as well as Snape and his Portion's quiz. I put forward in the post from yesterday that Snape's actions vis a vis what he did to help Harry in PS are no more than his assuaging of his conscience for the first, and possibly only time in his life. Having said this I have not yet got to the meat og the theory, but it will be delivered soon enough ;). I have to keep an eye on the daily posting limit currently :), so will do this only after the rolling 24 hour period expires. > Magpie: > I think he did teach it, since Hermione has gotten so good at it after a while she's no longer doing any spells verbally. Ernie gives a thumbs up to one of his classes. How else do any of the teachers ever teach spells except to tell people to just do it, after all? Goddlefrood: I do not deny Snape was presentr in the classroom :|. He basically said "get on with it", there would be ways of explaining how one can cast a spell without verbalising the incantation for the same. At least I would think so. Not dissimilar to how Muggle children are taught to read without moving their lips, for instance. Example and practice, fair enough, and if all else fails hold their lips shut ;). Learning by rote is how I see it, there does not appear to be a great deal of example being shown., "Here's how I do it, perhaps you may find these tips useful". Nothing much like that going on. The main reason I do not put a great deal of value on Severus's teaching ability (in respect of DADA and Occlumency) is that he surely could have done more. Ultimately I do not think his method was any better than the six-gilled shark's whereby she said read the instructions and thereby learn. Snape is similar IMO. It is fair to say, as you go on to, that other concepts are introduced, without the benefit of seeing what went on in the lessons, other than the non-verbal ones, it is difficult to really denigrate Severus too much, but I like to do it anyway :). The Dementors repelling lesson may or may not assist some of the kids, but as many of them were taught the use of Patronuses by Harry in OotP, my opinion is that we may not find out, unless we see Snape himself, or possibly a Death Eater, using this alternate method of repulsion. As to other teachers, I'll give you two small examples that spring to mind. First is Professor Flitwick in Charms in PS. He shows the students the correct wrist action and intonation for Wingardium Leviosa. IMO a good example to his class. Also Remus, in the Boggart lesson, first shows the class the method for foolishly ;) waving their wands while performing the Ridikulus spell before letting them loose on the Boggart. There are others too. Even Trelawney, actually, gives some practical instructions, despite the fact that her class is in a different medium ;D In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167368 > colebiancardi here: > please note, JKR nor the questioner, asked if Snape LOVED someone, but if Snape has ever been loved? Big difference. And quite frankly, I think the one person that loved Snape was his mother. No proof, of course. But I just wanted to point out that the question was "Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?" not "Has Snape ever loved someone?" Goddlefrood: I have a confession here, the original spin I put on the love quotes was quite deliberate on my part. A gazillion Snape loved Lily theories have hung on one of them. They are, of course, all wrong. Snape did not love Lily. He has been loved by someone. This someone is also not Lily. Further on this should follow in the next installment. I did take note :). It has always surprised me how few people noticed this, glad you did. Goddlefrood From juli17 at aol.com Wed Apr 18 01:02:24 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:02:24 EDT Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167683 Goddlefrood: > When he taught Harry Occlumency in OotP he didn't give any > practical instruction, he once more just expected Harry to do it, > again without explaining how it might be achieved. There was also > an element of Severus's resentment of Harry in play, but surely > he could have tried a little harder, or am I being harsh? Magpie: Again, this seems to be the way *all* magic is taught. And in this case Snape was perhaps a particularly bad teacher because he is probably, like Draco, a natural Occlumens. Sometimes the natural is the worst kind of teacher. He is telling Harry what to do, and Harry is particularly unsuited to do this particular thing. But I don't think it's impossible that Snape is teaching Harry the way he himself learned. He's no more or less harsh than the Apparition teacher, it seems to me. Julie: As Magpie says, all the magic we see being taught is basically learning by experiencing. Probably because it is at least partly a physical activity, like learning to ride a bicycle, or learning to swim. Sure there are principles behind it, but very rarely does an instructor explain the physics or mechanics of bicycling or swimming, at least not beyond the very basics. You learn by jumping in (or on) and trying, and by practicing over and over until you get it right. Which is why Snape's methods aren't really different than any other magical instruction. "Picture your happiest moment" (then try and produce a patronus), "Clear your mind" (and try to block me when I mentally invade your mind), "Focus your energy" (and turn that teapot into a toad).There is rarely more than a brief instruction. Mostly it's just try, try, and try again. Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 01:10:05 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:10:05 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > zgirnius: > > > The Order knew Voldemort was after the prophecy (and > > this could be the information Snape provided at the > > Order meeting at the start of OotP). > > houyhnhnm: > > The meeting on the day Harry arrived at 12 GP was a > major meeting, according to Fred, but I think the Order > was alerted to Voldemort's interest in the prophecy much > sooner than that. Ron tells Harry on that first evening, > while the meeting was still going on, that "some of them > are standing guard over something. They're always talking > about guard duty." zgirnius: The Order had a guard posted at 4 Privet Drive. The references to guard duty could have been about that. (It is what the text suggests as the solution, though as it is Harry, and he has at times jumped to conclusions, you could be right). There is also the reference to plans of a building at the same Order meeting at which Snape reported. If that building was the Ministry, it would tie in with my idea, they were figuring out where to post the guard, where the propecies are kept, etc. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Apr 18 01:32:29 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:32:29 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167685 Ceridwen: > I thought the guard duty Ron mentions when Harry > joins them all at Headquarters was the guard duty on > Harry. Mrs Figg gets very upset when she finds that > Mundungus has gone off to perhaps manage his illicit > enterprise, and throws catfood tins at him for having > left. Wasn't it his turn to guard Harry when the > Dementor attack occurred? houyhnhnm: Mrs. Figg never puts in an appearance at Grimmauld Place. How would Ron have any contact with her? Mundungus drops in frequently, but his conversation with the kids seems to center on contraband. Ron says "some of them are standing guard over some*thing*". Even if you were piecing together bits of disconnected information overheard with extendable ears, it seems like you would not be likely to mistake talk of guarding a person for guarding a thing. Ron also says that *they*re always talking about guard *duty*. I'm assuming "they" are the people Ron is around daily--his parents, Lupin, Tonks. It's something Ron picks up from them, but clearly isn't being told about because he doesn't know what it is they're guarding. If it is only Harry they are guarding, why would they keep that a secret from the kids? From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 00:53:05 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What was James Potter's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <758463.45853.qm@web35012.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167686 "hpcentaur" wrote: What was James Potter's Patronus animal? Geoff: Unusually for me, I'm not diving into my books to check, but my memory seems to suggest that we are not told a bout James' Patronus, nor any belonging to the Marauders, for that matter. I think that there seems to be some confusion in the minds of members between the fact that James' Animagus form is a stag and that is also the form of Harry's Patronus. Unless something comes up in Book 7, I suspect that it is a coincidence - or a red herring produced by JKR. Deborah writes: Just a quick review, but the animagus is rare and is best described as the essence of the wizard to whom it belongs in animal form. Patronuses are the guardian of the wizard to whom they belong, and make them feel safe, but are not necessarily connected to the wizard's essence. To me this makes Hermione's and Ron's patronuses animal forms of one another - Hermione as Jack Russell (persistent, smart, a bit of a know-it-all) and Ron as an otter ( a bit of a clown). I feel just the opposite of what Geoff cites as coincidence or red herring. By making Harry's patronus his father's essence, Jo tells us about Harry and James. It is no coincidence that what protects Harry is his father's essence. As many have said, we don't have any canon as to what James' patronus is - (again, why doesn't Harry ask these questions?) but I'd suspect it might be the essence of Lily (whatever that might be, my guess is a unicorn) which would make him feel safest. Along this line of thought, that Dumbledore's patronus is a phoenix is even more poetic. He doesn't fear death, as it is not the end - immortality of the soul in some world or another is his guardian and allows him to make noble choices of what is right versus what is easy. He is free to choose what is right because he is unencumbered by any fear of death - he knows he will live forever. Deborah From kking0731 at gmail.com Wed Apr 18 01:54:24 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:54:24 -0000 Subject: Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167687 I'm pretty sure I found the answer to Petunia's surgically clean kitchen and why Petunia refused to acknowledge her sister! She was jinxed! That awful boy taught Petunia a lesson for snooping and spying; he jinxed her to clean Lily's frog spawn (she liked to complain about) and just keep right on cleaning. This would surely keep her nose out of Lily and James business and away from the current harm that had come to the wizarding world. This could be why Petunia called James that awful boy and why, like Dudley; she doesn't want to have anything to do with magic after that nor anything to do with James and Lily. Once you've been jinxed, you don't go looking for any reason to provoke another incident when you're a muggle. Petunia grudgingly took Harry, a child born to magical parents, into her home (if Harry is protected there, then so are anyone with that same blood...until Harry becomes seventeen that is). Petunia and Vernon may have thought that their influence in the boy's life would squash any magic he may have been born with and at the same time Petunia could realize all the same protections that Harry has while he remains under her roof. The only problem I foresee with this interpretation would be Petunia calling James that awful boy. I wouldn't think she would have a problem pinpointing the deed on James if it were James that jinxed Petunia to clean till her fingers became bony. Then again, Petunia being jinxed by James may not refer to the awful boy quote at all but only to her reason for disliking the wizarding world which includes her sister and husband. I did find one very small and farfetched clue that the awful boy that Petunia was referring to was Lucius. In SS (The Keeper of the Keys), Vernon tells Harry that he knew that his parents would come to a sticky end very similarly to Lucius telling Harry the exact same in COS (Dobby's Reward). Strange that. I also think it would be more Lucius-like for him to be the awful boy who was telling Lily about the Dementors of Azkaban. Originally when I thought of Petunia's behavior and why she acted the way in which she does, I clumped all the circumstances together and tried to think of a common ground. The only thing I could think of was that Dumbledore may have bribed Petunia with a bit of magic to help her through her day. Of course, once upon a time the squib idea was still plausibility and I had a brief notion that Petunia asked for Lily's wand in exchange for houseroom. Since then I think it may be best to take each action separately; the letter from Dumbledore; why she took Harry in; why she rejected her sister and the magic world; who was that awful boy; and why her kitchen is so very clean. It could be that none of these circumstances touch on any other. As Steve would say "just some thoughts" Snow From tlfolsom80 at aol.com Tue Apr 17 20:34:19 2007 From: tlfolsom80 at aol.com (Tammy Folsom) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:34:19 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: The Dursleys References: Message-ID: <46252F4B.00000D.03760@ACER-C28991BD48> No: HPFGUIDX 167688 Pippin adds: She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix. We know you don't have to be magical to be in the Order, because there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia reads the newspapers and the magazines, listens to the news, always has her eye on what the neighbors are up to. She'd make a very good spy. Kenny responds: I really like this idea. It isn't too far fetched for me at all. It does make sense, and I am still a firm believer that Lily and Petunia simply weren't so at odds as what seems to be the collective consensus. Tammy says: After wiping the coffee off my laptop, I sat and read the whole thing through and came up with the thought that this theory is bloody brilliant. I don't know why the idea never crossed my mind or my hubby's HP obsessed mind that Petunia could be ex-Pheonix. He was leaning more towards the theory that Snape was at one time in love with Petunia and her him, and that is why she knew more about the WW. I thought that idea highly unlikley and I like Pippin's theory much better lol. Wish I had gotten this email in the order of them being sent now I look like a ding dong lol, oh well. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Apr 18 03:10:04 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:10:04 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167689 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > > Pippin adds: > > She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix. > > We know you don't have to be magical to be in the > > Order, because there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia ... make > > a very good spy. And it would be helpful > > to Dumbledore to have a Muggle's view of things--... And bboyminn added: Petunia could very well be Dumbledore's secret eyes and ears on > the muggle world. That is not really that far fetched an > idea. Still, I don't buy it. va32h thinks: I think Tonks' father Ted is a weatherman for the local news, and *he* is the one living in the Muggle world and being Dumbledore's eyes and ears. Remember Ted the weatherman cheerfully reporting all the owl sightings and shooting sparks back in PS/SS? I don't know why people are so desperate to apply some sort of extra significance to the Dursleys. I don't think Petunia is anything other than a horse-faced, basically unpleasant woman who is obsessed with the appearance of "normalcy" and a very clean house. I know plenty of people like this (well not the horse faces) and none of them harbor dark secrets. At best, I think Petunia's mystery is information. Perhaps she saved the note that came with Harry on the doorstep, and it contains some useful info (like what Harry's parents did for the Order, or oh - their address, so Harry can find his old house). More likely, she was told or overheard something that she will pass on to Harry before he leaves Privet Drive forever. But any grand plot involving Petunia being a spy or having formally renounced her witch-hood just strikes me as too much Petunia in a narrative that will have far more important things to resolve than the future of any Dursley and which will probably see Harry in and out of Privet Drive in less than one chapter. bboyminn here: > But I do want to make one correction, JKR /never/ said > Petunia wasn't a witch. She said she wasn't a Squib and > later said that Petunia never had and never would do > magic. But again, she never flat our said Petunia > wasn't a witch. va32h here: But JKR did say "She is a Muggle" - which is the same thing as "not a witch", IMO. va32h From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 18 03:36:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:36:31 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167690 > > > Magpie: > > We don't know what information Lupin is getting from the werewolves > either, but presumably that doesn't make him incompetent. > > > > Neri: > The werewolves didn't attack Harry or Hogwarts yet. Pippin: Gosh, I could've sworn Fenrir Greyback attacked Harry and Hogwarts both. How come Lupin didn't know that was going to happen? So, Neri, does this mean that Lupin is a traitor or just incompetent? Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Apr 18 03:51:21 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:51:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward?/Snape the Spy References: Message-ID: <015801c7816c$d97282c0$8d98400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167691 > Goddlefrood: > The UV was to have been in a later edition, but I'll make my > comments on it here ;). I have a simple explanation for the UV, > one that is not yet contradicted by canon. Severus IMO did not > know, despite his initial boast what Draco had been assigned to > do by LV. Magpie: I should warn you that I have a hard time swallowing this idea no matter what theory it's part of. First because I knew what was going on when first reading it, and I'm not used to being better at guessing stuff like that than Snape.:-) Second because I just don't see Snape doing anything in the scene to get the the information. Some of his good lines are meaningless because he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Most importantly, if Snape doesn't know what Draco's supposed to do, he could have remedied that by letting Narcissa finish her sentence. Goddlefrood: > Basically what that then means is that Snape, in order to save > his own skin, had to complete Draco's task. It does not show a > great personal risk on his part, what it shows to me at least, is > his recklessness and arrogance :) Magpie: I think a UV is always a risk. Not because Snape has to kill Dumbledore, though that is a hard thing for someone to do, but because you're agreeing to die.. It's reckless or arrogant in a very Gryffindor way--risking his lifeon a dramatic whim. Why is Snape taking a suicide pact if he's out for himself? This seems OOC for Snape to me--especially considering he doesn't know what it is he's supposed to actually be doing. How is he even supposed to do it? The only way I could imagine it is if he'd already done it. Goddlefrood: I do not deny Snape was presentr in the classroom :|. He basically said "get on with it", there would be ways of explaining how one can cast a spell without verbalising the incantation for the same. At least I would think so. Not dissimilar to how Muggle children are taught to read without moving their lips, for instance. Example and practice, fair enough, and if all else fails hold their lips shut ;). Learning by rote is how I see it, there does not appear to be a great deal of example being shown., "Here's how I do it, perhaps you may find these tips useful". Nothing much like that going on. The main reason I do not put a great deal of value on Severus's teaching ability (in respect of DADA and Occlumency) is that he surely could have done more. Ultimately I do not think his method was any better than the six-gilled shark's whereby she said read the instructions and thereby learn. Snape is similar IMO. Magpie: Snape isn't just present in the classroom, he's doing what most of the teachers do when we see them teaching. This is how magic is usually taught and it works. Isn't this a class Ernie says is a good one? In Occlumency we're given reasons for Harry not to succeed (though in the original outline it seemed like Harry was supposed to succeed somewhat) that have nothing to do with Snape. He doesn't practice. He wants to see the visions. It's totally against his nature. And of course as well, he hates Snape and doesn't learn well with him. It seems like a really limp way for JKR to show Snape intentionally not teaching. Umbridge, otoh, is a great example of how JKR shows somebody not wanting the kids to learn. Goddlefrood: As to other teachers, I'll give you two small examples that spring to mind. First is Professor Flitwick in Charms in PS. He shows the students the correct wrist action and intonation for Wingardium Leviosa. IMO a good example to his class. Also Remus, in the Boggart lesson, first shows the class the method for foolishly ;) waving their wands while performing the Ridikulus spell before letting them loose on the Boggart. There are others too. Even Trelawney, actually, gives some practical instructions, despite the fact that her class is in a different medium ;D Magpie: But neither of those apply to what Snape is teaching. There's no spell pronounciation to correct or wand method to correct, which are pretty much all JKR usually has to work with when it comes to teaching the correct method. Occlumency is part of the subset that seems to have some emotional component to it, and while Snape's barking method of teaching might not be good for Harry at all, he *is* telling him what to do. That's why Harry is supposed to practicing clearing his mind of emotion and thought on his own. Non-verbal charms don't have that emotional component. It's just "now do the spell, but without saying it out loud." Just like Apparition is "Now do it again and focus on your destination" or whatever. If none of the students were getting better at it I'd think we'd hear about it. It seems more just like something Harry's not good at--which goes along with his personality in the same way his being not good at Occlumency is. It's just that whenever we learn the truth about something and go back and re-read scenes, there always seem to be clear clues that make the whole thing clear. But if Snape's being an intentionally bad teacher of Occlumency and DADA is supposed to be a factor, you need a magnifying glass and a protracter to see it, it seems to me. > Neri: > The werewolves didn't attack Harry or Hogwarts yet. Pippin: Gosh, I could've sworn Fenrir Greyback attacked Harry and Hogwarts both. How come Lupin didn't know that was going to happen? So, Neri, does this mean that Lupin is a traitor or just incompetent? Magpie: D'oh! Good call--should have known if anyone would catch that it would be you, Pippin.:-) -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 04:07:02 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 04:07:02 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: <008301c780a5$2b276630$23b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167692 > Magpie: > Didn't he say that when Harry didn't come back from the forest (that > part referring to the "several hours") that he notified the order > and that's when they all acted at once? . > > Neri: > How does Snape's behavior during that night look like? At first he's totally cool with what's > happening, and several hours later he sends the Order to the DoM. > > Magpie: He is cool with what's > happening because Harry's at Hogwarts and Sirius is at Grimmauld > Place. When one of those things doesn't seem to be true, he gets in > touch with the Order again. JW: I have been reading this thread with a great deal of both interest and skepticism. There is all sorts of ambiguous evidence that can support almost any conclusion. However, I believe this debate* results from asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether Snape's response to the situation indicates his true allegience, I believe the more basic question is WHY DOES SNAPE HAVE TO INFORM THE ORDER AT ALL? All debaters agree that the Order knows (probably through Snape) of the intended theft of the prophecy. THE ORDER HAS BEEN GUARDING THE DOM. One order member is in Azkaban (or recently released therefrom). Another order member was nearly murdered by LV. If there is a guard posted at the DoM, then the Order need not rely on Snape's messages that night. Wouldn't the Order's guard think it worth reporting that a group of DEs had arrived? Or does that happen EVERY night? (Oh, DD, nothing unusual last night, sir. Same old bunch of DEs visited again. We played cards and board games for a few hours, and then they left. Not a bad bunch of folks when they're not trying to kill people.) My point is that there was no guard. In December, an order member was nearly killed while guarding the DoM. In June, there is no guard. I can find no explicit mention that the guarding of the DoM has been halted. What is going on here???? To me, the key question is: WHY WAS THERE NO GUARD THAT NIGHT? (Hi, DD. BTW, Snape sent a message indicating that HP - you know, the boy who saved Arthur's life - told him Sirius might be kidnapped, tortured and brought to the DoM, so we decided there was no reason to send a guard to protect the prophecy tonight.) *BTW, one way to end the debate is for everybody to realize that Snape is Only Out For Himself. He aspires to replace LV. (Perhaps that ambition is sufficient for DD's trust in him - DD trusts that he will do NOTHING that strengthens LV.) All of Snape's actions seem to support Harry (within the competency of Snape's abilities - hence the failure to TEACH occlumency). Snape needs the Chosen One to help defeat LV. Snape also needs to weaken the Order in order for him to become ruler of the WW. Hence, his best course is to weaken both sides while assuring that they continue to both fight each other and rely on him. I believe that the climactic scenes of both OotP and HBP can be interpreted to support this conjecture. JW From juli17 at aol.com Wed Apr 18 05:38:55 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:38:55 EDT Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167693 Dana We do not see him go to any real trouble keeping anyone > of them safe, at least not at any *personal* risk. He does not seem > to provide them any information to keep them one step ahead of LV. wynnleaf How could you possibly know this? Harry is not an Order member, and therefore we never see one Order meeting, where presumably any such information is passed along. We have no particular information that Lupin is doing any good as a spy, either, because we never see his reports. Julie: This is exactly why debating how good a spy Snape is and how much risk he has actually taken is pretty pointless. We have NO IDEA, because we are privy to almost none of the information Snape has shared with Dumbledore or the Order. That's because we see almost everything in the books through Harry's eyes, and Harry knows almost nothing about Snape's activities as a spy. Now I'm sure if you ask Harry his opinion of Snape as a spy, he'll be happy to agree with you, Dana, that Snape is a cowardly, pathetic, less than worthless spy (and besides that, he killed Dumbledore, the bastard!). Harry would also probably say that Lupin is a brave and cunning spy of the first order among the werewolves. But that's just what Harry wants to believe. He has no real evidence at all about either man's abilities or usefulness to Dumbledore or to the Order. I know some will say we can judge by the results, but, again, without knowing what information has been passed which way, we can't really tell what the results say. Maybe without Snape passing information to the Order, Voldemort would have already taken over the WW. At the very least, we know a few more DEs are behind bars thanks to Snape, which is at least one indisputably good result. For concrete evidence either way we'll have to wait until DH, I think (or I hope, as some debatable points probably won't be cleared up even then). Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Apr 18 04:46:30 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:46:30 -0400 Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167694 Of course, taking 'theory' from one fantasy system to another can be dangerous, but it is sometimes useful. In Anne McCaffery's PERN stories, she discusses the problems that dragonriders run into when 'timing it' too much. In McC's stories, the dangers of 'timing it' were relevant to the plot; in JKR, not so much, which is why she hasn't gone into detail, but I think that JKR had similar ideas to McC's in the back of her mind. (If anyone hasn't read McC's PERN novels/stories, the matter is a little too complicated to get into here; basically, though, doubling back on oneself can create all sorts of problems, not the least of which being that trying to cram too many hours into one day can result in a lack of mental focus which can result in miscalculations; one can materialize inside solid rock, or go 'between' and never come out again.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 05:55:05 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:55:05 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward?/Snape the Spy In-Reply-To: <015801c7816c$d97282c0$8d98400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167695 > JW: > To me, the key question is: WHY WAS THERE NO GUARD THAT NIGHT? zgirnius: Do we know that there wasn't? What if there was, and she was overpowered by the Death Eaters and did not have time to send a message or warning? She would not have been the first Order guard there to run into problems, as you point out. I use the pronoun advisedly - I ran across the idea that the guard may have been Emmeline Vance somewhere and quite like it. Leaving her body near the PM's residence was just one more act of Muggle harassment under this theory. She and Sirius were mentioned by Snape in the same sentence ? both deaths would have been outcomes of the MoM raid under this theory. > JW: > *BTW, one way to end the debate is for everybody to realize that Snape > is Only Out For Himself. He aspires to replace LV. zgirnius: I would not rule out a theory that produced a convincing personal agenda for Snape, but your suggestion does not seem to fit, in my opinion. He has wasted the last 15 years of his life at Hogwarts if that is his goal. He should have been networking with former Death Eaters. It also does not seem to be something he would want. He does not strike me as a person who wants the limelight all the time, to be the leader. A respected expert or advisor is a role he seems to prefer. > Magpie: > Snape isn't just present in the classroom, he's doing what most of the > teachers do when we see them teaching. This is how magic is usually taught > and it works. Isn't this a class Ernie says is a good one? zgirnius: Yes, Ernie and Hermione both praise the first class. It is not even true that Snape just says 'go to it, folks' and sits back. He does just what he always did in Potions: > HBP,"HBP": > He swept between them as they practised, looking just as much like an overgrown bat as ever, lingering to watch Harry and Ron struggling with the task. So he watches the students make their attempts, and notes when they are struggling. Next, he steps in to demonstrate. (Leading to the indident where Harry throws him back with a powerful, but spoken, Shield Charm). But the huge difference between him and Dreadful Dolly is that she refused to allow practical lessons at all, whereas he in the one class we saw most of devoted at least half the time to it. > Magpie: > In Occlumency > we're given reasons for Harry not to succeed (though in the original outline > it seemed like Harry was supposed to succeed somewhat) that have nothing to > do with Snape. He doesn't practice. He wants to see the visions. It's > totally against his nature. And of course as well, he hates Snape and > doesn't learn well with him. It seems like a really limp way for JKR to show > Snape intentionally not teaching. Umbridge, otoh, is a great example of how > JKR shows somebody not wanting the kids to learn. > Magpie: > Occlumency is part of the subset that seems to have some emotional > component to it, and while Snape's barking method of teaching might not be > good for Harry at all, he *is* telling him what to do. That's why Harry is > supposed to practicing clearing his mind of emotion and thought on his own. zgirnius: I reread the firt Patronus lesson and the first Occlumency lesson today. These seem to me to be the most similr situations. Both are forms of magic that rely on a mental/emotional component. In the Patronus lesson Snape talks a lot about what Occlumency and Legilimency are and why Harry needs to learn, which was not an issue for Lupin of course, but the point is, Snape does explain htese things and answer a lot of Harry's questions. Once they move to actual practicing, he does give Harry direction, telling him to use his wand to defend himself, or repel Snape with his mind as Harry does when resisting the Imperius curse. (Compare to making sure Hsarry can pronounce an incantation and telling him to think of a happy memory). Harry follows this instruction, and gets somewhere, which Snape acknowledges. He then tells Harry what Harry did wrong, and makes a new suggestion (clear your mind). (Much like Lupin - it was not a good enough memory, try another). When Harry protests Snape is not telling him how, Snape takes a stab at walking him through this process, by suggesting he close his eyes and let go of his emotions. Harry at first does not try and Snape notes this, then Harry gives it a whirl and Snape reacts by having Harry try to repel him again. I just don't see how this is not telling Harry what to do and how. There are indications their personal issues are getting in the way. Snape is certainly snide, and Harry is angry and mistrusting. And we know that Harry does not make the effort to practice outside of the lessons. But as far as the type and detail of explanations offered by Snape, the lesson seems to me to be very similar to a lesson which Harry found very useful. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Apr 18 06:17:12 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:17:12 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167696 > zgirnius: > > He brought some unspecified piece of intelligence to an Order > > meeting in OotP, which I believe was about Voldemort's desire to > > get the prophecy. That the information was not used in the best > > possible way by his commander in chief, by the latter's own > > admission, is hardly his fault. Alla: > Possibly, but I was always suspicious of **him** coming to the > kitchen. Isn't Snape name never mentioned there? I could be wrong - > OOP is the book which I barely reread. > Sooo, I think even though it could have been Snape, it can also be > one of DD other spies, whom we learn about in DH. Dana: Actually according to Lupin, it was DD's own shrewd idea of what LV is planning. He doesn't say Snape provided us with valuable information on what LV is up to next. There is no reason for Lupin to not mention this if it was Snape, that got the Order this information. Especially because Harry already knows Snape went back to LV and Sirius already mentions Snape is coming there to bring reports. zgirnius: > > Dumbledore 'was told' about Voldemort's wrath at learning of the > > destruction of the diary. I know who I think brought that tidbit, > > which was a supporting bit of evidence that led Dumbledore to the > > conclusion that the Diary had been a Horcrux. > Alla: > Yeah, that is a possibility of course :) Dana: This information adds nothing. DD already had a suspision about the diary being a horcrux, after the events that happened in CoS. Why would knowing, LV was angry about finding out it was destroyed, have any additional value to DD. DD already knows it is destroyed, he already knows it was LV's and he already knows it is a horcrux. So what does it add? That LV has an attachment to his valuebles. DD already knows this too as we see LV collect treasures at age 11. Dana From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 06:16:07 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:16:07 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167697 --- "va32h" wrote: > ... > > bboyminn here: > > But I do want to make one correction, JKR /never/ > > said Petunia wasn't a witch. She said she wasn't a > > Squib and later said that Petunia never had and > > never would do magic. But again, she never flat our > > said Petunia wasn't a witch. > > va32h here: > > But JKR did say "She is a Muggle" - which is the same > thing as "not a witch", IMO. > > va32h > bboyminn: But did she /literally/ say "She is a Muggle". It seems to me that the books very much imply that Petunia is as muggle as they come, but that is colored by Harry's perception. Do, you by chance have a direct quote of JKR saying that? Because from the two critical sources of information we have about that, it seems that JKR specifically avoided say it directly. If by chance you can find a direct quote, I sense a context to it. As I said, what we are lead to believe is colored by Harry's perception. Which means that JKR is likely going to try and re-enforce Harry perception until such time as a change needs to take place in the story line. So, unless JKR gives a no-context unqualified statement, I'm afraid I can't accept it. Just curious. Steve/bboyminn From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 07:37:57 2007 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:37:57 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] will they return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <642585.19414.qm@web38311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167698 --- WOLFIESMOM98 wrote: > Harry has said that he will not return to Hogwarts > but surely he'll > change his mind. He knows that without a diploma, > he can't hope to > become an auror which is his ambition. Cassy: I somehow feel that future carrer is the least of Harry's problems right now. Besides, the Vanquisher of Voldemort hardly is going to have troubles finding work, is he? > As 7th years, one or two of our trio might become > headboy or girl. Is > Harry even eligible since he was not a prefect? I > personally believe > that Hermione is a shoe-in for headgirl but headboy > seems wide open, > any guesses? Cassy: James Potter was a headboy, although he was not a prefect, so it might be possible for Harry as well. But will he have time for administrator's work even if he returns to school? Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Apr 18 08:23:50 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:23:50 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167699 wynnleaf > "Slight chance??" Remember that Voldemort would have seen Snape's > actions regarding Quirrell in SS/PS. He'd know from Pettigrew that > Snape had sought to have Sirius kissed by dementors -- who everyone > including Snape thought was a loyal Voldemort supporter. He'd know > that Snape had done nothing to search for Voldemort in the interim, > and hadn't come when Voldemort first called. Further, there was > always the risk that Voldemort's occlumency skills were now a lot > better (living 12 years in spirit form). Dana: LV also knows Snape did not know LV was in the back of Quirrell's head and therefore it was not an action against LV but against Quirrell and in the end Snape did nothing that prevented Quirrell getting to the Mirror. I do not see what LV would care about Snape trying to get Sirius soul sucked, he knows Sirius was never on his side and getting Sirius soul sucked would therefore HELP LV because now no one would be looking for Wormtail and with it Wormtail had no where else to go then to LV and maybe you missed it but this helped LV get back to power. Snape indeed doesn't come at the first call but Snape has a good excuse for LV to buy; that he was waiting for DD's orders because only then could he remain his position at Hogwarts and Barty is soul sucked so he can't tell LV Snape was involved in his capture. I think you meant LV's legilimency skills are now better but Snape's occlumency skills are now better then when he was 22 too. Snape has information on DD and Harry from a close objective and he will be useful as a spy and therefore the chance that LV would kill him on the spot where very slim and besides Snape had more chance trying to convince LV of his usefulness then not trying at all because if he hadn't his death was a sure thing. Besides we see LV not killing Wormtail on the spot either not just because he is to weak but because he is useful and he did much worse then Snape did. wynnleaf > So I assume you don't believe Dumbledore when he told Draco that he > could hide Draco and his mother and that Voldemort wouldn't be able > to find them? Surely if Dumbledore could have hidden Draco and > Narcissa, he could have hidden Snape just as well. Dana: Snape was not hidden over these years, he was still in regular contact with Lucius and maintaining of old ties. Snape sudden death just because LV rose back to power would not be very believable now would it. And just being in the protection of DD would not keep Snape safe at all times either but going back to LV and convince him of his usefulness would. Besides what has Snape done that LV knows about, that would grant a killing on the spot. As we see other DEs have done far worse things and LV does not kill them. Avery fails to get him the prophecy but LV does not kill him. Lucius destroyed the diary and went against LV's orders but he doesn't kill him on the spot. The only one we see ending up death is Karkaroff and he ran instead of rejoining and he actively took out several of LV's DEs after LV's down fall and this is common knowledge while if Snape has ever contributed to the capture of DEs, it isn't known. Nothing would suggest Snape would not get away with what he has to offer and therefore he was at greater risk defying LV after his rise back to power then joining him even if it was late. wynnleaf > Dumbledore appears rather worried when Snape left at the end of GOF, > and Snape looks pretty stressed as well. Since Dumbledore > completely trusted Snape, his concerns were far more likely to be > for Snape's safety. Sure why would Dumbledore not worry but if he thought the chances for Snape's survival were as slim as you want to suggest then why would DD even suggest him returning? wynnleaf > I'm not sure what you mean. The DE's at the MOM weren't at risk > when Snape sent the Order? They certainly did fare badly didn't > they? Malfoy ends up in prison, and supposedly he was a friend. Dana: Was that Snape fault or Lucius? If Lucius hadn't let Harry thwart him and swooped in and out as he was supposed to do, was sending the Order, at the time we see them arrive, really to prevent Lucius from performing his task successfully? First we have to believe Snape didn't think Harry would be able to get to the DoM but now we have to believe Snape thought Harry would be giving Lucius such a hard time that he fails to get the task preformed swiftly? The one contradicts the other. Snape does not think much of Harry and would have believed the DEs would be able to handle 6 teenagers and finish the job before anyone arrives to intervene. Him sending the Order would not have caused the DEs trouble if they had preformed there task as they should have. It was not an active attempt on Snape's part to thwart LV's plan because if Snape really wanted to thwart LV's plan then he would have alerted the Order sooner and made sure someone was at the DoM just in case but we see no Order activity before they show up at the DoM. They were just gathering at HQ for a meeting with DD. wynnleaf > Dumbledore is starting to sound very wishy washy in your scenario. > He trusts Snape even though Snape's been a death eater, even though > Snape delivered the prophecy to Voldemort, even though he made an > unbreakable vow with Narcissa (and yes, Dumbledore had to have known > about it eventually), yet he looses his trust over this? Dana: To some extent he indeed does sound wishy washy for still wanting to believe in Snape's good side but to me DD's actions in HBP does read that he knew something was up and that Snape let his personal feelings get in the way from performing his Order duties as he should. DD knows the DADA job is jinxed and according to JKR herself DD never gave the job to Snape because he thought it would bring out the worst in Snape. So what changed? Why did DD change his mind? Why did he no longer consider Snape to be valuable enough to protect him against the pull the Dark Side had on him? I believe because he did know but he didn't want to give up on Snape because he hadn't done anything yet that would not allow him to come back. I still believe the argument in the forest was an attempt of DD to secure Snape on his side but he failed and him not wanting to let go and truly see he lost Snape on his side, is what got him killed. I think the ironclad reason DD though he had was not so ironclad after all. wynnleaf > So basically, you're saying that Dumbledore has it all wrong when he > thought Snape (in the first war) was taking great personal risks, > because Dumbledore didn't figure out that Snape really had no other > choice. Dana: We do not know what Snape did in the first war, only that he gave DD information on who the target family would be and DD himself states it was because he owed James a debt because James once saved Snape's life. We do not know if besides this Snape did anything else. We certainly do not see him being responsible for the capture of DEs after OotP and he would surely know the locations where some of them were hiding out. No, we actually see no one get caught as a direct result of Snape actions because the DoM fiasco was due to Lucius failure to get out in time not because it was an active attempt on Snape's part to get them caught. wynnleaf > Huh? Canon? We know he hates the Maruaders, but that's only two > Order members. Dana: We see his relation with Moody was not fine and dandy in GoF either and to Snape it was very believable he was the real Moody. We do not see him react in a normal fashion to Tonks in the beginning of HBP, insulting her for no apparent reason and if he doesn't like Tonks because she is involved with Lupin, then him transferred his hate for Lupin onto her without her really deserving it is just like what he does with Harry. We see him express himself about Dung after he was put into Azkaban and it was more than just not being nice, it should have caused him distress for losing another Order Member but it doesn't. We know he will not like DD's bother very much after their only encounter. If he is truly friends with Lucius then he will not like Arthur much for harassing his friend. He claims to have helped in the capture and death of Emmeline Vance and canon does not proof he is lying about it but if he was then he must not have liked her very much too even WANT to claim having anything to do with her death. So for now it looks pretty much like Snape has no personal investment into anyone concerning the Order, while we do see him being friendly with people known to be DEs. And we also see at the end of HBP that many had doubts about Snape's loyalties and only trusted him because DD asked them too. Such a nice man, how could no one believe Snape being loyal while he treated any of them in such trust worthy way? Providing them with so much information, that prevented so many horrible things from happening, all at great personal risk. wynnleaf > How could you possibly know this? Harry is not an Order member, and > therefore we never see one Order meeting, where presumably any such > information is passed along. We have no particular information that > Lupin is doing any good as a spy, either, because we never see his > reports. Dana: We know this because the knowledge of LV's plans is not contributed to Snape providing information. Nothing Snape did caused the Order to be one step ahead of LV. They were not at the DoM to intercept Harry, just in case against all odds he would find a way to get there. We see no activity while the Order has MoM employees, which could have raised the alarm that it seemed someone broke into the DoM. In HBP we see no activity to actively prevent Draco from getting DEs into the castle. How come Snape never found out Draco was doing something in the RoR while Harry could. Snape knew more about Draco's task then Harry. He could have secured the RoR so Draco would no longer have access, even if he did not know what he was doing in there. And if Draco could not get DEs into the castle then it would have been slim, Snape would have ever had to take over Draco's task and kill DD. These reports do not seem to contain any valuable information. One could even conclude that Snape provided information that it made the Order conclude guard duties where no longer necessary because no one is there watching the DoM while just a few weeks there was someone there every night. The MoM caught one of them there so how is it, that the alarm could not be raised because Lucius had broken into the DoM? There is absolutely no indication that information provided by Snape was of any significance to the Order and keep them ahead of LV. The only thing that is claimed is that Snape send the Order and that it helped prevent LV getting his hands on the prophecy but as I stated above it was actually Harry and to some level Neville that prevented LV getting his hands on it by causing Lucius to have such a hard time. It is surely not proof it was Snape's intention to prevent LV's plan from being successful. Maybe it was just bad luck on Snape's part that Lucius was still there. At least canon does not dispute this view. wynnleaf > Snape must have contacted Sirius the first time. When Snape > contacted the Order the second time, 4 Order members were present > including Sirius. They certainly must have heard from Sirius > whether or not this was a completely new situation to Sirius (he'd > heard nothing previously), or whether he'd gotten an earlier > communication from Snape. Dana: DD was due there shortly it makes equally as much sense that the Order Members where there to have a meeting with him. To me it doesn't make sense if Snape truly informed Sirius on the current situation that Sirius did nothing but sit there waiting for Snape to contact him again, while we see him rush out the second time (supposedly) without much hesitation. We see him wanting to come up there just because Snape did not want to teach Harry occlumency anymore. Do you really believe Sirius would not have taken the risk to get to Harry if he had known what was going on? I must certainly do not believe that at all. To me it makes sense that if Snape indeed contacted Sirius, it was to ask if he heard any news on DD and how he knew to ask Sirius to stay behind to inform DD about what was happening. To me your generalization of the Order having to check with Sirius, to confirm Snape's second message was genuine, makes no sense to me at all. Why would they doubt Snape message Harry went to the DoM. Besides I do not believe they needed proof even if Harry wasn't at the DoM, it would be enough for them to go and check it out. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Apr 18 09:48:30 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:48:30 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward?/The Dursleys/James' Patronu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167700 Magpie: > I don't think there's any doubt that "personal" means Snape. That's > what Snape is doing by pretending to be a DE when he's not. If he's > found out he will be killed. Dana: To risk being found out you have to actually do something that would risk being found out but we see Bella only accuses him from slithering in and out of action without putting his own life on the line for LV's cause, not that he is provided DD information that risked any of LV's operations. You can't have it both ways Snape not doing anything to keep his cover or Snape risking his cover by providing the necessary information. We see him do the former more then the latter and we see no Order activity that is contributed to information Snape has provided. And when he finally does it was almost to late and therefore it doesn't seem that it was actually his intention for the DEs to fail just his attempt to cover his own butt. JMHO Magpie: > But he did put his DE friends in danger. He sent the Order to the > MoM and got them arrested and attacked. There's no indication that > Dumbledore is ordering him to put DEs in danger as a matter of > course. Dana: But was it intentional. Why would DD have to need to order Snape to put the DEs in danger? That is his job as a spy to make sure the DEs and LV don't get their way. In war you do not sent a spy to have some tea parties with the enemy, you want him to provide you with information to help you win the war. And make sure you can move before the enemy does. Magpie: > I'm not sure what you're definition of "real trouble" is. None of > the Order members have gone to any trouble to keep Snape safe > either. Snape doesn't have to personally worry about every Order > member. Snape has taken actions that contribute to the safety of > people on the good side. We don't know what information he's giving > them--why would you assume he's not giving them anything important? > Just because he's not keeping them "one step ahead" of LV (which > would not only make for a boring story, but would be unrealistic) > doesn't mean he's not pulling his own weight. LV, too, seems to be > okay with Snape not keeping him one step ahead of Dumbledore. Dana: I do not understand this at all. What is Snape purpose as a spy if he does not provide the Order with information to prevent stuff from happening? If the Order can move before LV is able to execute his plans, then automatically the people involved are less at risk from being killed then to have to fight DEs one on one. Snape job at Hogwarts that night was not only that of a spy but also the last Order Member to protect Harry and this alone means that Snape was responsible for keeping Harry at arms length. This also makes him responsible to direct the Orders actions and make decisions based on the knowledge he gained but Snape does nothing until Harry has gone missing for several hours. This is not just Harry going on some school trip, this is serious war business but Snape treats it like Harry is just facing another detention with Dolores. Maybe you are forgetting that Dolores had the power to expel Harry for breaking into her office, just because she wants some information out of Harry first does not mean she would not have removed him from the school grounds later. It is not Snape that prevents this from happening but Hermione. She wanted Harry out of Hogwarts the first time she caught him doing something against the law and now she caught him red handed. So the Order should have been preparing to get to Harry in case Dolores would try to get him out of Hogwarts and that is why them sitting there waiting at HQ makes no sense at all if they had information on current events. If Snape had informed the Order, LV was setting his plan into motion then Order Members could have been there to prevent the entire ordeal at the DoM and there would have been no need to fight anyone, now would there. No Harry no LV plan to work out. Also Snape getting the information from Harry that LV is setting his plan, to get Harry to the DoM, in motion should be enough to motivate Snape into action but it doesn't. Just because it would have made it boring, doesn't mean Snape actions therefore are the right one. JKR did not write Snape's actions to prevent the reader getting bored. She actually does not write Snape's actions at all but has DD relay his actions and I think putting so much effort in having DD explain Snape's actions of that night is for a purpose not just to have Harry believe Snape did everything because we see DD's lecture does not change Harry's mind one bit and it even makes him question DD trust in Snape more and more in HBP. And just because Snape says to Sirius he should stay behind does not mean he activly tried to keep the guy out of harms way. It was for Harry that Sirius let himself got locket up in GP in the first place not because he valued his own life so much he would not take risks. We see him want to do that on more then one occassion and we also hear about Snape goading him one more then one occassion about being a coward for not putting his own life on the line. Still so ironic Bella does the same thing to Snape and he got caught in the web too ;) To be honest we do see LV get advantage from information that could have been provided by Snape, mainly there not being an Order Member left at Hogwarts besides Snape to protect Harry and creating the perfect moment for LV to make his move. Magpie: > He hasn't kept his cover spotless--not on the DE side. The've > questioned the very inactivity and action for the other side you're > describing, only for Dumbledore. He has taken action plenty of times > in canon in situations that are, whether Harry likes it or not, on > Harry's side. Even when he could have done nothing. Dana: Yes, he has kept it spotless because Bella never accuses Snape from giving sensitive information to DD; she accuses him from not being a proud DE and openly fight for LV's cause. She also does not accuse him for messing up the DoM plan but accusing him from not being there to fight along side them. She even asks him if DD never suspects Snape, not that it seems he is more on DD's side then theirs. What she is accusing him of is not risking his own life while others have to be on the frontline, not that he is risking their position on that frontline. Snape could have done loots of things that night but he just didn't and he later makes excuses he couldn't have known. But it does not excuses him for not keeping an eye on Harry while in the company of Dolores because she too is a potential threat to Harry safety and he should have known everything that was going on included those 4 other kids getting away from the IS and going after Harry. He knows by his own experience that they will not hesitate to take out a teacher if they believe it is the right thing to do and that it would mean Harry would no longer be under Dolores control and it would make him able to attempt to get to the DoM. All the more reason to keep a close eye on Harry. But it is apparently not Snape business to keep Harry safe because it is was never Snape's job to keep people safe, right? But according to many it is perfectly natural for Snape to do nothing that would risk his cover because he is such a good spy, yet is not able to spy on Dolores and he certainly is not spying on LV because DD never knew about LV having information that would make it able to lure Harry to the DoM or even that it was his plan to use Harry to get to the prophecy because he gets the information about the former from Kreacher and he never mentions he thought about LV using Harry this way, he was worried LV would try and posses Harry or even to use Harry to spy on DD but never is it mentioned that Snape gave information about LV's true plan while LV himself mentions that *months* of careful planning has gone to waste, while he shows up at the DoM himself. I never implied Snape is LV's man but is actions do not risk, him being found out as DDM either. His actions reflect his own attempt to keep himself on both side of the fence and not do anything that would risk this position at least not before HBP. Dana From sailorstarfairy at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 10:20:09 2007 From: sailorstarfairy at yahoo.com (sailorstarfairy) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:20:09 -0000 Subject: Harry and his parents graves? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167701 I had a thought occur to me but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (as I don't have my book to quote it exactly), but Harry says at the end of HBP that he is going to go see his parents graves? A. Who buried them? B. How does Harry know where to go to visit them? C. Does he get this information from Lupin maybe? Any ideas? Again I can't remember if he said he was going to their graves or maybe he said he was going to their old house in Godrics Hollow but even at that how would he know where to go? Lena From domino_girl at walla.com Wed Apr 18 09:39:47 2007 From: domino_girl at walla.com (Tali Noga) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:39:47 -0000 Subject: will they return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <642585.19414.qm@web38311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167702 > --- WOLFIESMOM98 wrote: > > > Harry has said that he will not return to Hogwarts > > but surely he'll > > change his mind. > Cassy: > > James Potter was a headboy, although he was not a > prefect, so it might be possible for Harry as well. > But will he have time for administrator's work even if > he returns to school? Tali: I don't think he'll return to school. He is stubborn and he won't change his mind THAT easily.. Anyway, if he said he's not coming back - he won't come back, period. In addition, his friend won't try to change his mind, because they know how he feels about all this - Dumbledore's death and all this thing with the locket - and they even suggested to come with him, so they won't be the cause to his approximated return to the school. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 12:26:23 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:26:23 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167703 > Pippin: > Gosh, I could've sworn Fenrir Greyback attacked Harry and > Hogwarts both. How come Lupin didn't know that was going to > happen? So, Neri, does this mean that Lupin is a traitor or just > incompetent? > > Pippin > Neri: I expected this kind of reply. Fenrir Greyback attacked Hogwarts as a DE, one of a DEs squad, in an operation planned by DEs, not by werewolves. The werewolves cannot be blamed for Greyback's actions. We know of many more DEs who are *not* werewolves than the one who is. We don't have any indication that any other werewolf had known in advance about the operation. Most likely the only way in which Lupin could have learned about it was if he had very good relations with Greyback himself (kind of difficult with their mutual history). Snape OTOH could have learned about the operation from Draco, Voldemort and/or a whole bunch of other DEs who took part in it and appear to respect Snape a lot, including Greyback himself, who seems "cowed" in Snape's presence. Besides, Lupin at least never brags about being an agent, he never uses it as an excuse to slither away from battle, and Order members don't risk their lives or die so Lupin can maintain his cover. Neri From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Apr 18 12:28:32 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:28:32 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167704 Dana: > Actually according to Lupin, it was DD's own shrewd > idea of what LV is planning. He doesn't say Snape > provided us with valuable information on what LV > is up to next. There is no reason for Lupin to > not mention this if it was Snape, that got the > Order this information. Especially because Harry > already knows Snape went back to LV and Sirius already > mentions Snape is coming there to bring reports. houyhnhnm: Harry doesn't know that Snape went back to LV when he comes to GP in August. Where are you getting that? There is every reason for Lupin not to mention that the knowledge of Voldemort's design on the prophecy came from Snape. The entire subject is taboo in front of the children. We don't know what any of the Order members say in their meetings. Where does DD's "shrewd idea" come from? If Dumbldedore has knowledge of what Voldemort is up to and it *doesn't* come from Snape, then either Dumbledore is omniscient or he has another spy placed as closely to Voldemort as Snape is. If either of these cases is true, then that's the end of the discussion of whether or not Snape is Dumbledore's man. Think about it: either DD is all-knowing or he has a spy who can report *on Snape* and he still trusts Snape completely. End of argument. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 12:22:21 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:22:21 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167705 Part 3 (b) Goddlefrood: First, I want to just tidy up a little matter that arose during the earlier discussion. A hole in the hole in my theory, if you like. The eventual theory, which is far from expounded on yet, does not depend at all on Snape's teaching ability or lack thereof. The comments I made on Snape's teaching were due to (i) my own dislike of formal education, which could be easily divined from matters contained in 3 (a) that comes about partially due to my having been out of it for a long time and (ii) my opinion that Snape was an ineffective teacher and could have done more to assist his charges in DADA lessons and also in Occlumency lessons with Harry. Further to that, there would, as far as I'm concerned, be a simple expedient to assist in the learning of Occlumency. One word: Compartmentalise. I am of the view that Harry will not take the advice regarding closing his mind too seriously, although he will almost certainly have to learn non-verbal spells rather more thoroughly than he has done to date, but not because Severus advised it, only because it will be necessary. He hasn't actually done too badly previously at casting spells non-verbally, and that includes his various efforts before he got to *know* he was a wizard. There is one small point to address from a correspondent first. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167691 > Magpie: (Very Large SNIP) > But if Snape's being an intentionally bad teacher of Occlumency and DADA is supposed to be a factor, you need a magnifying glass and a protracter to see it, it seems to me. Goddlefrood: This does not tally with what I have said. I do not recall saying that Snape was intentionally bad, just that he was bad :). There may or may not be anything intentional about this, but as stated above it does not alter the theory itself, which I am far from getting to. --------------- The following portion is a little exposition on the name Severus. JKR to start us: "There are lots of Latin names in the book and Roman names like Severus Snape - did you do Latin at school and enjoy it? JKR: No I didn't do Latin at school, I did classics at university." >From JK interview Part 4 - questions and queries, cBBC Newsround, 8th July, 2000, available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2353000/2353727.stm There are a number of historical Severuses, saints, emperors and so forth. Do any of them give us a clue as to ours?. Perhaps, perhaps not. He's a dificult character to divine. That is, I'm almost certain, something we can all agree with. What follows are some suspects for having been the precursor to his forename with a few small comments on each. I'll take these in no particular order. Prior to that one definition: "SEVERO Gender: Masculine Usage: Italian, Spanish Pronounced: se-VE-ro (Italian, Spanish) Italian and Spanish form of the Roman family name Severus which meant "stern" in Latin. The name Severus was borne by several early saints." From: http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=severo It was indeed borne by several early saints, these include: One of the Four Crowned Martyrs. This from The Golden Legend by Jacobus de Voragine, p. 292: "The four crowned martyrs, who were beaten to death with leaded scourges by order of Diocletian, were named Severus, Severinus, Carpophorus and Victorinus." This beating to death took place in around 285 BC. Not much help for us here, I think. The next sainted Severus is Saint Sulpicius Severus, a biographer of St. Martin of Tours who himself is the patron Saint of soldiers, interestingly enough. This namesake of our Severus lived in the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD. Saint Severus of Antioch is a third. He is also known as St. Severus the Great and appears in several of the HP sites that include name origins. He lived in the late 5th and early 6th centuries AD. Here is a link to a short biography of this Saint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severus_of_Antioch There is also a Severus Ibn al-Muqaffa, who died in c. 987, around the time of the founding of Hogwarts. This one is not a Saint himslef, but a coptic bishop and historian. Not much relevance there either. Onto the Roman Severuses and Severans. The emperors with Severus as part of their name include, in date order, Lucius Septimius Severus who allied with Decimus Clodius Albinus to defeat Pescennius Niger in the late 2nd century AD. The link has been made between these three to the HP books. The problem with it is that Black was not defeated by Albus and Severus, they may have had some complicity in Sirius's death, but they did not team up to beat him. It is, IMO, a tenuous link at best. The alliance between Severus and Albinus did not actually last very long either and Severus's army ended up by killing Albinus at the Batlle of Lyons (Lugdunum), another link that others have made. Interesting, perhaps, but still tenuous. Septimius himself died of a disease in York. Here is a link to show some of these facts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/timeline/romanbritain_timeline_noflash.shtml The next chronologically is Alexander Severus. Both he and his relative above were part of the Severan dynasty. Those interested may find these links of value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan_dynasty_family_tree http://www.severusalexander.com/ This Severus was young when he ascended as Emperor. His mother and grandmother controlled his early career. Here's a further piece on the Severan women, including these, but as I have said before I doubt if Augusta Longbottom has a great deal to do with Snape. The link: http://www.roman-emperors.org/sevjulia.htm#Note_jd Our next Emperor Severus is Flavius Valerius Severus of the 3rd and early 4th centuries AD.He was known as Severus II, here's some biographical material on him for you: http://www.roman-emperors.org/severus.htm So he is linked to Diocletian, who also had another Severus (see above) beaten to death. An odd coincidence possibly. This Emperor Severus was murdered. Our Severus may be also ;), but there is little more link than that. Finally, in terms of Emperors anyway, there is Libius Severus who reigned in the 5th century AD. More on him can be found here: http://www.roman-emperors.org/libius.htm I liked this little line from the epilogue in this link "Severus is eminently deserving of his place among the "shadow" emperors.". As is our Severus well deserving of his place as a shadowy character and hard to pin down. There is also a character by the name of Severus in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. Take your pick as to which one of the above many and varied Severuses gave rise to ours, in terms of his naming anyway. ---------------------- Back now to the analysis, theory will come eventually, sorry to continue in this vein, but it has certainly already brought about some useful discussion :). I'm not going to go too deeply into some of Severus's specific actions or imputed actions of which we are aware, the whole MoM business for one. There is plenty of discussion going on regarding that already. It is arguable either way and would not altogether either support or refute my basic premise. Neither, in that sense, does a great deal that happened at Spinner's End with Snape and the Black sisters. There is some suggestive material there though, and possibly some reasonable conclusions to be made about his background. If, for instance, it is accepted, which it needn't be, that Spinner's End was Snape's childhood home, then some few comments on the locale of the house may be useful. From the descriptors available the location is suggestive of being in the North East of England and to me personally more particularly to County Durham. There is no solid evidence for this view, but experience of the area does lend some support to what I say. My grandmother was a Geordie from South Shields, my surviving Great Aunt, who's now 93 still lives there. My grandmother lived near Selby in the North Riding of Yorkshire and another nearby town, namely Goole, could also be considered a place that would contain a street such as Spinner's End. I myself spent many of my formative years in the North West of England and that part of the country would not typically contain a street such as Spinner's End in a small town or village, at least not recently. It's obviously more of a feeling than anything else and it could well turn out that Spinner's End is in the industrial part of the Midlands or even in Swindon :). I do not think it will be all that relevant except insofar as it further supports the conclusion, which is also unsupported, except due to a little phlegm, that Snape is from a lower class background than many other Death Eaters. It is also not strictly relevant to my theory, that will eventually be reached. Part (c) will, I assure you all, contain the theory and will hopefully let me move forward to the silly part of this series, that being part 4 in case you wondered :) Goddlefrood From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Apr 18 12:52:49 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:52:49 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167706 Goddlefrood: > There is also a character by the name of Severus in > Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. Take your pick as to > which one of the above many and varied Severuses gave > rise to ours, in terms of his naming anyway. houyhnhnm: I think we should also include Severinus in _The Name of the Rose_. He was the brother herbalist (and potions master). He was also a lover of books. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Apr 18 13:45:02 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:45:02 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167707 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > But did she /literally/ say "She is a Muggle". It seems > to me that the books very much imply that Petunia is > as muggle as they come, but that is colored by Harry's > perception. > > Do, you by chance have a direct quote of JKR saying that? > Because from the two critical sources of information we > have about that, it seems that JKR specifically avoided > say it directly. > > If by chance you can find a direct quote, I sense a > context to it. As I said, what we are lead to believe is > colored by Harry's perception. Which means that JKR is > likely going to try and re-enforce Harry perception > until such time as a change needs to take place in the > story line. So, unless JKR gives a no-context unqualified > statement, I'm afraid I can't accept it. va32h here: The quote most people use is this one: "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." from the 2004 Edinburgh Book Festival. So that is her /literally/ saying "she is a Muggle", although I suspect you are going to say that the "but" equals the context you are talking about. Personally I don't find the statement that there is more than meets the eye enough to base an elaborate theory about Petunia being a spy for Dumbledore, but then, there are people who think that when JKR said "We now know that it's Ron and Hermione" she *really* meant "we know for now" which of course means that Hermione will dump Ron as soon as Harry realizes that he's been in love with her all along. So I have learned not to be surprised when readers disregard the words of the author because it interferes with a pet theory. JKR also says on her own website that Petunia has never performed magic and never will.(Rumors section) If Petunia ever *was* a witch, she would have had to perform magic, even accidental magic, or else how would she know she had any magic to renounce? va32h From sweety12783 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 12:45:11 2007 From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (sweety12783) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: will they return to Hogwarts? Message-ID: <979716.3761.qm@web84001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167708 sweety12783 writes: I think that Harry would return to Hogwarts but as a teacher... Remember, Harry was marked by Voldermont as an equal..so the curse that is on the DADA position would never harm Harry for he is LV equal. That is why Dumbledore looked triumphant when LV used Harry's blood to return...Dumbledore knew that by using Harry's blood, LV has given Harry the power to defeat him and that LV did not mark Harry as a equal until that moment when he used Harry's blood. The scar is just a scar resulting from the impact of the AK curse that was put on Harry. Just a thought From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 12:58:44 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:58:44 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167709 > bboyminn: > > But did she /literally/ say "She is a Muggle". It seems > to me that the books very much imply that Petunia is > as muggle as they come, but that is colored by Harry's > perception. > > Do, you by chance have a direct quote of JKR saying that? > Because from the two critical sources of information we > have about that, it seems that JKR specifically avoided > say it directly. Ryan: >From http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript4.htm "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." Ryan, who agrees that there's more to be had from Aunt Petunia. From janbo77 at hotmail.co.uk Wed Apr 18 14:03:45 2007 From: janbo77 at hotmail.co.uk (missxunderstud) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:03:45 -0000 Subject: Sirius's escape from Azkaban Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167710 If Sirius escaped from Azkaban so easily after seeing Peter Pettigrew as Scabbers in a newspaper, why did he not do it before, why stay there for 12 years? This might have been a question asked previously but I'm new *waves* and there are thousands of posts to read through. missxunderstud From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 14:46:58 2007 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius's escape from Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <100414.71670.qm@web39515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167711 --- missxunderstud wrote: > If Sirius escaped from Azkaban so easily after > seeing Peter Pettigrew > as Scabbers in a newspaper, why did he not do it > before, why stay there > for 12 years? > This might have been a question asked previously but > I'm new *waves* > and there are thousands of posts to read through. > > missxunderstud > parisfan writes: Sirius didn't have any proof that peter was alive until he saw the newspaper photo. It is my understanding of cannon that everyone including Sirius saw Peter take out 12 people along with himself and there was no real 'proof' that Peter had lived. Peter had done a good job of hiding that it wasn't til the photo of the Weasley's in the daily profet that there was proof to the contrary. Remember only a few people knew about Peter being able to transform into a rat and most assumed he was dead and gone. but when Sirius saw the photo that gave him cause to break out. Also keep in mind that Sirius also blamed himself for the fact he made Peter the secret keeper so maybe remaining in Azkaban (in his mind) was suitable pusnishment for what happened. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From petaannfox at yahoo.com.au Wed Apr 18 13:03:28 2007 From: petaannfox at yahoo.com.au (petaannfox) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:03:28 -0000 Subject: The Scholastic Question that was realesed today Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167712 HI ALL! I am a new member to the group so I am very sorry if this is a question that has been discussed before. Anyway, as part of Scholastics Marketing they are releasing 7 questions each fortnight in the lead up to the final book the first question is this: "Who do you think will live and die?" I want to ask everyone who they pridict will go and by who/how. Also what are your pridictions for those that will live? Here are my views to date: 1. Snape will die. Why: To protect Harry (to Harry's surprise) but will be killed by Voldemort. Harry finds him and kills him after a long duel (if Snape is true to Voldemort and to the prophercy) he would leave Harry for Voldemort - this is a well known reason OOORRRR Voldemort figures out that he is a double agent and kills him. 2. Malfoy is a gonna because he didn't do what Voldemort wanted (ie killing Dumbledore). 3. A Weasly will die - Not too sure which one. I think this because JK has mentioned that not all stories have a happy ending. Harry can't really die because it would make the series a whole waste of time and just a mere money making business. 4. Hagrid will die due to his Gryffindor Bravery (he was in the Gryffindor house when he was at school I believe), his lack of magical power. PLEASE PLEASE give me your views. I am one girl that is in a great need to discuss Harry Potter with anybody. petaannfox From va32h at comcast.net Wed Apr 18 16:19:09 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:19:09 -0000 Subject: Sirius's escape from Azkaban In-Reply-To: <100414.71670.qm@web39515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, laurie goudge wrote: > parisfan writes: > > Sirius didn't have any proof that peter was alive > until he saw the newspaper photo. > > It is my understanding of cannon that everyone > including Sirius saw Peter take out 12 people along > with himself and there was no real 'proof' that Peter > had lived. Peter had done a good job of hiding that it > wasn't til the photo of the Weasley's in the daily > profet that there was proof to the contrary. > > Remember only a few people knew about Peter being able > to transform into a rat and most assumed he was dead > and gone. but when Sirius saw the photo that gave him > cause to break out. Also keep in mind that Sirius also > blamed himself for the fact he made Peter the secret > keeper so maybe remaining in Azkaban (in his mind) was > suitable pusnishment for what happened. va32h: No, Sirius saw Peter transform and escape down the sewer. From PoA - Scholastic pg 363: "Then before I could curse him, he blew apart the street with the wand behind his back, killed everyone within twenty feet of himself -- and sped down the sewer with the other rats..." and on page 371 Sirius says: "I was the only one who knew he was still alive." When Sirius saw the photo in the paper, he realized that Peter was not just living life as a common garden rat, he was *at Hogwart's - near Harry *. This is what motivated him to break out of his depressive state and finally escape. I do agree that Sirius was depressed over his role in his friends' death and saw Azkaban as his just punishment. But he never doubted Peter was alive - he just didn't realize the significance until he saw the photo. va32h From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Apr 18 17:06:29 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:06:29 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167714 Phew--this is long. Sorry! JW > *BTW, one way to end the debate is for everybody to realize that Snape > is Only Out For Himself. He aspires to replace LV. (Perhaps that > ambition is sufficient for DD's trust in him - DD trusts that he will > do NOTHING that strengthens LV.) All of Snape's actions seem to > support Harry (within the competency of Snape's abilities - hence the > failure to TEACH occlumency). Snape needs the Chosen One to help > defeat LV. Snape also needs to weaken the Order in order for him to > become ruler of the WW. Hence, his best course is to weaken both sides > while assuring that they continue to both fight each other and rely on > him. I believe that the climactic scenes of both OotP and HBP can be > interpreted to support this conjecture. Magpie: Actually, that's taking a side in the debate. Some of us do not at all see Snape's actions as fitting this idea that he's out for himself and simply needing the Chosen One to defeat LV first. Dana: LV also knows Snape did not know LV was in the back of Quirrell's head and therefore it was not an action against LV but against Quirrell and in the end Snape did nothing that prevented Quirrell getting to the Mirror. I do not see what LV would care about Snape trying to get Sirius soul sucked, he knows Sirius was never on his side and getting Sirius soul sucked would therefore HELP LV because now no one would be looking for Wormtail and with it Wormtail had no where else to go then to LV and maybe you missed it but this helped LV get back to power. Magpie: Aren't these types of things exactly the type of things you claim show that Snape is disloyal to Dumbledore? I mean, that he's failing to really show that he's with him? What you're repeating here are certainly Snape's explanations for his actions, but there was of course a big chance LV would consider him disloyal because they hint at Snape's loyalties being with Dumbledore. The Stone because Dumbledore is trying to keep it, and Sirius because it shows him angry at Sirius for getting the Potters' killed--with Snape angrily saying that he "told" James not to trust Sirius. Sure LV ultimately accepts these explanations, but that doesn't mean he had to have accepted them when he gets angry at people for not searching him out for all these years. There's always a risk when you're dealing with LV. If you take that away from him, he's not a scary psycho villain. All the DEs seem a bit scared about returning to him even if they never spied for DD. Dana: Snape indeed doesn't come at the first call but Snape has a good excuse for LV to buy; that he was waiting for DD's orders because only then could he remain his position at Hogwarts and Barty is soul sucked so he can't tell LV Snape was involved in his capture. I think you meant LV's legilimency skills are now better but Snape's occlumency skills are now better then when he was 22 too. Magpie: But that's still working backwards, assuming that because LV did buy it it was foolproof. Any time you deal with LV you're putting yourself in danger, even if you're not hiding the fact that you're really working against him. Obviously Snape did live to tell the tale of his return to LV, but I don't think you can just dismiss all danger as if LV was of course going to accept it. (Especially while at the same time claiming that Snape *had* to send the DEs to the MoM because the much more sensitive and more forgiving Dumbledore would have banished him for not doing it.) If we accept that Snape is a spy for DD (which I realize not everyone does) then there's a risk involved. Dana: Snape has information on DD and Harry from a close objective and he will be useful as a spy and therefore the chance that LV would kill him on the spot where very slim and besides Snape had more chance trying to convince LV of his usefulness then not trying at all because if he hadn't his death was a sure thing. Magpie: I don't think we can just assume that Snape's death was more assured if he allowed Dumbledore to hide him than if he returned with a lie. If a Mafia boss that I had previously worked for got out of prison and was calling for all his old allies, and I no longer was one, I would consider it far more of a risk to go undercover to work for the FBI then to enter witness protection. Sure I might have danger either way, but how could I ever be safer putting myself in the boss' hands? Dana: Besides we see LV not killing Wormtail on the spot either not just because he is to weak but because he is useful and he did much worse then Snape did. Magpie: He did? How? Didn't Wormtail seek LV out and bring him back to life and care for him for months? And he hasn't been DD's ally for years and never protected Harry from anything. Dana: Snape was not hidden over these years, he was still in regular contact with Lucius and maintaining of old ties. Snape sudden death just because LV rose back to power would not be very believable now would it. And just being in the protection of DD would not keep Snape safe at all times either but going back to LV and convince him of his usefulness would. Magpie: I think it could be made believable, given that DD would know the situation as well as anyone else. We don't know what kind of contact he had with Lucius or what other ties he maintained, if any. We can't just assume these things are impossible to get to the idea that spying on Lord Voldemort is not a dangerous job, even compared to being protected by Dumbledore. I think you have to accept that while Snape can be in danger both ways, agreeing to spy (if that's what he's really doing) is an act of bravery, especially compared to being hidden by Dumbledore. Dana: Besides what has Snape done that LV knows about, that would grant a killing on the spot. As we see other DEs have done far worse things and LV does not kill them. Avery fails to get him the prophecy but LV does not kill him. Lucius destroyed the diary and went against LV's orders but he doesn't kill him on the spot. The only one we see ending up death is Karkaroff and he ran instead of rejoining and he actively took out several of LV's DEs after LV's down fall and this is common knowledge while if Snape has ever contributed to the capture of DEs, it isn't known. Magpie: Karkaroff is dead because he betrayed LV and tried to leave the DEs. Which is why if it's discovered that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore he would be killed on the spot. Lucius and Avery did not leave LV's service as DDM!Snape has. That's why he's in danger if LV finds out the truth or doesn't want to take the chance. Dana: Nothing would suggest Snape would not get away with what he has to offer and therefore he was at greater risk defying LV after his rise back to power then joining him even if it was late. Magpie: Why would nothing suggest Snape would not get away with it? You yourself don't seem like you'd let him get away with it, based on how you judge Snape's behavior in OotP. And remember Voldemort's a sociopath. He's not somebody you can rely on to him to avoid violence except when necessary. Dana: Sure why would Dumbledore not worry but if he thought the chances for Snape's survival were as slim as you want to suggest then why would DD even suggest him returning? Magpie: Because having Snape as a spy on Voldemort would be valuable to the cause, naturally. He's not sending him back to Voldemort to protect him. wynnleaf > I'm not sure what you mean. The DE's at the MOM weren't at risk > when Snape sent the Order? They certainly did fare badly didn't > they? Malfoy ends up in prison, and supposedly he was a friend. Dana: Was that Snape fault or Lucius? If Lucius hadn't let Harry thwart him and swooped in and out as he was supposed to do, was sending the Order, at the time we see them arrive, really to prevent Lucius from performing his task successfully? Magpie: It was Snape's fault, of course. The fact that if Lucius had gotten in and out sooner the Order wouldn't have been able to save Harry hardly makes it Lucius' fault that they were there at all. Lucius being at the MoM and trying to get the Prophecy--however long that took--was part of LV's plan. Snape's sending a bunch of Order members to the MoM was *not* LV's plan. It's nobody's plan except Snape's. Why introduce them into the situation at all? Dana: First we have to believe Snape didn't think Harry would be able to get to the DoM but now we have to believe Snape thought Harry would be giving Lucius such a hard time that he fails to get the task preformed swiftly? Magpie: We only have to believe that Snape didn't think Harry would be able to get to the DoM. Anything about Snape calculating how long Harry could keep Lucius at bay has nothing to do with canon. Snape simply sent the Order when he realized Harry had gone to the MoM. For all Snape knows Harry hasn't even arrived at the MoM at the point he sends the Order. So no, there's no reason to believe Snape is relying on Lucius taking care of Harry quickly at all. Dana: Him sending the Order would not have caused the DEs trouble if they had preformed there task as they should have. It was not an active attempt on Snape's part to thwart LV's plan because if Snape really wanted to thwart LV's plan then he would have alerted the Order sooner and made sure someone was at the DoM just in case but we see no Order activity before they show up at the DoM. They were just gathering at HQ for a meeting with DD. Magpie: Yes, it is an action on Snape's part that does thwart Voldemort's plan. You're basing your conclusions on the very premise you're supposed to be proving. It's *you* who are calculating that if Lucius had been quicker taking care of Harry they would have been out of there, working backwards from what happened. There's absolutely nothing in canon that suggests that Snape could do such a thing, since he didn't know when Harry left or how he was traveling. It's not even like the timeframe leaves that much room for error if that's what Snape was trying to do. wynnleaf > Dumbledore is starting to sound very wishy washy in your scenario. > He trusts Snape even though Snape's been a death eater, even though > Snape delivered the prophecy to Voldemort, even though he made an > unbreakable vow with Narcissa (and yes, Dumbledore had to have known > about it eventually), yet he looses his trust over this? Dana: To some extent he indeed does sound wishy washy for still wanting to believe in Snape's good side but to me DD's actions in HBP does read that he knew something was up and that Snape let his personal feelings get in the way from performing his Order duties as he should. DD knows the DADA job is jinxed and according to JKR herself DD never gave the job to Snape because he thought it would bring out the worst in Snape. So what changed? Why did DD change his mind? Why did he no longer consider Snape to be valuable enough to protect him against the pull the Dark Side had on him? Magpie: Actually, Dumbledore *isn't* wishy-washy in HBP at all. He stands very firm on trusting Snape completely. The questions about the DADA job are important, imo, but I see no sign in HBP that Dumbledore is motivated by a feeling that Snape is letting his personal duties get in the way of performing his Order duties--though, of course, letting your personal feelings interfere with your duties is something Dumbledore deals with with practically all his Order members at one point or another. wynnleaf > So basically, you're saying that Dumbledore has it all wrong when he > thought Snape (in the first war) was taking great personal risks, > because Dumbledore didn't figure out that Snape really had no other > choice. Dana: We do not know what Snape did in the first war, only that he gave DD information on who the target family would be and DD himself states it was because he owed James a debt because James once saved Snape's life. We do not know if besides this Snape did anything else. We certainly do not see him being responsible for the capture of DEs after OotP and he would surely know the locations where some of them were hiding out. Magpie: But Dumbledore knows what Snape did in the first war and he's the one who's speaking. The idea that Snape has failed in capturing DEs after OotP is not anything anybody in canon, especially Dumbledore, who is his boss, has suggested he failed at doing. DD might consider rounding up the DEs a short-sighted use for Snape as a spy--and as well there's actually no reason to believe that Snape knows where all the DEs are hiding out. Why would he know about anybody except himself and his own roommate Wormtongue? Dana: No, we actually see no one get caught as a direct result of Snape actions because the DoM fiasco was due to Lucius failure to get out in time not because it was an active attempt on Snape's part to get them caught. Magpie: All the DEs caught at the MoM are caught as a direct result of Snape's actions. Even with your own interpretation that Snape was kinda hoping the Order would get there too late, it's still Snape's intentional actions that get them caught far more than Lucius taking a bit too long--in your view, since it's not like Lucius had run through the mission with a stopwatch first and had a record he was supposed to beat, nor does Snape have any idea what time Harry left for or got to the Ministry in order to start timing when the whole fiasco even started. Dana: And we also see at the end of HBP that many had doubts about Snape's loyalties and only trusted him because DD asked them too. Such a nice man, how could no one believe Snape being loyal while he treated any of them in such trust worthy way? Providing them with so much information, that prevented so many horrible things from happening, all at great personal risk. Magpie: It seemed to be that everyone was saying they were suspicious of Snape's being in the Order to begin with, but it's not like anybody comes out and says, "I've always been suspcious of him because he's never really given us any information!" Nobody expressed problems with Snape's *work* as an Order member. They just never had any idea why he was let into the Order to begin with and of course noted that he was unpleasant to work with. That's what they were basing on Dumbledore's trust--you'd think Dumbledore might have not worked quite so hard in telling everyone that he trusted Snape completely if they had to depend on him, if Dumbledore didn't believe it. One might expect something more like the way he introduced Slughorn, saying that he was okay, but to watch certain things about him. wynnleaf > How could you possibly know this? Harry is not an Order member, and > therefore we never see one Order meeting, where presumably any such > information is passed along. We have no particular information that > Lupin is doing any good as a spy, either, because we never see his > reports. Dana: We know this because the knowledge of LV's plans is not contributed to Snape providing information.Nothing Snape did caused the Order to be one step ahead of LV. They were not at the DoM to intercept Harry, just in case against all odds he would find a way to get there. Magpie: We really don't know anything. All the stuff the spies do is waved away. You're coming up stuff Snape could be doing so that he can not do it, but nobody brings it up in canon. Having a spy in LV's camp isn't like having somebody in LV's head. We can't say "They haven't vanquished LV, so obviously Snape is useless as a spy." And of course, when they *are* one step of LV (or at least not far enough behind that they can't catch up) due to Snape you claim Snape just accidentally put them there while trying to keep them even further behind. Dana: We see no activity while the Order has MoM employees, which could have raised the alarm that it seemed someone broke into the DoM. In HBP we see no activity to actively prevent Draco from getting DEs into the castle. How come Snape never found out Draco was doing something in the RoR while Harry could. Snape knew more about Draco's task then Harry. He could have secured the RoR so Draco would no longer have access, even if he did not know what he was doing in there. And if Draco could not get DEs into the castle then it would have been slim, Snape would have ever had to take over Draco's task and kill DD. Magpie: Again, you seem to be starting from the end as if that's proof that Snape couldn't have been trying to do anything. What's going on at the MoM does not automatically come under "stuff Snape's in charge of" and Dumbledore has a whole scene at the end of HBP where he explains his own mistakes in dealing with Draco. Dumbledore knew Draco was working in the RoR and could also have secured the room as well. He did not want the room secured. He's being completely hands- off with Draco, and secure in the fact that Draco can't get anybody into the castle. Dana: There is absolutely no indication that information provided by Snape was of any significance to the Order and keep them ahead of LV. These reports do not seem to contain any valuable information. One could even conclude that Snape provided information that it made the Order conclude guard duties where no longer necessary because no one is there watching the DoM while just a few weeks there was someone there every night. The MoM caught one of them there so how is it, that the alarm could not be raised because Lucius had broken into the DoM? Magpie: They don't contain any valuable information based on what--your own years of experience in Auror intelligence? You don't even know what the reports are or what the reaction to it is or if the lack of alarms or guards at the MoM is anything Snape (who's at Hogwarts) would know about at all. Since we have no idea what reports Snape is giving--and I would add, since to me it doesn't seem like JKR is writing an espionage novel and has thought it through any more than Snape bringing valuable information about war strategy--you can't make any judgments on Snape as a spy based on how the war's going right now. Just as you claim Snape's not keeping them a step ahead of LV, so could I claim Snape's the only one keeping them one step behind LV. Dana: It is surely not proof it was Snape's intention to prevent LV's plan from being successful. Maybe it was just bad luck on Snape's part that Lucius was still there. At least canon does not dispute this view. Magpie: Canon not disputing the view means very little. You can't disprove a negative. I could just as easily say that it was "just bad luck" on Snape's part that all his brilliant spy reports didn't end in LV being destroyed by now due to Mad-Eye moving too slowly. Dana: DD was due there shortly it makes equally as much sense that the Order Members where there to have a meeting with him. To me it doesn't make sense if Snape truly informed Sirius on the current situation that Sirius did nothing but sit there waiting for Snape to contact him again, while we see him rush out the second time (supposedly) without much hesitation. Magpie: The rush the second time was because Harry was no longer at Hogwarts and was in danger. Or perhaps Sirius, too, was trying to give Lucius enough time to get the Prophecy.;-) Dana: We see him wanting to come up there just because Snape did not want to teach Harry occlumency anymore. Do you really believe Sirius would not have taken the risk to get to Harry if he had known what was going on? I must certainly do not believe that at all.To me it makes sense that if Snape indeed contacted Sirius, it was to ask if he heard any news on DD and how he knew to ask Sirius to stay behind to inform DD about what was happening. Magpie: Sirius did find out what was happening because he was at the MoM. I think if he had thought Snape lied to him the first time he'd have said so and it would have been an issue. Instead all the Order knows how things went down, including Dumbledore, and nobody sees a problem with it. Magpie: > I don't think there's any doubt that "personal" means Snape. That's > what Snape is doing by pretending to be a DE when he's not. If he's > found out he will be killed. Dana: To risk being found out you have to actually do something that would risk being found out but we see Bella only accuses him from slithering in and out of action without putting his own life on the line for LV's cause, not that he is provided DD information that risked any of LV's operations. Magpie: If LV finds out that DDM!Snape is really loyal to Dumbledore, he will be killed. Intentionally backing out of DE stuff is reason to be killed in itself. Bellatrix is not only accusing Snape of protecting his own skin, but of perhaps being disloyal, which would get him punished. Dana: You can't have it both ways Snape not doing anything to keep his cover or Snape risking his cover by providing the necessary information. We see him do the former more then the latter and we see no Order activity that is contributed to information Snape has provided. And when he finally does it was almost to late and therefore it doesn't seem that it was actually his intention for the DEs to fail just his attempt to cover his own butt. Magpie: I'm not trying to have it both ways. I have never denied that Snape is risking his cover by providing information to DD. That's what spies do. But risking their cover by passing information is not blowing their cover stupidly. Pre-HBP it's the DE side who accuse Snape of slithering out of action, not the Order side--the Order's got him going in and out with reports. We don't know what information Snape is passing because our view is limited to stuff that concerns Harry. It could certainly turn out that Snape was really working for LV, but the fact that the good guys don't easily outwit Voldemort at every turn is in no way proof that Snape can't be doing his job as a spy. The fact that it was almost too late when Snape acted in OotP is more proof of what's dramatic, imo, than proof that Snape wasn't acting decisively. Dana: But was it intentional. Why would DD have to need to order Snape to put the DEs in danger? That is his job as a spy to make sure the DEs and LV don't get their way. In war you do not sent a spy to have some tea parties with the enemy, you want him to provide you with information to help you win the war. And make sure you can move before the enemy does. Magpie: You can't keep saying "It wasn't intentional" as if it's a canonical fact when it's the very theory I thought you were trying to prove. Snape's job is a spy is not necessarily to target certain DEs and put them in danger--he's not in charge of DEs. There are plenty of spies who have had tea parties with the enemy and not put other agents in danger while *also* providing information to help you win the war. (Some spies don't do anything--that's why they're called sleepers.) Snape, if you recall, is stationed at Hogwarts. His job for LV is to spy on Dumbledore. He's not out in the field with the DEs leading their missions. Dana: I do not understand this at all. What is Snape purpose as a spy if he does not provide the Order with information to prevent stuff from happening? If the Order can move before LV is able to execute his plans, then automatically the people involved are less at risk from being killed then to have to fight DEs one on one. Magpie: It means that there is a lot of stuff happening and no spy would just be expected to be feeding every single thing happening on the other side before it happens so that it's prevented. There are different spies with different access to information given different jobs. Being a spy doesn't mean Snape knows every single thing that might go down beforehand. Dana: Snape job at Hogwarts that night was not only that of a spy but also the last Order Member to protect Harry and this alone means that Snape was responsible for keeping Harry at arms length. Magpie: Harry was rather more than an arm's length from Voldemort. He was safe at Hogwarts. Once Snape discovered that he wasn't, Snape acted to protect him by sending the Order. Though Snape is not "directing" the Order's actions in that they need an order from him to move. Harr often leaves Order supervision for hours at a time when he's at Hogwarts. Dana: This is not just Harry going on some school trip, this is serious war business but Snape treats it like Harry is just facing another detention with Dolores. Magpie: He was facing another detention with Dolores. That is, until Dolores was attacked and Harry flew off on his own. When Snape discovered that happened, according to Dumbledore, he treated it as exactly what it was. Dana: Maybe you are forgetting that Dolores had the power to expel Harry for breaking into her office, just because she wants some information out of Harry first does not mean she would not have removed him from the school grounds later. It is not Snape that prevents this from happening but Hermione. She wanted Harry out of Hogwarts the first time she caught him doing something against the law and now she caught him red handed. So the Order should have been preparing to get to Harry in case Dolores would try to get him out of Hogwarts and that is why them sitting there waiting at HQ makes no sense at all if they had information on current events. Magpie: If Umbridge decided to expel Harry, that would be dealt with when it was dealt with. It's not like Harry would be expelled to LV's house. Since Snape noticed when Harry didn't come from the forest, there's no reason to think he wouldn't have been front and center if Harry returned from the forest to be expelled. There's no reason Snape wouldn't be there to act if Harry was leaving the grounds--he does act when he discovers Harry's left the grounds for a much worse reason. This seems to be a nightmare situation made up just to give Snape something to not do again, yet nobody in the Order questions his actions at all. And yet at the same time, it calls into question why on earth Snape called the Order. If he's already been unbelievably remiss in his actions by allowing Harry to be in Umbridge's presence, why does he suddenly decide he has to send the Order? The whole thing falls under the same excuse of Snape not knowing there was a problem. You seem to be on the one hand saying that Umbridge was reason enough for DDM!Snape to get involved, and then arbitrarily mark the moment when he does act as the point at which he must. Dana: If Snape had informed the Order, LV was setting his plan into motion then Order Members could have been there to prevent the entire ordeal at the DoM and there would have been no need to fight anyone, now would there. No Harry no LV plan to work out. Magpie: There wouldn't have been any need to fight regardless if Harry hadn't gone to the MoM. They seem to feel that *this* is the important bit of information, and it makes sense. All Voldemort has done is send Harry an upsetting vision. If Harry had ignored it, there would be nothing to be done at the Ministry for either DEs or the Order. Voldemort has been sending Harry visions all year, if you recall, and they don't warrant a mad dash to the Ministry. It's only when Harry goes that there's a problem. Dana: Also Snape getting the information from Harry that LV is setting his plan, to get Harry to the DoM, in motion should be enough to motivate Snape into action but it doesn't. Magpie: LV has been setting this plan all year, sending Harry visions of the Ministry that make him want to go there and look in the door. Knowing that LV is now trying to get Harry to the Ministry with visions of Sirius hurt there doesn't immediately mean anything. It's only if Harry goes there that LV's plan can be set in action. Dana: Just because it would have made it boring, doesn't mean Snape actions therefore are the right one. JKR did not write Snape's actions to prevent the reader getting bored. Magpie: Well, I think avoiding boring was part of the reason. She is entertaining us.:-) But regardless, I said it was also *unrealistic* to have Snape behaving the way you would have behave, where LV never scores a blow because he's got this one guy who's just telling everything to Dumbledore as soon as he hears it. JKR may not be writing the most realistic of wars, but she writes her evil a little more realistically than that. Dana: And just because Snape says to Sirius he should stay behind does not mean he activly tried to keep the guy out of harms way. Magpie: So what? Telling the guy to stay behind was enough. And more people than Snape did it. As you say, Sirius left GP to protect Harry. And btw, Fred Weasley also goads Sirius about being a coward, and it hits him more deeply when Fred does it. Sirius himself can't stand staying locked up and not risking his life. I think you have to go through a lot of steps before you arrive at Snape being responsible or being Sirius' keeper. Dana: To be honest we do see LV get advantage from information that could have been provided by Snape, mainly there not being an Order Member left at Hogwarts besides Snape to protect Harry and creating the perfect moment for LV to make his move. Magpie: So you're willing to imagine helpful information that Snape is giving to LV, but unwilling to imagine Snape's providing anything to Dumbledore, even though we've got equally little information on either? Dana: Yes, he has kept it spotless because Bella never accuses Snape from giving sensitive information to DD; she accuses him from not being a proud DE and openly fight for LV's cause. She also does not accuse him for messing up the DoM plan but accusing him from not being there to fight along side them. She even asks him if DD never suspects Snape, not that it seems he is more on DD's side then theirs. What she is accusing him of is not risking his own life while others have to be on the frontline, not that he is risking their position on that frontline. Magpie: I don't think it's spotless since he's got to do some explaining. She can't accuse him of not passing information from Dumbledore for the same reason you really can't accuse him of not passing information from LV: she doesn't know what gets passed. The fact that she doesn't accuse him of sending the Order to the MoM says to me she doesn't know that he did it--I don't know if he could have explained that one away with everything else. She is, imo, accusing him of being *disloyal* and not just lazy, because she can't say it outright. Snape, iirc, explicitly says this, that Bellatrix is suggesting that LV has been tricked by a spy. Dana: Snape could have done loots of things that night but he just didn't and he later makes excuses he couldn't have known. But it does not excuses him for not keeping an eye on Harry while in the company of Dolores because she too is a potential threat to Harry safety and he should have known everything that was going on included those 4 other kids getting away from the IS and going after Harry. Magpie: I don't see why it's an excuse. It could just be the truth. You're repeated claims that as a spy Snape's supposed to be protecting Harry from other teachers at the school and that Harry being in Umbridge's presence should naturally tell Snape that Harry's found some way to get to London, is unconvincing. Usually the teacher Harry would want to be protected from is Snape. Dana: But it is apparently not Snape business to keep Harry safe because it is was never Snape's job to keep people safe, right? Magpie: Snape does keep Harry safe. He's the one that sends the Order. Earlier in the year, when there were other Order members at the school, they allowed Harry to be alone with Umbridge too. Dana: But according to many it is perfectly natural for Snape to do nothing that would risk his cover because he is such a good spy, yet is not able to spy on Dolores and he certainly is not spying on LV because DD never knew about LV having information that would make it able to lure Harry to the DoM or even that it was his plan to use Harry to get to the prophecy because he gets the information about the former from Kreacher and he never mentions he thought about LV using Harry this way, he was worried LV would try and posses Harry or even to use Harry to spy on DD but never is it mentioned that Snape gave information about LV's true plan while LV himself mentions that *months* of careful planning has gone to waste, while he shows up at the DoM himself. Magpie: I think it's very possible that Snape, whom LV has at Hogwarts spying on Dumbledore, was not kept abreast of every single step of a plan LV was not including him in to begin with. You can rage against Snape not knowing that Kreacher provided LV with the information that Harry loved Sirius, but that doesn't make it impossible that Snape had any way of knowing it. Obviously neither Snape, nor the Order, is *completely* clueless about what the plan is. Snape knows that Harry's being sent visions about the MoM, he knows that he's sent him a vision of Sirius and that Harry has now gone to the MoM to "rescue" him. And JKR provides many reasons why this all comes together in tragedy--including the fact that DD refused to tell Harry what was going on, as Sirius wanted to. Just as in HBP, everyone counted on Hogwarts being inpenatrable. As long as Harry was there, there was no problem. Just because something happened a certain way, doesn't mean it was the most obvious way everything was happening at the time. Dana: I never implied Snape is LV's man but is actions do not risk, him being found out as DDM either. His actions reflect his own attempt to keep himself on both side of the fence and not do anything that would risk this position at least not before HBP. Magpie: Oh, I was mistaken there. I assumed you were saying he was LV!Man. But it seems you're saying it was only in HBP that he declared himself--as either LV's man or just not DDM. I admit the trouble I have here is that it basically erases Snape as a character. Instead of being someone who wants something and acts decisively, he's just drifting back and forth making half-actions one way and then the other. That doesn't sound like Snape to me. We do, of course, see actions without heart in HBP as a plot device, but I think that just shows the contrast between those actions and that character and Snape. Neri: I never implied Snape is LV's man but is actions do not risk, him being found out as DDM either. His actions reflect his own attempt to keep himself on both side of the fence and not do anything that would risk this position at least not before HBP. Magpie: But then, if strained relations between Lupin and Fenrir are enough to explain why Lupin doesn't know, the same would apply to Snape. We're given reasons for secrecy from Snape as well. Neri: Besides, Lupin at least never brags about being an agent, he never uses it as an excuse to slither away from battle, and Order members don't risk their lives or die so Lupin can maintain his cover. Magpie: But when does Snape do this? I honestly don't remember him bragging too much about being an agent or slithering out of battle. Nor do I ever recall Order members dying to save Snape's cover. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 18 17:03:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:03:09 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167715 > Neri: > Fenrir Greyback attacked Hogwarts as a DE, one of a DEs squad, in an > operation planned by DEs, not by werewolves. The werewolves cannot be > blamed for Greyback's actions. We know of many more DEs who are *not* > werewolves than the one who is. Pippin: You're speaking of DE's and werewolves as if they were mutually exclusive categories. They're not. It would be like saying AIDS patients can't be Republicans. BTW, we have no way of knowing who's a werewolf and who's not, except for those characters whose whereabouts are accounted for on the full moon. We also don't know how many present day DE's are werewolves. For all we know, Lupin spent the Mysterious Interval training the young wizards bitten by Fenrir and there's now a whole cadre of werewolf dark wizards at Voldemort's disposal. And of course they would be just as capable of pulling off DE attacks in their human form as any other wizard is. Voldie may not need his pureblood followers anymore Just a theory, but it casts ESE!Snape in a rather poor light by comparison. All those years that he could have been recruiting young Slytherins to the Dark Arts, just as Voldemort did when he was at Hogwarts, and what does Snape have to show for it? Fifteen years of information? In the words of the immortal Nero Wolfe, pfui! Neri: > Besides, Lupin at least never brags about being an agent, he never > uses it as an excuse to slither away from battle, and Order members > don't risk their lives or die so Lupin can maintain his cover. Pippin: Perhaps Lupin doesn't brag about being an agent because he knows he's not a very good one. He does use it as an excuse for not writing to Harry and for rejecting Tonks. As for claiming no Order members have died or been placed at risk on Lupin's account, that seems a bold statement when we still don't know how Sirius died or whether Fenrir escaped. Wanna bet? Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 18:27:32 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:27:32 -0000 Subject: Harry and his parents graves? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167716 --- "sailorstarfairy" wrote: > > I had a thought occur to me but feel free to correct > me if I'm wrong (as I don't have my book to quote it > exactly), but Harry says at the end of HBP that he > is going to go see his parents graves? > > A. Who buried them? > B. How does Harry know where to go to visit them? > C. Does he get this information from Lupin maybe? > > Any ideas? > > Again I can't remember if he said he was > going to their graves or maybe he said he was > going to their old house in Godrics Hollow but > even at that how would he know where to go? > > Lena > bboyminn: Well, we - A: Don't know who buried them. B: Harry doesn't know exactly where to go. C: Yes, someone will likely tell him where to go. I suspect, as the books seem to imply, that James and Lily had a lot of friends. So, I don't think there was any shortage of people willing to assist in closing out their affairs after the terrible event. Certainly, Lupin would have been involved, as would Dumbledore, and most likely many members of the Order. So, I don't see 'who buried them' as a big issue. Harry and most fans assumes his parents were buried in Godrics Hollow, thought that might not necessarily be true. I think it is likely, but we can't say we know it for a fact. There may have been a family crypt or burial plot that they were moved to as an example. For the moment though, we, including Harry, are assuming that he is going to Gordics Hollow to visit there graves. I seriously doubt that Gordics Hollow is a huge place with dozens of cemeteries. More likely it is a small village with one or two at the most. That simplifies matters. I agree that it will most likely be Lupin who gives Harry the details he needs to find the graves. It is possible that Lupin may even come along to act as a guide. However, I have long had a sneaky suspicion that Harry would be advised to contact a certain person (identity currently unknown) in the village to act as his guide. This bring someone into the story that can dispense information, or at least clues, as to what happened on the night of Harry's parents death. I also suspect some clues will be received on this journey to the village the significants of which will no be known or clear until much later in the book. JKR usually doesn't take her character to random places for no clear purpose. If Harry goes to see his parents graves, that is a huge diversion from the central story, so I assume, he must be going there to serve some purpose for the author. He is going there to gain some information that will eventually be significant, or to meet some character that will later be important. In the simplest terms, I believe that Harry's visit to Godrics Hollow must serve some purpose in the story, therefore it will. You are right though, Harry visit to what we assume will be Godrics Hollow, at this stage, raises far more questions than it answers. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From shmantzel at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 18:34:34 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: book jacket, stag/ woman's face on the back cover? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <695488.6208.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167717 Dana wrote: In Egyptian mythology the Phoenix was associated with the Sun, the rising and setting of the Sun and represented the soul of the Sun God. It is called the Bennu Bird in Egypt but also carries the name "fire bird" and symbolizing immortality, resurrection and life after death. If you look at the Egyptian mythology and the story behind this bird, then with some imagination, you can link it to every important person in Harry's life. The story of Harry is very similar to the story of Osiris, Isis and their son Horus. No, not a direct copy but if you read the concept of the Osiris story I think you get my drift; "The story of Isis and Osiris was a great love story, a story of betrayal, of death and resurrection. It was also a story of the miraculous conception and birth of their divine Son, Horus/Har/Hor/Heru, the Egyptian Savior God, who was destined to avenge the death of His divine Father and restore divine Order to the kingdom of Egypt". http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/IsisDawn/sirius.htm The Bennu bird is linked to all of them but he is also linked to Sirius, as the star represents summer but also the flooding of the Nile which was thought to be caused by the rising of the Star Sirius. (it is interesting to note Sirius the character is killed in OotP ;o)) The star Sirius in Egyptian mythology is thought to be the place that holds the soul of Isis. Orion (the constellation) is thought to be the place that holds the soul of Osiris and is referred to as the hunter (the symbol of a hunter is often a stag) and one of his dogs is Sirius. The bird is often shown pirched in his sacred willow tree (Whomping Willow anyone?) and is also connected to the moon and the planet Venus and after it died it rises from the ashes as a worm (yes, I know maybe farfetched but it is nevertheless mentioned). http://www.phoenixmoon.org/bennu.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology) Just some thoughts of course. Dana . Dantzel: I suppose the possibility is there, but the problem with looking at mythology and meanings of words and stories written by other authors is that they can be applied to *soooooo many stories*. It seems like such a stretch when every character is scrutinized by some connection to their name. To me, it's like reading "The Secret Garden" and after discovering that the main character's name is Mary, looking up references to Jesus' mother to see if it will help us understand the character better or give a clue as to the rest of the book. Granted, JKR has used to mythology, etc., but she's also said that sometimes she'll pick a name because she just likes it. (Mark Evans, anyone?) This isn't meant to be a slam on you Dana, I just keep reading it day after day here and it seems like such a stretch most of the time. I mean, Fawkes has never been written being near the Whomping Willow. Dantzel, who realizes that she is a big fat lurker and knows the group better than they know her because she's too busy to give many comments. --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Apr 18 18:44:02 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:44:02 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167718 wynnleaf First, on the whole I agree with Magpie's last post on this thread and won't repeat it all. Now to a few of Dana's comments: Dana: I do not understand this at all. What is Snape purpose as a spy if he does not provide the Order with information to prevent stuff from happening? If the Order can move before LV is able to execute his plans, then automatically the people involved are less at risk from being killed then to have to fight DEs one on one. wynnleaf You are not taking into account the real problems of spying. In real wars, spies often discover information about future attacks or other actions that will take lives. However, unless the commanders of the war can find alternative ways in which the enemy can assume they came by the information, they often will *not* act on that information, because to do so would reveal the source of their information to the enemy. For instance, there are cases in WWII where the allies broke secret codes and discovered information about attacks, but would do nothing to counter those attacks because they didn't want to reveal to the enemy that the code had been broken, otherwise the enemy would change the code. Sorry -- it's a hard truth, but that's the way it is. Same goes for spies. If you act on knowledge that you could have only obtained from your spy, then you may be revealing to the enemy where the knowledge came from. So it would easily be possible -- even likely -- that Snape would bring vital information to the Order about a planned attack. But if this were information that *only* trusted DE's were privy to, and there was no other way for the Order to get that information, then the Order could not allow LV to know they'd received the info without alerting him to the fact that he had a spy in the camp. Since he *knows* that the Order thinks Snape is a spy, LV would automatically know that it was Snape that gave the information. You're probably thinking that the Order could still protect people without Voldemort realizing that they had gotten inside information. Tell that to the commanders in real wars. Yes, you can sometimes do that, but many times you can't. We don't know -- because we simply aren't told -- how much information Snape has brought to the Order that *has* been extremely beneficial. What you're basically saying is that because people have died, or attacks have been made, Snape has failed. That's simply not believable because it is sooo unrealistic. Dana: This is not just Harry going on some school trip, this is serious war business but Snape treats it like Harry is just facing another detention with Dolores. wynnleaf You seem to be completely missing the point regarding the danger Harry faced that night. As far as any other staff member, including Snape, was concerned, Harry faced no more danger from Umbridge than detentions and point losses. The real danger to Harry came, not because of Umbridge, but because of Harry's own decision to attempt a trip to London -- which had absolutely nothing to do with his being with Umbridge that night. You're make this odd leap and assuming that because Snape knew Harry was with Umbridge (who was not *known* to do more than put kids in detention, take points, etc.), he should have realized that Harry would be facing imminent danger. But the danger that Harry ultimately faced had little to do with Umbridge, and everything to do with Harry's "saving people thing" and rushing off to London. While Snape may have known that Harry tended to break rules and get into trouble (as Snape would consider it), as long as Harry was with Umbridge, he couldn't run off to London -- so as regards the primary danger to Harry that night (as far as Snape would think, who doesn't know about Umbridge's torturing tendencies), Harry was "safe" as long as he was *with* Umbridge. Of course, we the readers know that Umbridge tortured kids and later tried to crucio Harry. But neither Snape nor any other staff member including Dumbledore knew that. As for Umbridge's power to expel Harry, yes, she did have that power. But Snape being there or not wouldn't affect that in the least. Snape couldn't "protect" Harry from expulsion. You seem to suppose that Snape should have been waiting around in case Umbridge had chucked Harry off the grounds of Hogwarts in the middle of the night. Expulsion takes at least some sort of administrative motions, and surely Snape would realize that any throwing Harry off the grounds would at least wait until morning. Magpie You seem to be on the one hand saying that Umbridge was reason enough for DDM!Snape to get involved, and then arbitrarily mark the moment when he does act as the point at which he must. wynnleaf Further, Dana acts as though Dumbledore would completely lose faith in Snape if he didn't alert the Order to go to the MOM at the time he did, but apparently Dumbledore would have absolutely no problem with these other actions of Snape's (leaving Harry with Umbridge), even though Dana sees them as major areas of culpability on Snape's part. Dumbledore did not, after all, appear to question Snape's leaving Harry with Umbridge. Dana, you know, I think what bothers me most is your view of Dumbledore and Voldemort. Dumbledore is completely wishy washy, unable to accurately evaluate even the most basic things like whether or not Snape is really risking his life spying, or whether or not his spy is doing the Order any good. He's obviously clueless about how Voldemort really thinks. He trusts Snape through thick and thin, will have no problem with some of the supposedly grossly culpable things Snape does like leaving Harry with Umbridge, yet will quickly toss Snape out if he doesn't send alert the Order. Being "late" in sending the Order won't bother Dumbledore, but not sending them at all will make Dumbledore ditch Snape. And your view of Voldemort is this easily predictable, mentally stable guy who can be counted on to forgive Snape practically anything. I almost feel as though we are having a discussion in which you are talking about two completely different characters that aren't even in canon. Dana: I never implied Snape is LV's man but is actions do not risk, him being found out as DDM either. His actions reflect his own attempt to keep himself on both side of the fence and not do anything that would risk this position at least not before HBP. wynnleaf It's interesting to see you say that. However, I must say that intentional or not, you *did* imply it. It certainly came across loud and clear, regardless of you intent. Snape is not "on the fence" if, as you say, all of his actions are benefiting Voldemort and none are benefiting the Order. Since you do not accept *any* of the evidence of his actions benefiting the Order, yet you do accept and even invent evidence for his benefiting Voldemort, what we have, in effect, is a Snape who is on Voldemort's side -- not a Snape swinging back and forth on the fence. You, of course, are welcome to continue to affirm that Snape is "on the fence," but that doesn't fit unless you can show more or less equal advantage to the Order as you claim he gives to Voldemort. wynnleaf, who completely agrees with Magpie's post, and won't reiterate each individual point. From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Apr 18 18:17:32 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:17:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius's escape from Azkaban In-Reply-To: References: <100414.71670.qm@web39515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40704181117k298d3a8bhe1820ffe00d3a6e1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167719 > > va32h: > > When Sirius saw the photo in the paper, he realized that Peter was > not just living life as a common garden rat, he was *at Hogwart's - > near Harry *. This is what motivated him to break out of his > depressive state and finally escape. > > I do agree that Sirius was depressed over his role in his friends' > death and saw Azkaban as his just punishment. But he never doubted > Peter was alive - he just didn't realize the significance until he > saw the photo. montims: I agree with this, and besides, he would have been (as he was) hunted down if he had escaped before. Where would he have gone? Nobody believed him, and this wouldn't have changed had he broken out - in fact, the tales about him just became more hair-raising, thanks to the wonderful media. When caught, he would doubtless have been Kissed. However, while being condemned to a terrible life in Azkaban, he did at least have the opportunity to transform sometimes. It was only when he realised the danger to Harry that he risked everything to escape. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Apr 18 19:18:03 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:18:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Scholastic Question that was realesed today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <949844830.20070418121803@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167720 petaannfox: p> 1. Snape will die. Why: To protect Harry (to Harry's surprise) but p> will be killed by Voldemort. Harry finds him and kills him after a p> long duel (if Snape is true to Voldemort and to the prophercy) he p> would leave Harry for Voldemort - this is a well known reason OOORRRR p> Voldemort figures out that he is a double agent and kills him. Dave: I think you're probably right. petaannfox: p> 2. Malfoy is a gonna because he didn't do what Voldemort wanted (ie p> killing Dumbledore). Dave: I think Malfoy will survive because Snape (using Occlumency) will persuade the Big Boss that it was really Draco who did the deed. petaannfox: p> 3. A Weasly will die - Not too sure which one. I think this because p> JK has mentioned that not all stories have a happy ending. Dave: My guess is Percy. I don't think that many tears would be shed for him, but if he dies without reconciling with the family, then certainly the Percy "story" would not have a happy ending. petaannfox: p> Harry can't really die because it would make the series p> a whole waste of time and just a mere money making business. Dave: I agree -- I'm not a "Harry will die" person simply because all along this series has been touted as "A Boy Wizard's Coming of Age." If he does die, I intend to complain to Scholastic about False Advertising. petaannfox: p> 4. Hagrid will die due to his Gryffindor Bravery (he was in the p> Gryffindor house when he was at school I believe), his lack of p> magical power. Dave: The adults I most fear for are Hagrid and Molly -- The last two people who are anything like parental figures to Harry. petaannfox: p> PLEASE PLEASE give me your views. I am one girl that is in a great p> need to discuss Harry Potter with anybody. Dave: You've come to the right place. :) Dave From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 19:40:51 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:40:51 -0000 Subject: The Scholastic Question that was released today In-Reply-To: <949844830.20070418121803@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167721 > petaannfox: > p> 2. Malfoy is a gonna because he didn't do what Voldemort wanted (ie > p> killing Dumbledore). > > Dave: > I think Malfoy will survive because Snape (using Occlumency) will > persuade the Big Boss that it was really Draco who did the deed. > Ryan: Weren't there DE's on the tower who saw Snape kill DD, or did they all get rounded up and taken into custody? I don't have my copy of HBP handy. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Apr 18 21:57:16 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:57:16 -0000 Subject: will they return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <979716.3761.qm@web84001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167722 > > sweety12783 writes: > > I think that Harry would return to Hogwarts but as a teacher... Remember, Harry was marked by Voldermont as an equal..so the curse that is on the DADA position would never harm Harry for he is LV equal. That is why Dumbledore looked triumphant when LV used Harry's blood to return...Dumbledore knew that by using Harry's blood, LV has given Harry the power to defeat him and that LV did not mark Harry as a equal until that moment when he used Harry's blood. The scar is just a scar resulting from the impact of the AK curse that was put on Harry. > > Just a thought > Julie: I don't know if I've read this theory before that Voldemort "marked Harry as an equal" by using Harry's blood, *not* by leaving him with the scar mark at DH. (I may have, it just all runs together after a while!) The scar is more than a scar though, as the rebounded AK definitely left an effect on Harry, at least in that it gave Harry some of Voldy's powers (parselmouth for one), and at most in that it deposited part of Voldy's soul in Harry (if he is an "accidental" horcrux). Your theory about marking Harry though does explain Dumbledore's triumphant look. Though I still think there might be more to that look. Maybe it reflects something in Harry's blood, whether it comes from his genetic heritage (Lily, James) or from the connection created by Voldemort's failed AK when Harry was still a baby. Julie From risashoes at yahoo.com Wed Apr 18 20:36:29 2007 From: risashoes at yahoo.com (risashoes) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:36:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbeldore's Past Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167723 Hi Everyone I have been a lurker who has enjoyed your analysis of the HP books and characters. I have tried to find anything on this subject but have not been able to. In every book it states that Dumbledore was the Transfiguration Professor....what if any significance do you think this has for DH? This is something that has bothered me for all 6 books and I have been waiting for some elaboration on this? Does anyone think that it has any importance to the story? Risa Just wondering From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 00:03:44 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:03:44 -0000 Subject: Use of Names to Find Clues In-Reply-To: <695488.6208.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167724 > Dantzel: > I suppose the possibility is there, but the problem with looking at mythology and meanings of words and stories written by other authors is that they can be applied to *soooooo many stories*. Goddlefrood: We are discussing the HP books here. JKR often refers to her sources, she has told us these things may have relevance. She has, specifically, stated that she puts her own twist on stories from legend and mythology. Why should we then ignore this? E. Nesbit wrote straightforward stories with few hidden depths, JKR is hardly comparable. It is a small stretch perhaps, but no great one, to look for clues in names. Many here would surely agree. Of course, if the books are read on a superficial level then there would be little to discuss. I therefore, respectfully disagree, and will continue to avidly look for hidden meanings that are not there ;) Goddlefrood who states that surely Severus's patronus form would be Nagini?, just look at the names :D From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 02:21:30 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:21:30 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are a hor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paul" wrote: > Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side (James's mother's > sister) - did you ever notice that Moaning Myrtle has the EXACT same > pair & shape of glasses as James and Harry Potter and no one else > who we have met in the Wizarding World has those style of glasses? > > When Voldemort killed Moaning Myrtle -fifty years ago - Voldemeort > made the glasses a horcrux and somehow James stole them back the > night of the attack using his invisibility cloak and then gave the > glasses and the cloak to Dumbledore on that fateful night before he > died to be given to Harry. Harry has had this Horcrux all this > time, protecting "his Mother's eyes" and the fact that Voldemort > could never get at that final Horcrux because he was either > protected by the Dursleys or Hogwarts! Hi, Paul! I don't remember Myrtle's (or James's) glasses ever being described in detail in any of the books. We only know that Myrtle's glasses are "thick". There is no reason to believe that Harry's and Myrtle's glasses are the same pair, IMO. zanooda, who thinks that Paul's theory is a bit farfetched, even if very ingenious From magsp25 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 00:04:10 2007 From: magsp25 at yahoo.com (maggie powell) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry and his parents graves? Message-ID: <507437.64000.qm@web57103.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167726 Maggie Powell: According to Hbp, Harry states he is going to Godric's Hollow to his Parent's house. I think, at least, one of the horcruxes is there. Most likely, his parents were buried by Lupin and Sirius, before Siruis was locked up. The fight with Petigrew didn't happen until a day or so after Harry's parents died. Because in the first book, Hagrid shows up with Harry on Sirius's bike. So, Sirius was there right after Harry's parents die. Maggie Powell From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Apr 19 02:40:19 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:40:19 -0000 Subject: The Scholastic Question that was realesed today In-Reply-To: <949844830.20070418121803@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167727 > petaannfox: > p> 1. Snape will die. Why: To protect Harry but will be killed > p> by Voldemort. Harry finds him and kills him after a > p> long duel he would leave Harry for Voldemort - this > p> is a well known reason OOORRRR Voldemort figures out that > p> he is a double agent and kills him. > > Dave: > I think you're probably right. Aussie: 1. If Snape (the Occlumence) knew Harry was on the Tower, he may think he (Snape) has already paid back the life debt to the Potters. Any ties Snape had to the Order of the Poenix died with Dumbledore. The only reason why Sanpe would still be against Voldy (if he ever truely was) would be for personal reasons not mentioned before in canon (but suggested widely here). If Snape dies, it would be from Lupin or Moody. > > > petaannfox: > p> 2. Malfoy is a gonna because he didn't do what Voldemort wanted > p> (ie killing Dumbledore). > > Dave: > I think ... Snape (using Occlumency) will persuade the Big Boss > that it was really Draco who did the deed. Aussie: 2. Malfoy turning good would be more satisfying than him dying. Lucius may die protecting his son though. (I don't think Snape can out-Occlumence Voldy) > > > petaannfox: > p> 3. A Weasly will die. Not sure which one. I think this because > p> JK has mentioned that not all stories have a happy ending. > > Dave: > My guess is Percy. I don't think that many tears would be shed for > him, but if he dies without reconciling with the family, then > certainly the Percy "story" would not have a happy ending. Aussie: 3. JKR also wants people to KNOW Voldy is EVIL. The best Weasley victim to do that is (I don't like to say it) Ron. His death would draw others into a stronger fight (DA's that weren't in Tower fight; Charlie from Romainia; Krum, since Hermione is free again; Gryffidors revenging "Weasly-Is-Our-King"; even Percy would fight) > > > petaannfox: > p> 4. Hagrid will die due to his Gryffindor Bravery (he was in the > p> Gryffindor house when he was at school I believe), his lack of > p> magical power. > > Dave: > The adults I most fear for are Hagrid and Molly. The last two > people who are anything like parental figures to Harry. Aussie: 4. Hagrid is my favourite character. I'd like to see him fly into battle on Norbert's back. There are others I'd think would go before Hagrid though Slughorn ... Grump ... Firenze (whose death may draw other Centaurs into the battle) ... Kretcher ... Susan Bones is the last of her clan- she may be a target, but I hope she survives From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 02:50:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:50:17 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167728 houyhnhnm wrote: > > The meeting on the day Harry arrived at 12 GP was a major meeting, according to Fred, but I think the Order was alerted to Voldemort's interest in the prophecy much sooner than that. Ron tells Harry on that first evening, while the meeting was still going on, that "some of them are standing guard over something. They're always talking about guard duty." > > Also according to Ron, the blow-up between Percy and Arthur took place "the first week back after term ended" when "We were about to come and join the Order." They must have been at 12 GP for about a month before Harry joined them, although there is nothing to indicate how long the guard duty had been going on. But it is possible that the Order knew Voldemort was after the prophecy within a couple of weeks after LV's return to a body. And the information had to have come from Snape. Carol responds: It's possible that the references to "guard duty" relate to what Harry thinks they relate to, watching over him ("Couldn't have been me, could it?") but given JKR's usual style of having her characters provide plausible but incorrect (or only partially correct) explanations, I think you're probably right. It seems likely from the anticipation among the Order members and the excitement afterward that they expected Snape to provide important information and that he came through brilliantly. A crowd of people, including "Harry's entire guard," even Mad-Eye Moody and Lupin, surrounds Snape as he leaves 12 GP. And Snape leaves behind about a dozen scrolls, including the plan of a building, which Bill belatedly Vanishes. Unless, for some reason unrelated to the plot of OoP, Snape is giving the Order the building plan for the Riddle House, it seems likely that the building plan is that of the DoM, perhaps obtained for Voldie by Rookwood and stolen or duplicated by Snape. If so, Snape certainly was risking his life by obtaining that information and providing it to the Order. (And note that Sirius Black never questions that Snape is risking his life; he only chafes because he's not allowed to do the same.) On another point, Alla mentioned Dumbledore's comment in GoF, "A connection I could have made without help," in relation to the Pensieve memory of Snape saying that his Dark Mark is growing darker and adding, "Karkaroff's, too." It does sound as if DD is downplaying the importance of Snape's revelation, and in front of Harry, too (which I, for one, didn't like at all), but the memory does show the reader that Snape is reporting to DD, and I don't think that DD could have known about the Dark Mark itself growing darker without Snape's telling him (he might have suspected it, but he couldn't have confirmed it). The connection he could have on his own relates to Karkaroff: if Snape's is growing darker, so is Karkaroff's. We have evidence of other information that Snape must have provided to DD as DD has no other spy among the Death Eaters. In VW1, he must have informed DD that LV was targeting the Potters. He may also have provided the names of the DEs who were arrested before Godric's Hollow. Skipping forward beyond his planned return to LV after the graveyard incident ("If you are ready; if you are prepared"), Snape must have provided DD with LV's reaction to the diary incident. He also clearly reported to DD on the Occlumency lessons or DD would not have known that Harry was dreaming about the corridor and had a memory of Rookwood and LV that was not his own ((OoP Am. ed. 829). And Snape was evidently providing information to DD on Umbridge, too: If DD knew that Snape had provided her with fake Veritaserum, he must have known why Snape provided the fake Veritaserum in the first place (what reason could he have except to thwart Umbridge's questioning of Harry about DD's whereabouts or the Order?). And only Snape could have told DD that LV had assigned Draco to kill him. Dumbledore trusts Snape, and that trust seems deeper and stronger than ever in HBP. That would surely be the case only if Snape really was risking his life to provide information that no one else could provide and at the same time concealing important information (such as his sending or the Order to the MoM and the real nature of Dumbledore's "serious injury" and his own role in preventing it from being fatal). Carol, who thinks that as of HBP, DD had more than sufficient grounds to trust Severus Snape completely, whether or not that trust was justified (and I believe that it was) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 03:01:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:01:14 -0000 Subject: What was James Potter's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167729 "Debi" wrote: > > > > A Stag, the same animal that Harry's is. This is where James got the nickname "Prongs" > > > > Ryan: > > No, James got the nickname "Prongs" because his animagus form is a stag. The form of James's patronus has never been mentioned. > Carol adds: Ryan is correct. For the record, there's no witch or wizard for whom we know both the Patronus and the Animagus form. We don't know the Patronuses for *any* of the Marauders or McGonagall (or Rita Skeeter, if she has one). We've seen Patronus forms that reflect someone other than the witch or wizard casting them (Harry's reflects James; Tonks's new Patronus reflects Lupin), but we've never seen a Patronus form that clearly reflects its caster's character and personality as the Animagus form does (Wormtail as rat, to state an obvious example). As I've noted elsewhere, a Patronus is a "spirit guardian" (JKR's website) and the etymology of "Patronus" suggests a protector. In short, Harry's Patronus is James's Animagus form because James (or his essence or spirit) is Harry's "spirit guardian" (as Fawkes, it seems, is Dumbledore's). Carol, thinking that knowing McGonagall's Patronus would clear up some of the confusion From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Apr 19 02:44:53 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: will they return to Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167730 I think that Harry will return to Hogwarts, but not as a regular student. He has a lot to learn still before he's ready to confront Voldy, and I think that rather than preparing for his NEWTS he will have special lessons with various professors between leaving for horcrux-hunts. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 04:59:21 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:59:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: will they return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0704182159o49893428gb4352cd8e9284c95@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167731 I think Harry will return to Hogwarts...because of Hermione. Remember Ron and Hermione promised to go with Harry, and I don't think he'll let them sacrifice that far, especially Hermione, who puts such store in education. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Apr 19 05:08:41 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:08:41 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167732 houyhnhnm: > Harry doesn't know that Snape went back to LV when he > comes to GP in August. Where are you getting that? Gof pg 619 UKed Paperback 'Severus,' said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready... If you are prepared...' 'I am', said Snape. End quote from canon. This was in front of Harry in the hospital wing. Do you really think Harry is too stupid to understand what DD is asking of Snape? He is not sending Snape to gather Order Members because he has just send Sirius to do that. And he just witnessed Snape show Fudge his Dark Mark. OotP pg 79 UKed Paperback `At least you've known what's been going on,' he (Harry) said bracingly. `Oh yeah,' said Sirius sarcastically. Listening to Snape's reports, having to take all his snide hints that he's out there risking his life while I'm sat on my backside here having a nice comfortable time End Quote canon Sirius already mentions Snape is giving reports so Lupin could just have mentioned one of these reports gave the Order some very interesting information on what LV planning on next. First both of Sirius and Lupin say this about LV's activity. Pg 87/88 Uked Paperback `That's because there haven't been any funny death yet', said Sirius, `not as far as we know, anyway and we know quite a lot.' `More then he thinks we do, anyway,' said Lupin. So what has the Order been doing?' said Harry, looking around at them all. `Working as hard as we can to make sure Voldermort *can't carry out his plans*,' said Sirius. `How d'you know what his plans are?' Harry asked quickly. Dumbledore's got a shrewd idea, said Lupin, and Dumbledore's shrewd ideas normally turn out to be accurate.' End quote canon. Then at the second occlumency lesson (or at least the one on page) Snape says this to Harry (please don't forget no one mentioned to Harry Snape was spying on LV) Pg 521 UK `That is just as well Potter,'said Snape coldly, `because you are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters.' No- that's *your job*, isn't it? Harry shot at him End quote canon. Lupin doesn't have to say anything about the prophecy but he could have stated that DD has ways to gather information about LV's movement but he doesn't. Sirius mentions they have spies on the MoM and Dung hears things others do not but what is the big secret of having someone finding out information from LV's inner circles but there is not even a hint of the information coming from Snape, while just before it is openly mentioned Snape is giving reports to the Order. And then DD makes no uses of it to make Harry see Snape has been working for the Order, at great risk to his own life, to keep the Order informed about LV's movements either after the DoM ordeal. He only states that Snape told him Harry was dreaming about the DoM, it is even funny that DD claims Snape *discovered* this (pg 730 UK) but Harry tells him that he has been having dreams about it for months after seeing himself with Arthur going to the hearing in the first occlumency lesson (pg 474 UK) but still this adds nothing because it was after the attack on Arthur. Then he states that he *believed* it could not be long before Voldemort attempted to force his way into your mind, to manipulate and misdirect your thoughts (pg 729 UK). He thought LV would use Harry as a spy on DD himself and he feared that he might try to posses Harry. He never states that he thought LV would try to get the prophecy through Harry. It was also not Snape that made DD aware of this by mentioning the dreams but Sirius when he told DD what Harry had told him about the night the snake attacked. It was also Harry's own information about Rookwood telling LV about the protection on the prophecy that Snape tells to DD. DD never mentioned Snape giving any important information directly from LV himself, just information about what Harry was dreaming. Nothing and then goes on about Snape's actions of that night. Snape is supposed to be the spy on LV not on Harry. The only information we actually see Snape has that we know must have come directly from Lucius is about him seeing Padfoot on the platform but otherwise information to keep ahead on LV's plans seemed to be totally absent. We see that LV getting really happy about something right after Christmas and we see through Harry that Rookwood has told him about the protection on the prophecy and why Bode could not get it for LV. We hear him tell Rookwood that it doesn't matter because they will start over with a new plan. My estimation is that this is in February after the DEs escape from Azkaban but somehow we have to believe that Snape never was able to get this information between February and June. Or if he did tell then we have to believe the Order collectively thought no action is needed because Harry can't get to the DoM anyway. I really doubt the Order operates in this way while we see Sirius tell that they are working so hard to prevent LV from working out his plans. DD is not all knowing but he does know that it was the prophecy, an incomplete one, that sent LV to GH and after his inability to kill Harry in GoF, it is not hard to imagine that he wanted to know more about it, so that he would have the knowledge to destroy the one, which the prophecy told him could destroy him. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. Snape does give information so he might have confirmed it because it would not be information that would harm his cover. Nothing we see the Order do seem to be on information that they could have gotten conclusively from Snape and that is worrisome for someone supposed to be spying on LV for the side of good to not being able to retrieve any information to prevent big events from occurring. Not even when the plan is set in motion does this so-called spy find it necessary to alert the Order at once and make them take preventive measures. On the other hand we do see LV act on information that he could have gotten conclusively from Snape for instance like there being no one but himself to protect Harry at Hogwarts. > wynnleaf > You are not taking into account the real problems of spying. > > In real wars, spies often discover information about future attacks > or other actions that will take lives. However, unless the > commanders of the war can find alternative ways in which the enemy > can assume they came by the information, they often will *not* act > on that information, because to do so would reveal the source of > their information to the enemy. For instance, there are cases in > WWII where the allies broke secret codes and discovered information > about attacks, but would do nothing to counter those attacks because > they didn't want to reveal to the enemy that the code had been > broken, otherwise the enemy would change the code. Sorry -- it's a > hard truth, but that's the way it is. Same goes for spies. If you > act on knowledge that you could have only obtained from your spy, > then you may be revealing to the enemy where the knowledge came > from. Dana: I think you are a little confused on what a spy is supposed to be for. An army uses spies to get the necessary intelligence to be able to know what the enemy is doing and what they are planning next and with that information you built up your strategies in order to be able to win the war. The only difference between real time spies and those used in the Harry Potterverse is that you have enemy lines and enemy occupied areas which is not the case in Harry Potter, which means that the information you get from your spy is at much less risk to be found out and therefore your spy can carry on with his or her work. That doesn't mean that you will ever order your spy to withhold information important to your side because that could lead you to defeat and if a spy does that on purpose to safe his own skin then he will be called a deserter and risk being executed for it. If the information is so important but the spy can no longer maintain his cover then you pull the spy out because the information he can bring you is always more important and in real war you just insert a new spy on the same job. Spies will never ever conceal their sources to the one they are working for that is only in law enforcement not in war situation as you want to know if the information that is relayed to you is reliable to use for your own operation. It seems you dedicate the idea of spy to be someone from the enemy camp, not someone you have brought in from the outside. This is entirely different. Commanders that purposely do not use the information because they believe no acting on it will have an advantage in the situation like is said about the Pearle Harbor attacks are not because the intelligence was withheld but because the Commander felt not acting on it would win public support to become actively involved in the war, it is still very controversial and the people who's family members got killed that they could not really appreciate it. But I do not think JKR was aiming for Snape's information not being used for this purpose but who knows maybe DD did want to get ride of Sirius and risk LV getting his hands on the prophecy. The main problem is that many people romanticize what is referred to as a double agent. Double agents are not what many of you think someone that infiltrates the enemy camp to spy on enemy activity, which is what is called a normal spy. When the military refers to someone being a double spy then it is always someone they caught belonging to the enemy camp that they force to work for them and most often then not, a double spy double crosses the party by which they are forced to be working for. They pretend to work for the side that but they actually work for the other. They do not work for both. In the coldwar the use of double spies let too many disasters because the spy purposely gave both sides misinformation. There is no confusion about Snape being a double spy but for which side is he *pretending* to work and for which side is he working for real. Or maybe Snape is not working as a spy at all but just pretending to be one and gives neither side information to act on but when you take a real close look at canon then it appears LV's side has the advantage, so in the least it doesn't seem information on their activities is leaking out. JMHO Dana From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 06:59:44 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:59:44 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167733 This thought just popped into my head, and I thought I would pass it on. I'm not even sure I believe it, but it is something to think about. This came up from the "Harry and his Parent's Graves" thread. It occurs to me that if we now know the location of Harry parent's graves, then we know the location of the 'Bones of His Father'. We also know from experience what those bone can be used for. People have no problem speculating that Harry is, whether intended or accidental, Voldemort's Horcrux, but why can't it be the other way around. Why can't Voldemort accidentally be Harry's Horcrux? Or perhaps, by taking a bit of Harry's blood Voldemort has also taken a bit of Harry's spirit. Let's say about half way through the book, Voldemort seems to kill Harry, but Harry doesn't leave this earth. He only leaves his body. His soul lingers on, tied by some accidental horcrux. Now we need a way to get our hero back into the story. Perhaps, Snape and/or Wormtail can supply 'flesh of a servant', and the other can provide 'blood of an enemy'. Of course, there are plenty of other candidates for either. Lupin could provide 'flesh'; Draco could provide 'blood', and many other combinations. Much to Voldemort's suprise, Harry comes back from the dead, in the flesh, fully realized. Now Voldemort is truly dealing with an 'equal'. In the same sense that Voldemort has /conquered/ death, so has Harry. The tricky part is that this puts them at a stalemate rather than a victory. So, now we need a way for the reborn Harry to break the stalemate. I haven't quite got that part figure out yet. Though perhaps Harry in an disembodied form will be well suited to spy on Voldemort and will learn the secret of the remaining Horcruxes, and he will use that knowledge to defeat Voldemort. Other possibilities now exist as well, maybe Harry in his disembodied form possesses Voldemort, drags him behind the Veil, and returns using Sirius's body. Then at some later time the New Body (Blood, Flesh, & Bone) Spell is used to essentially raise Harry from the dead. So that everyone can live happily ever after. Either of these are certainly a plot twist that most fans, other that oddballs like me, would think of. I'm not saying it's true, it was just a thought, and I did say it was a Crazy thought, none the less, there it is. And for the record, far crazier thought that this have been considered. Steve/bboyminn From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Apr 19 08:02:29 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:02:29 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167734 Carol responds: >I think you're probably right. It seems likely from the > anticipation among the Order members and the excitement afterward > that they expected Snape to provide important information and that > he came through brilliantly. A crowd of people, including "Harry's > entire guard," even Mad-Eye Moody and Lupin, surrounds Snape as he > leaves 12 GP. Dana: Could you provide canon that Snape came through brilliantly or that anyone thought so because him leaving was before Harry's conversation with Sirius and Lupin and I do not see any one jump of their seat about Snape's brillance and also that Harry's entire guard were surrounding Snape and not just leaving at the same time as he was, just talking amongst themselves? And Lupin just went with them to close the door behind them? Carol: > And Snape leaves behind about a dozen scrolls, including the plan > of a building, which Bill belatedly Vanishes. Dana: Can you provide canon that Snape leaves these behind or even that these scrolls are brought in by him? Harry got a glimpse of what looked like the lay out of a building, why would Snape bring such information with him or how did he even get it. This is MoM information so it seems far more likely it was provided by a MoM employee. There would be no need for Snape to steel such information from LV. The Order has access to this information through other means. How do you know Snape even knows LV's real name is Tom Riddle and that therefore the Riddle House belongs to him. You assume LV is staying there but there is no canon to support, he is still using the house. Just because he was there in GoF before he regained his body is no proof, he still uses it and the room Harry's sees LV talk to Rockwood in, does not remind him of the Frank Bryce murder. So there is no proof he is still using the Riddle House as his hide out. Carol: > On another point, Alla mentioned Dumbledore's comment in GoF, "A > connection I could have made without help," in relation to the > Pensieve memory of Snape saying that his Dark Mark is growing > darker and adding, "Karkaroff's, too." It does sound as if DD is > downplayingthe importance of Snape's revelation, and in front of > Harry, too (which I, for one, didn't like at all), but the memory > does show the reader that Snape is reporting to DD, and I don't > think that DD could have known about the Dark Mark itself growing > darker without Snape's telling him (he might have suspected it, > but he couldn't have confirmed it). The connection he could have > on his own relates to Karkaroff: if Snape's is growing darker, so > is Karkaroff's. Dana: DD is not downplaying the information Snape gives him, about the Mark. It just did not add anything on what LV is planning. DD already knows LV is actively trying to comeback to Power. Harry tells DD about Trelawney's prediction about LV rising back to Power with the help of his servant at the end of PoA. So it makes sense that Snape's Dark Mark is growing Darker because DD already KNOWS LV is going to be coming back. Even Sirius notices in GoF there is an extraordinary amount of DE activity and rumours floating around about LV returning, Snape's information adds nothing specific. You are implying that if DD took this information more seriously (and there is no indication he does not just that he didn't need it because he already knew) that he could have prevented the Graveyard ordeal? How? Carol: > We have evidence of other information that Snape must have > provided toDD as DD has no other spy among the Death Eaters. In > VW1, he must haveinformed DD that LV was targeting the Potters. Well I do not know if this can be correctly assumed because some people working as spies for DD could be dead now. It is certainly no proof that just because Snape is the only one now, he was the only one then, besides Snape is not the only spy now either he is just the only spy within LV's inner circles. Sirius in GoF is also aware of the increased DE activity and about the rumours about LV returning to power. With this I just want to indicate that information through other resources, can be just as valuable and still can add to the overall picture one can lay out about enemy activity. Besides it also seems Snape could not find out who the spy was within the inner circle of the marauders. It is not even implied DD got information there was a spy just that LV's actions seemed to indicate there was a spy, close to the Potters. We also know that Snape only gave DD this information because he owed James Potter a debt, not because he was so concerned with their safety. It can still be read as Snape attempting to wash himself from responsibility. So unless knew information on Snape's activity in the first war comes to light in DH, then as it now stands he did not do very much then either. Carol: > Dumbledore trusts Snape, and that trust seems deeper and stronger > than ever in HBP. That would surely be the case only if Snape > really was risking his life to provide information that no one > else could provide and at the same time concealing important > information (such as his sending or the Order to the MoM and the > real nature of Dumbledore's "serious injury" and his own role in > preventing it from being fatal). Dana: Personally I do not read DD's actions in HBP as his trust in Snape being stronger then ever, it seems he has more and more trouble to convince himself that he is indeed trustworthy and that he has trouble to be called on this mistake by Harry. We never see DD argue with Snape before while we have lots of examples Snape is arguing with DD. You know I was thinking about why the Order was no longer patrolling the DoM and then suddenly it occurred to me. Because there was no need for it anymore. Snape told DD about Harry's vision that Rockwood told LV about the protection on the prophecy and that it would mean that only 3 people could retrieve it. DD himself, LV himself or Harry. DD was not going to hand it over, it would be unlikely LV would come to get it himself and because the Order has no information that LV would be able to use Harry to get it for him, there is no reason to assume he can get to Harry because he is safely at Hogwarts. It is interesting that Harry never told Snape about what he heard Rockwood tell LV and visa versa but DD does imply that the information came from Harry himself during the DoM aftermath conversation. Snape only saw a man sitting on his knees in a certain room (in the second occlumency lesson)and then responds with the remark that it is not up to Harry to know what LV is telling his DE's. If this is right then Snape knew about what was said in the conversation and he forgot to mention, LV telling Rockwood he had a new plan to get it. This doesn't mean DD could not have foreseen LV wanting to use Harry but he missed valuable information on how LV was going to have Harry do it. Because LV could not get Harry and dragg him out of Hogwarts by his hair. DD does not question Snape because he believed Snape did not have this information either but if he knew what Rockwood told LV without Harry telling him then he knew much more then he let on. JMHO Of course you can read it any way you want but to me it seems Snape actually cleared the way for LV, because now he could insert a group of DEs into the DoM without being noticed. To me it gives a whole knew meaning to Snape's actions and him losing Harry out of his sight because if he knew this information, he never told it to DD. Unless of course you want to believe DD did not react to it on purpose. JMHO Dana From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 10:42:54 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:42:54 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167735 Part 3 (c) - Incorporating the actual theory :) Goddlefrood: A few little further observations and opinions and then the theory itself in this post. I have mentioned the acronym of the theory before. It is S.L.A.N.O.B.A.N.T.I.T.S. - Snape Looking After Number One, But Also Number Two In There Somewhere. On Lily first, one thing that I find interesting about Snape and Lily is that they were most probably in the same NEWT level Potions class. I have a prediction relative to this, which is that Lily was responsible for the Potions tips contained in Snape's copy of Advanced Potions. Snape copied from her, thus becoming more proficient at Potions himself to the extent that he is often described in canon as the Potions Master. Some of the spells, such as Levicorpus and Sectumsempra were Snape's inventions, but IMO, the Potions tips were not. That Lily was a widely respected and talented witch would also lead to my conclusion that Snape revered Lily without necessarily being in love with her. Even though there is a very good likelihood that Severus and Lily were in the same NEWT level Potions class, it is unlikely that their nexus to each other existed at any level other than in the classroom. This would be supported by the fact that Severus and Lily were in different houses and from what we have been shown there is little interaction between houses except in class or at Quidditch matches. It is noted that Severus was saddened by Lily's death, however the reason for this is more likely to have been because he did not realise the consequence of what his reporting the partial prophesy to Voldemort would be than that he was in love with her, which view I do not favour. ------------------------- To some observations on Dumbledore's trust of Severus now. Dumbledore offers an explanation for trusting Snape, which has been analysed by numerous contributors to this list and found less than convincing. All I would say on this is that while the stated reason may not seem enough it may well be truly the reason Dumbledore trusted Severus. Whether that trust was merited is another issue. It would also not lead to a firm conclusion that he was Dumbledore's man; my theory below takes account of this and offers a viable explanation :) It is also rather unlikely, but admittedly not quite impossible, for Snape to have gained Dumbledore's complete trust in a period of only about two months. This is calculated from 1st September 1981 (first day of school) until 31st October 1981 (Voldemort's downfall). If he did gain Dumbledore's complete trust in that short time the reason must have been more than just his remorse over effectively sending Voldemort after the Potters. Barty Crouch Jnr has something to say on this matter, this from GoF (Bloomsbury Hardback Edition p. 410: "Course Dumbledore trusts you," growled Moody. "He's a trusting man, isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me - I say there are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, d'you know what I mean?" The real Mad-Eye Moody was less than convinced of Snape's goodness too, witness his expression in Karkaroff's Pensieve proceedings in the same book (p. 513). If Snape was invaluable to Dumbledore, then, as I have said before, surely he would have been *more* useful away from Hogwarts than at it, that is after the rebirth of Voldemort. He would have been able to spy more effectually, I propose, by getting in more with Voldemort and his plans over the course of OotP, which, other than the Prophecy issue, we are not so far privy to. I can not envisage that Voldemort planned nothing other than the Prophecy snatch for an entire year, he simply does not come across as someone who concentrates only on one evil plan at a time, at least not when he is in a corporeal form. ---------------------------- A further matter that has been of interest to me, and for which I have yet to see an explanation is how come Snape seemingly never figured out that Scabbers was Wormtail and that may bear further examination. Not by me here and now, but perhaps one day in the not too distant future I will look into it more closely again, unless someone wants to offer an explanation, which would be welcome. ---------------------------- I now have a few snippets from canon to insert here; they go to give some expansion on Snape's look upon killing Dumbledore. I have stated before that the decision to kill Dumbledore was a snap one on Severus's part; IOW I do not believe it was part of any plan between he and Dumbledore. My reasoning? During the course of PS Harry sees Snape's leg shortly after the latter's efforts to stop Quirrell from plunging into the depths of Hogwarts to retrieve the Philosopher's Stone. As soon as Severus realises Harry is looking at the cut thereon we find (Bloomsbury paperback edition, p. 135): 'Snape's face was twisted with fury as he dropped his robes quickly to hide his leg' I offer the view that this is because the hated son of an enemy has seen his discomfort, but the snarl observed by Harry has something to do with Snape's hatred of James rather than with any other reason that I can buy do with his dislike of Harry. Unless of course Severus has a particular aversion to anyone at all seeing him injured, but this I find unlikely. One Marauder link there. Another is in PoA just after Remus has been welcomed as the new DADA professor. This from Chapter Five - The Dementor (Bloomsbury Paperback p. 72: 'It was common knowledge that Snape wanted the DADA job, but even Harry, who hated Snape, was startled at the expression twisting his thin, sallow face.' A second marauder causing Snape's faced to twist in hatred :-?. The marauder whom Snape hated the most is the next to cause such an expression, this from Chapter Twenty-Two - Owl Post Again (Ibid. p. 306): 'His face was twisted, spit flying from his mouth' That is just shortly after Severus has found out that Sirius had escaped. He's certainly not fond of the marauders ;). Once Severus and Sirius come face to face again in the hospital wing near then end of GoF we find (Bloomsbury Hardback Edition, p.618): 'Snape had not yelled or jumped backwards, but the look on his face was one of mingled fury and horror.' Of course we know that Sirius and Snape are not bosom friends, but as you can see the reaction to each of three marauders who were not Death Eaters is one of fury, hatred and twisted features. I apprehend that it gives us a key to his look on the tower, and this is of course notwithstanding what I said in part 2 (Tobias & the Angel), in that Snape ultimately blamed Dumbledore for the prank incident, whether this was a rational belief I will not say. What I will say is that any time Snape is reminded of the prank his fury is terrible to behold. Therefore, Severus finally snapped atop the tower and killed the man he blamed for years of misery. Put that one in your pipe and smoke it ;). ------------------------- Enough though, I'll now present my theory. Severus Snape, as I said in an earlier post in this series was loved by someone. I believe that someone to be a strong influence on his actions. I do not believe Snape is LV's man for several reasons that will become clear. Neither do I believe that he was working towards becoming the next Dark Lord, it's not a title btw, in case any one may be confused about that ;). Dark wizards are not the Sith, there should be little doubt of that. Who, though could this someone be? Is it be Dumbledore the Headmaster? No. How about Lily the mild mannered potions genius? No. Don't say it's Crookshanks the cat? No. Could it be Irma Pince? (Many apologies to Hong Kong Phooey fans :)). It is a possibility I do not exclude. The interpretations of her I have seen elsewhere are that she may be his mother because her name is an anagram of I'm a Prince. It is indeed, but my own view of this is that the reason it is an anagram as stated is because it is a clue to Severus's loyalties. His loyalties are to her. She is the scheming librarian behind him. For her he would do anything at all. This is somewhat reinforced by my belief that we have been misled regarding Irma. I put it to you all that she was the sniggering little girl in one of the memories Harry had a glimpse of when breaking into Severus's thoughts in an Occlumency lesson. All else flows from there. It may be far fetched, but it would certainly fit the pattern of Snape seen throughout the series and it would not exclude the possibility that Snape will end up being of assistance to Harry in many ways in DH. I believe he will be of assistance rather than hindrance. A further expansion on this portion will be in part 4, which also will contain one of the silliest Snape is LV's theories you will have encountered. JK Rowling has warned us time and again not to believe in Snape's goodness, I leave you, for now, with a few choice morsels. >From J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12th October 1999: "Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say." Available in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm >From Harry Potter and the Magic of the Internet, JK Rowling Webcast on MSN featuring your questions on text and video from around the world June 26th 2003: "Stephen Fry: Yes, and even in the books there is a certain flair. Most characters like Snape are hard to love but there is a sort of ambiguity - you can't quite decide - something sad about him - lonely and it's fascinating when you think he's going to be the evil one apart from Voldemort obviously in the first book then slowly you get this idea he's not so bad after all. JK Rowling: Yes but you shouldn't think him too nice." Link to full version: http://www.msn.co.uk/liveevents/harrypotter/transcript/Default.asp?Ath=f >From J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival, Sunday, 15th August, 2004: "But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that... Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this. Again, it's bad boy syndrome, isn't it? It's very depressing." Full text available here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 And finally a little one for those who appreciate amusing translations: >From "Harry Potter's creator denies her villains are anti- French," The Independent 28th November 2000 "In an internet question and answer session with her French readers, Ms Rowling denied any anti-French intentions, and said she chose the names for their sinister sound, without considering their origin. Keen British fans will find some things have changed in translation. Harry and his best friends, Ron and Hermione, remain the same, and Harry still lives reluctantly with the Dursleys. But Hogwarts School is transformed into "Poudlard", Harry's hated potions master is "le Professeur Rogue," not Snape, and non-magical humans are known as "Moldus" instead of Muggles." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1128-independent-sheppard.htm I give you le Professeur Rogue, possibly the best description for Severus. This vision of Snape is the one I would most prefer to turn out somewhere near to being the truth. I am, as always, interested in the thoughts of others on this theory :). Goddlefrood, with a date for you after a short break from those. This time 1875, the year of the institution of the Underage Statute of Sorcery, which was also the same year that Aristides won the first Kentucky Derby and that Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the USA died (curiously enough on 31st July) :-B From alferian at earthlink.net Thu Apr 19 04:55:20 2007 From: alferian at earthlink.net (James Maertens) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 04:55:20 -0000 Subject: The Scholastic Question that was released today & Further Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167736 Alferian: Hi, I'm completely new here too I don't think it would be a waste of time if Harry died in the end. I think it would be shocking to his fans, but it would be quite in keeping with the tragic hero. I tend to feel that if Harry kills Voldemort, or someone else does and Harry escapes, the ending will fall a bit flat. After all, we've been getting led on to believe that there will be a big showdown between Harry and Voldy, so it would be pretty hard to pull it off now without it seeming predictable. We shall see. I do think that Severus might be killed. I have not read around in the vastness of this group and its archives but I assume it has not escaped anyone's attention that (it appears) Snape was in love with Lily Potter before she married Harry's Dad. I won't lay out the reasons for thinking so here, unless you ask, as I suspect it's already been discussed. In my reading, Snape killed Dumbledore by pre-arranged plan to set Dumbledore free to work against Voldemort on a higher plane. It's an old trick in many stories - fake your death and your enemies will stop looking for you and watching you. In the wizarding world a powerful wizard doesn't need to "fake" it - or rather has to fake it very convincingly. The phoenix that Harry saw rising over Dumbldore's tomb was a clue to his continued life. So, I should be quite surprised if Dumbledore doesn't reappear, much like Gandalf does in Lord of the Rings. I think the big question is whether Voldemort will die in the seventh book. If he dies or if he is redeemed, either way it seems like it would not, at this point, be satisfying. Perhaps he'll just get eternally tangled up in all the loose ends Rowling has to tie up in this final narrative. I was certainly disappointed by Sirius's disappearance from the story. There was so much more that could have been done with that character -- one of the few that undergoes much change in the course of the story. I do wish Harry would at least think of going and talking to a portrait of Sirius. Since all the other portraits seem to be able to carry on conversations, you would think that Sirius's would too. Alferian From tctrppr at netscape.net Thu Apr 19 10:49:32 2007 From: tctrppr at netscape.net (grouchymedic_26149) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:49:32 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are a hor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167737 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paul" wrote: > > > When Voldemort killed Moaning Myrtle -fifty years ago - Voldemeort > > made the glasses a horcrux and somehow James stole them Paul L. Responds- Did Voldemort kill Moaning Myrtle or did she die from looking at the basilisk? From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 12:02:15 2007 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:02:15 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167738 > Paul L. Responds- > > Did Voldemort kill Moaning Myrtle or did she die from looking at the > basilisk? Amiable Dorsai: If you shoot someone through the heart, did you kill them, or was it that pesky bullet? Amiable Dorsai From random832 at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 13:07:00 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:07:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704190607x4d2689bfl453d08e50e2886bc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167739 On 4/19/07, amiabledorsai wrote: > > > Paul L. Responds- > > > > Did Voldemort kill Moaning Myrtle or did she die from looking at the > > basilisk? > > Amiable Dorsai: > If you shoot someone through the heart, did you kill them, or was it > that pesky bullet? Not a good analogy - the nature of a Basilisk is such that he doesn't need to have any specific intent to set it on her for her to die from looking at it. This is more like, if you're welding, and someone who you weren't expecting comes in without wearing goggles, is their eye damage your fault? From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 13:17:41 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:17:41 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704190607x4d2689bfl453d08e50e2886bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167740 > > > Paul L. Responds- > > > > > > Did Voldemort kill Moaning Myrtle or did she die from looking at the > > > basilisk? > > Amiable Dorsai: > > If you shoot someone through the heart, did you kill them, or was it > > that pesky bullet? Jordan Abel: > Not a good analogy - the nature of a Basilisk is such that he doesn't > need to have any specific intent to set it on her for her to die from > looking at it. > > This is more like, if you're welding, and someone who you weren't > expecting comes in without wearing goggles, is their eye damage your > fault? > Annemehr: Nah. The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like a welding torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, and it did. That's murder. From va32h at comcast.net Thu Apr 19 14:06:48 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:06:48 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Now we need a way to get our hero back into the story. > Perhaps, Snape and/or Wormtail can supply 'flesh of a > servant', and the other can provide 'blood of an > enemy'. Of course, there are plenty of other candidates > for either. Lupin could provide 'flesh'; Draco could > provide 'blood', and many other combinations. va32h: My concern with this theory is that I found Voldemort's resurrection potion to be a piece of seriously Dark Magic. Other than the willing flesh of the servant, the other ingredients are supposed to be taken by force. And I think the idea of having a servant that would willingly hack off a body part is supposed to be a negative. My understanding of the rules of the Potterverse is that you are not supposed to try and defy death - either go on or be a ghost, but don't try to come back. That's one of the reasons Voldemort is the bad guy - not just for the deeds he does in his quest to thwart death, but because thwarting death is itself unnatural. Although now that I think of it, where does Dumbledore's work on the Philosopher's Stone fit in? Because Dumbledore is supposed to be the good guy, and if he helped to create the ultimate means of thwarting death...but then Dumbledore also says that eternal life is a terrible idea for humans. And he himself did not use the stone, and suggested destroying it. Hmmm...have to think about that some more. Anyway, I would be reluctant to have Harry in such a position, and using such a potion. Even if the end result was the defeat of Voldemort, I think the cost to Harry's sould would be too dear. Speaking of which - the idea of Harry *having* a horcrux seems at odds with the pure, intact soul that Dumbledore keeps telling Harry he has. I'm not saying it isn't logistically possible, but I am not sure it works thematically. va32h From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 14:19:17 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:19:17 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167742 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > > > > Paul L. Responds- > > > > > > > > Did Voldemort kill Moaning Myrtle or did she die from looking > at the > > > > basilisk? > > > > > Amiable Dorsai: > > > If you shoot someone through the heart, did you kill them, or was > it > > > that pesky bullet? > > > Jordan Abel: > > Not a good analogy - the nature of a Basilisk is such that he > doesn't > > need to have any specific intent to set it on her for her to die > from > > looking at it. > > > > This is more like, if you're welding, and someone who you weren't > > expecting comes in without wearing goggles, is their eye damage your > > fault? > > > > Annemehr: > Nah. The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like a welding > torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, and it did. That's murder. > Ryan: True. Funny, though, how despite several attempts, the basilisk apparently only made 1 confirmed kill. Ryan, who agrees that Voldemort murdered Moaning Myrtle, but thinks that the basilisk seems to be a really ineffecient weapon. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Apr 19 14:43:58 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:43:58 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167743 Goddlefrood: > A further matter that has been of interest to me, and for which I have yet to see an explanation is how come Snape seemingly never figured out that Scabbers was Wormtail and that may bear further examination. Not by me here and now, but perhaps one day in the not too distant future I will look into it more closely again, unless someone wants to offer an explanation, which would be welcome. Ceridwen: Not an explanation, but my contribution to the conversation. ;) I don't find in canon anything saying that Snape knew (and, conversely, didn't know) that the Marauders less Lupin were Anamaguses (Anamagi? I like this one better). I do see that it doesn't seem as if he knew. It also doesn't seem as if Dumbledore knew. But with Dumbledore, he might have just played dumb until they came out and told him - second chances means first chances, after all, a chance to come clean without being confronted. Being an Animagi without registering seems to be a violation of Wizarding law. But, did Snape know? It doesn't seem as if this was a power that they flaunted in the schoolyard. This was what they did to circumvent the rules in order to keep Lupin company during his Furry stage. They weren't given permission, that we know of, to accompany him at full moon. I'm not sure any more if this is canon or just inferred, but the evidence of Peter's demise was based on no one knowing he could transform into a rat and escape into the sewers. The lack of body seems to have been attributed to his being at the focus of the spell's explosion. Sirius heard the DEs in Azkaban complaining about Wormtail, but did those DEs know that Wormtail was also Peter Pettigrew? Sirius would have known, of course. But, did the DEs? Did all of the DEs know about Wormtail, or just a select few who had a need to know? If this code name was known to only certain DEs, would Snape, in his early twenties and younger than many of the others, have been included in the need to know? Surely Voldemort would have wanted to guard the identity of his spy in the Order. Would he have told Snape about Wormtail? Would he have told Snape who Wormtail was? Would he have told Snape that Pettigrew, as Wormtail, was a rat Animagus? Could Snape have guessed? I think that would only be answered if we could determine how much Snape knew or inferred. Did he know the Marauders were unregistered Animagi? Some people have suggested that it was easy to lure Snape into the Prank because he suspected their Animagi status, and jumped on the chance to see proof. This speculation segues into a plan to then have them expelled for illegal activity. If he guessed that they were Animagi, could he have known their Animagus names? This is where I wonder. He may have known that a "Wormtail" was working for Voldemort, but not have associated the moniker with a particular person, or with the reason the person had that name in the first place. Or, he may have known the nicknames if they used them in general conversation or called each other by them in class. But again, would he know why Wormtail was Wormtail, or why Prongs was Prongs? If Snape did not know that Peter Pettigrew was an Animagus, then he would not have the foggiest idea that he was also Scabbers. If he did know he was an unregistered Animagi, could he have known what form he took? If Snape did know what form he took, he probably wouldn't have recognized Wormtail from any other rat of the same sort. I doubt if the Marauders would have transformed around Snape so he could become familiar with their animal forms. The only clue, really, would have been Scabbers' longevity, and there's no reason to believe that Snape paid *that* much attention to the pets of Gryffindor students. If he didn't know that Pettigrew could turn into a rat, why would this cross his mind? If he did know, then Pettigrew was still supposedly dead. The death was apparently straightforward, with several witnesses. Why suspect that a dead man was living in the pocket of a Hogwarts student? Maybe the question is, why didn't Lupin know? He was closer to Peter in school. He saw his Animagus form. He knew Peter transformed into a rat... Okay, I think I do have a possible explanation. Scabbers was AWOL in a lot of PoA. Lupin was the DADA professor that year, which explains "Scabbers's" absence. If Pettigrew thought that Snape would recognize him, I think he would have gone missing a lot sooner. LV was gone, DEs were scrambling to claim Imperius or to otherwise distance themselves from having been DEs. Why wouldn't Peter think that Snape - petty, vengeful Snape, Snape who had been tricked into the Prank - would turn him in for being still alive? So, I think that even Peter didn't think that Snape should recognize him. Ceridwen. From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 19 16:09:21 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:09:21 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167744 --- --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" Message #167735 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167735 wrote: Goddlefrood: > I have a prediction relative to this, > which is that Lily was responsible for the Potions tips > contained in Snape's copy of Advanced Potions. Snape copied > from her, thus becoming more proficient at Potions himself > to the extent that he is often described in canon as the > Potions Master. Some of the spells, such as Levicorpus and > Sectumsempra were Snape's inventions, but IMO, the Potions > tips were not. That Lily was a widely respected and talented > witch would also lead to my conclusion that Snape revered > Lily without necessarily being in love with her. "K": I believe Snape and Lily worked together but what purpose would there be having Snape copy from Lily? Must the revered Lily be so perfect? IMO it was Lily who copied from Snape. Slughorn repeatedly states that Harry is like his mother. What set Harry apart from the other students in NEWT Potions was the book that belonged to the HBP and I believe that is what set Lily apart. She too benefited from the help of the Half-Blood Prince. This is not to say Lily didn't have any potions talent, just that it was Snape who was the true potions expert. --------------- Good lord, it's clear you've inherited your mother's talent. She was a dab hand at Potions, Lily was! Ch 9/HBP "Oh, you're like your mother... Ch 18/HBP "Just like his mother, she had the same intuitive grasp of potion-making, it's undoubtedly from Lily he gets it.. Ch18/HBP .I really don't know where you get these brain waves, my boy...unless --" Harry pushed the Half-Blood Prince's book deeper into his bag with his foot. "--it's just your mother's genes coming out in you!" Ch 22/HBP --------------- Goddlefrood: > Even though there is a very good likelihood that Severus and > Lily were in the same NEWT level Potions class, it is unlikely > that their nexus to each other existed at any level other than > in the classroom. This would be supported by the fact that > Severus and Lily were in different houses and from what we have > been shown there is little interaction between houses except in > class or at Quidditch matches. "K": I disagree. :) I believe Snape was the "awful boy" Petunia was referring to in OoP. I commented on this theory before. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155655 Goddlefrood: > It is noted that Severus was saddened by Lily's death, however > the reason for this is more likely to have been because he did > not realise the consequence of what his reporting the partial > prophesy to Voldemort would be than that he was in love with > her, which view I do not favour. "K": I do not favor the view of Snape in love with Lily whatsoever but I do believe there are hints to at least a friendship between the two. The NEWT class together, Lily copying from Snape, the Muffliato spell which would allow the two of them to converse in class without being overheard, the 'awful boy' visit, the Pensieve memory (Lily defending Snape), and the lack of any negative word from Snape concerning Lily after six books. Plus, the Shrieking Shack scene can be read as Snape finally catching the traitor, the one responsible for giving Voldemort the information needed to find the Potter's, which in turn led to the death of Lily. I can point to this scene and say it shows a man who was more than saddened by the death of Lily. Even at the end of HBP, when Harry makes a statement concerning Snape hating Lily, no one makes a comment. So while I totally dislike any Snape/Lily love angle, unless it was Snape being Lily's true love, I think there was more to the two of them than just a potions class. --------------- "And Dumbledore believed that? said Lupin incredulously. "Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James..." "And he didn't think my mother was worth a damn either," said Harry, "because she was Muggle-born...'Mudblood,' he called her..." Ch 29/HBP -------------- Goddlefrood: > It is also rather unlikely, but admittedly not quite impossible, > for Snape to have gained Dumbledore's complete trust in a period > of only about two months. This is calculated from 1st September > 1981 (first day of school) until 31st October 1981 (Voldemort's > downfall). If he did gain Dumbledore's complete trust in that > short time the reason must have been more than just his remorse > over effectively sending Voldemort after the Potters. "K": I agree with you here. I cannot imagine Dumbledore placing such a complete trust in a former Death Eater because of: (1) Snape's remorse, being sorry for his actions. (2) Snape loving Lily. (3) A life debt to James. There has to be something more. Goddlefrood: > Barty Crouch Jnr has something to say on this matter, this from > GoF (Bloomsbury Hardback Edition p. 410: > > "Course Dumbledore trusts you," growled Moody. "He's a trusting > man, isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me - I say there > are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, > d'you know what I mean?" "K": Ah, one of the many clues Snape is evil. Goddlefrood: > If Snape was invaluable to Dumbledore, then, as I have said > before, surely he would have been *more* useful away from > Hogwarts than at it, that is after the rebirth of Voldemort. "K": How much better could it be for Voldemort to have a spy around Dumbledore and Harry? Goddlefrood: > He would have been able to spy more effectually, I propose, > by getting in more with Voldemort and his plans over the course > of OotP, which, other than the Prophecy issue, we are not so > far privy to. I can not envisage that Voldemort planned nothing > other than the Prophecy snatch for an entire year, he simply > does not come across as someone who concentrates only on one > evil plan at a time, at least not when he is in a corporeal > form. "K": I think Voldemort had other plans also but who is to say Snape did not know those plans? And I doubt Voldemort would tell 'all' his plans to 'all' his Death Eaters. Goddlefrood: > 'Snape's face was twisted with fury as he dropped his robes > quickly to hide his leg' > > I offer the view that this is because the hated son of an enemy > has seen his discomfort, but the snarl observed by Harry has > something to do with Snape's hatred of James rather than with > any other reason that I can buy do with his dislike of Harry. > Unless of course Severus has a particular aversion to anyone at > all seeing him injured, but this I find unlikely. "K": No, I don't believe this scene has anything to do with Snape's hatred of James. Snape tried to get past dear Fluffy, was injured, and now Harry is aware Snape tried to get past the three-headed dog. I can see why Snape would be angry. Harry is really such a pain. Goddlefrood: > Enough though, I'll now present my theory. Severus Snape, as I > said in an earlier post in this series was loved by someone. I > believe that someone to be a strong influence on his actions. snip > Who, though could this someone be? snip > Could it be Irma Pince? "K": So is Irma in disguise? Is she Snape's wife? Mother? She's not the most pleasant character in the series so my 'hope' would be she isn't Mrs. Severus Snape or Mother Snape. Now I would not be surprised to find out there is another person who has an influence on Snape. For some the answer is his mother in the form of Irma and for some it was Lily. Personally, I would like to see a Snape love story but I'm not sure we will. Which brings us to a JKR quote you used in your 'goodness' section. This quote has been heavily discussed but I am going to go over it again. The original question concerned Snape and love, a question JKR ***goes back to answer**** after the interviewer inserts his own comments. You left out the important part. --------------- Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered ***if Snape is going to fall in love?**** JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ... But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... ***whoever asked that question,****can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say. The Connection 12 October 1999 J.K. Rowling Interview Transcript http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm --------------- "K": JKR does describe Snape as deeply horrible and not nice. She wouldn't want to meet him or have dinner with him. She doesn't understand why people like Snape. Of course I can't understand why she doesn't understand us Snape lovers. :) But she never does say Snape is evil. That question is obviously not one she would answer. But as for goodness, I believe JKR did leave the door open a bit for some goodness in Snape. --------------- "Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there. Of course, these double stands exist in most of us; we might know how we ought to behave, but actually doing it is a different matter!" JKRowling Official Site Section: F.A.Q. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=61 --------------- As for who the real Severus Snape truly is? I don't know. After six books we still don't know Snape's true motivation or why Dumbledore trusted him to the extent he did. Snape remains the most interesting of characters. "K" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 17:13:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:13:46 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167745 houyhnhnm wrote: > > Harry doesn't know that Snape went back to LV when he comes to GP in August. Where are you getting that? > > Dana kindly supplied the canon: > > 'Severus,' said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready... If you are prepared...' > > 'I am', said Snape. > > End quote from canon. > > This was in front of Harry in the hospital wing. Do you really think Harry is too stupid to understand what DD is asking of Snape? Carol responds: Stupidity has nothing to do with it. He canonically wonders what Snape was sent to do: "What was it that Snape had done on Dumbledore's orders, the night that Voldemort had returned? And why . . . why . . . was Dumbledore so convinced that Snape was ttruly on their side? He had been their spy, Dumbledore had said so in the Pensieve. Snape had turned spy against Voldemort 'at great personal risk.' Was that the job he had taken up again? Had he made contact with the Death Eaters, perhaps? Pretended that he had never gone over to Dumbledore, that he had been, like Voldemort himself, biding his time?" (GoF Am. ed. 721, "The Beginning"). Harry comes close here, but he doesn't know. And, by having him ask himself these questions and repeat the information about spying "at great personal risk," JKR is emphasizing their importance. Snape and his loyalties are central to the plot of the series as a whole, and the phrase "at great personal risk," which even Harry (who hates and distrusts Snape) remembers, is also important. Dana: > He is not sending Snape to gather Order Members because he has just send Sirius to do that. And he just witnessed Snape show Fudge his Dark Mark. Carol: Exactly. He's sending Snape to do something much more dangerous than visiting Lupin and Mrs. Figg and Mundungus Fletcher, as his own silence and Snape's pale face and glittering eyes testify. But Snape *is* prepared, and he silently sweeps out of the room to do what he must do. And, unlike the DEs whose sole crime in LV's is not going to look for him and restore him to a body, Snape risks much more than a Crucio. If LV doesn't believe his lies and half-truths, the same ones that he tells Bellatrix (and notice that she's not fully convinced), he will die as Regulus died. His only hope must be LV's egotistical belief that no Occlumens is sufficiently skilled to lie to him, the greatest Legilimens of all time, without detection. Occlumency, and his skills as an actor and a liar, is all that lies between Snape and death. And, of course, he will have to provide some carefully selected information on Dumbledore and perhaps on Harry to persuade LV that he is truly LV's man. > Dana, quoting again: > > `At least you've known what's been going on,' he (Harry) said bracingly. > > `Oh yeah,' said Sirius sarcastically. Listening to Snape's reports, having to take all his snide hints that he's out there risking his life while I'm sat on my backside here having a nice comfortable time > Carol responds: Sirius Black's backbiting jealousy proves nothing except that Snape *is* risking his life (Black doesn't question that) and giving reports (which we already knew). We see just how important the other Order members think Snape's reports are in "Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place": "[Mrs. Weasley] turned to the gang of wizards behind [Harry] and whispered urgently, 'He's just arrived. The meeting's started . . . .' "The wizards behind Harry all made noises of interest and excitement and began filing toward the door" (OoP Am. ed. 61). The kids, as Mrs. Weasley informs Harry, are not allowed to attend these meetings, so Harry goes upstairs to join Ron and Hermione. The Twins show up, having failed to find out anything about Snape's "top secret" report (69). After the meeting, HRH look over the banister and see "the gloomy hallway . . . packed with witches and wizards, including all of Harry's guard [which means that Lupin is among them]. They were whispering excitedly together. In the very center of the group Harry saw the dark, greasy-haired head and prominent nose of his least favorite teacher, Professor Snape. Harry leaned farther over the banisters. He was very interested in what Snape was doing for the Order of the Phoenix" (76). So, it appears, is the crowd of witches and wizards around Snape, whose report must have more than met their expectations to receive such a response. But, of course, Harry doesn't learn anything about the meeting, except to glimpse the scrolls, including the building plan (surely the DoM?), that have been left behind. Dana: > Sirius already mentions Snape is giving reports so Lupin could just have mentioned one of these reports gave the Order some very interesting information on what LV planning on next. > First both of Sirius and Lupin say this about LV's activity. [OoP quote] > `That's because there haven't been any funny death yet', said > Sirius, `not as far as we know, anyway and we know quite a lot.' Carol: Exactly. And since the Order has only one spy on LV and the Death Eaters, the source of this information has to be Snape and his reports. Dana quoting again: > `Working as hard as we can to make sure Voldermort *can't carry out > his plans*,' said Sirius. > > `How d'you know what his plans are?' Harry asked quickly. > > Dumbledore's got a shrewd idea, said Lupin, and Dumbledore's shrewd > ideas normally turn out to be accurate.' > Carol responds: I don't know what your point is, but Lupin is much more close-mouthed about the Order's activities than Black, and he's not about to endanger Snape by revealing to a bunch of teenagers who have been shut out from the meetings what was said at those meetings. They are, after all, top secret and only Order members are allowed to know what happens there. I think that Lupin's words, "Dumbledore has a shrewd idea," are intended to stop Sirius from saying that the source of their information is Snape's reports. Dumbledore's "shrewd ideas" probably stem from the info he has been given by Snape. Where else could they come from? He has not other spy among the DEs. And what, exactly, have all those reports been about, if not about Voldemort's plans? What else could they be? > Dana: > Then at the second occlumency lesson (or at least the one on page) > Snape says this to Harry (please don't forget no one mentioned to > Harry Snape was spying on LV) > > `That is just as well Potter,'said Snape coldly, `because you are > neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out > what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters.' > > No- that's *your job*, isn't it? Harry shot at him [end quote] > Carol responds: I would add one more line to your last quote: "Yes, Potter. That is my job." And Snape seems satisfied, almost happy for Snape, that the usually rather dense Potter has figured this out. At any rate, thank you for the excellent support refuting your own point of view. It doesn't matter whether Harry immediately figured out the danger that Snape was going into at the end of GoF. What matters is that he is, indeed, going into danger, and that he and DD have planned that he do so ("If you are ready; if you are prepared"). Clearly, Snape must have planned all the cover stories he would need to tell Voldemort: plausible reasons why he would try to thwart Quirrell and save Harry's life without being disloyal to LV and why he did not immediately return when he felt the Dark Mark burn, among others. His pale face and glittering eyes and Dumbledore's prolonged silence after he leaves show that they both know the terrible danger he is facing. (BTW, showing the Dark Mark to Fudge to prove that LV has returned is a rather strange action for either OFH!Snape or ESE!Snape, don't you thinK? That in itself was dangerous. He could have been arrested as a DE, and he revealed a secret that McGonagall and Madam Pomfrey and Mrs. Weasley apparently didn't know until that point, that he had been a Death Eater.) Obviously, Snape *is* supplying important information to Dumbledore when he has the opportunity. However, his opportunites for actually obtaining information from the Death Eaters or LV directly appear to be limited to the summer holidays and Christmas, where his job for LV is to obtain information on Dumbledore. And, sorry, but Sirius Black doesn't tell Dumbledore about the corridor dreams. What Harry tells his godfather is that in DD's office, he felt like a snake and thought he was going to attack Dumbledore (OoP Am. ed. 481, the St. Mungo's chapter)--not a word on the dreams. That information comes from Snape. So, through detective work--picking up the scattered clues--we can figure out what Harry does not: Snape is, indeed, giving Dumbledore valuable information. No doubt there's a lot more that we don't know about--DD never tells Harry any more than he needs to know, and DD is also trying to protect Snape. If LV knows about the Occlumency lessons and is somehow watching or listening in or has access to Harry's thoughts on the matter, the less Harry knows about Snape, the better. And, of course, if DD told Harry straight out what Snape is doing for the Order or Harry knew about it in any other way (e.g., listening in on Snape's report, which the Order members clearly thought was important), Snape would cease to be mysterious and ambiguity. And Snape's loyalties must be kept in doubt until the big confrontation, which I suspect will involve a dramatic reversal of what Harry "knows" about Snape. Otherwise, where's the bang and what's the point? Dana: > It was also Harry's own information about Rookwood telling LV about > the protection on the prophecy that Snape tells to DD. DD never > mentioned Snape giving any important information directly from LV > himself, just information about what Harry was dreaming. Nothing and > then goes on about Snape's actions of that night. Carol responds: Canon, please? When does Harry, who avoids DD all year and vice versa because DD won't look at him, tell DD about Rookwood? The source of DD's information has to be Snape. Carol, who has to stop in midpost because she has company but hopes that she has made her point From lhuntley at fandm.edu Thu Apr 19 18:08:15 2007 From: lhuntley at fandm.edu (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:08:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167748 Oh, the analogy game! I *love* the analogy game! (No, seriously, I really do. ^_^) Paul L: > Did Voldemort kill Moaning Myrtle or did she die from looking > at the basilisk? Amiable Dorsai: > If you shoot someone through the heart, did you kill them, or was > it that pesky bullet? Jordan Abel: > This is more like, if you're welding, and someone who you weren't > expecting comes in without wearing goggles, is their eye damage your > fault? Annemehr: > Nah. The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like a welding > torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, and it did. That's murder. I think the proper analogy would be if a person brought a faulty welding torch ... Wait, no, let's go with a flame thrower here. SO, suppose someone brought a faulty flame-thrower to school with the intent to kill their sex ed teacher with it. Because it was faulty, however, it failed to kill the teacher, but instead fired randomly at a later time and killed a nearby classmate. In such a scenario, is the person who brought the flame thrower to school *morally* guilty of murder (the legality of the situation is irrelevant in discussing whether the incidence could be used to form a horcrux), to the extent that his soul would be split? Even though they didn't *intend* to kill their classmate? In my opinion, yes, he is morally culpable for the "murder," due to the fact that he brought a lethal weapon to school that he knew was faulty and could go off at any time. If you accept this premise (and I know some of you don't, but bear with me), the question of whether dear ol' Tommy could have created a horcrux from Mytrle's murder becomes an inquiry into the actual mechanics of horcrux creation. That is, is it possible to make a horcrux from an unexpected murder, or does one need to make preparations beforehand? If not, how long after the event of the murder can a horcrux be made? Does the creation need to be instantaneous with the act? These are questions I dearly hope JKR will answer in DH, although, at this rate, with the sheer volume of things I hope will be answered in DH, the book would end up being more of a Q&A than anything else if I got my way. ^_~ Laura (who hasn't posted in a long, long time.) From random832 at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 18:48:11 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:48:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50704190607x4d2689bfl453d08e50e2886bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704191148r5a38bf6ave4ba8fda8065f8f7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167749 > Annemehr: > Nah. The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like a welding > torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, and it did. That's murder. It's an animal, it doesn't have to have any kind of purpose. And we don't know what was going through Riddle's mind, whether the intent to use it to kill had formed prior to that moment --Random832 From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Apr 19 19:14:11 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:14:11 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704191148r5a38bf6ave4ba8fda8065f8f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Annemehr: > > Nah. The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like a welding > > torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, and it did. That's murder. > > It's an animal, it doesn't have to have any kind of purpose. And we > don't know what was going through Riddle's mind, whether the intent to > use it to kill had formed prior to that moment > > --Random832 > Hickengruendler: What do you think he wanted to do with it? Taking it for a walk? The Basilisk is said to be the Deadliest creature, and Riddle searched for the Chamber for years, because he wanted to finish Salazar Slytherin's work, as he called it himself. Salazar Slytherin's work, according to the legend, was to rid Hogwarts of all Muggleborns. There can be no doubt about Tom Riddle's intentions. From cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 19:46:52 2007 From: cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com (Cassandra Lee) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: More to 'cats' than meets the eye? Message-ID: <184248.89778.qm@web53803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167754 Q. Is there something more to the cats appearing in the books than first meets the eye? (i.e. Mrs. Figg's cats, Crookshanks, Prof. McGonagall as a cat, etc.) JKR: Ooooo, another good question. Let's see what I can tell you without giving anything away....erm....no, can't do it, sorry. (Scholastic Online Chat Transcript, October 6, 2000) I read this in a Scholastic interview with J.K.Rowling. What do you guys think about this? Ever since I came across this I realize how cats have been the prominent animals in the books. I wonder what their importance is going to be? I don't remember anything in the published books so far that would give an answer the to the above question. Have I overlooked something? I'd love to know what you guys think. Cassandra From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Apr 19 17:15:25 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:15:25 -0400 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167755 I get the impression is that the Blood Flesh & Bone spell is a piece of horrid Black wizardry that no respectable mage would ever consider having anything to do with. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Apr 19 21:31:40 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:31:40 EDT Subject: Snape the Spy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167756 Dana wrote: We also know that Snape only gave DD this information because he owed James Potter a debt, not because he was so concerned with their safety. It can still be read as Snape attempting to wash himself from responsibility. So unless knew information on Snape's activity in the first war comes to light in DH, then as it now stands he did not do very much then either. Julie: I'm only commenting on this one passage, but my comment is true for some of your other assertions about Snape. We don't KNOW for sure why Snape gave us DD this information, but DD *told* Harry (and us) "You have no idea the remorse Professor Snape felt..." Thus the concept that Snape was in fact concerned about their safety has more canon support--DD's word--than that he was only concerned with satisfying his debt to James Potter (which DD doesn't even mention in relation to Snape switching sides, and hasn't referenced once since the single comment in PS/SS). Of course you can say DD is lying if you like. But any tie between Snape providing information about the Potters being targeted and his debt to James is purely speculative at this time, just as much of the rest of your evidence for Snape being a useless spy, secretly helping LV, etc. Which isn't to say evidence for other versions of Snape doesn't also rest on much speculation. But there we are. Snape's an enigma, and could end up being just about anything in DH (no matter how much "evidence" any camp can provide), which was exactly JKR's intent ;-) Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 21:54:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:54:02 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167757 > Ceridwen: > Not an explanation, but my contribution to the conversation. ;) > > I don't find in canon anything saying that Snape knew (and, > conversely, didn't know) that the Marauders less Lupin were > Anamaguses (Anamagi? I like this one better). I do see that it > doesn't seem as if he knew. It also doesn't seem as if Dumbledore > knew. But with Dumbledore, he might have just played dumb until they > came out and told him - second chances means first chances, after > all, a chance to come clean without being confronted. Being an > Animagi without registering seems to be a violation of Wizarding law. Alla: I don't know, dear :) Snape seemed to be rather confident to me that Harry got that map straight from manufactures in PoA. Of course one may say that he only heard the nicknames of how Marauders called each other. But I will go on a limb and **speculate** that his greasiness knew much more than we give him credit for. JMO, Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 22:01:49 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:01:49 -0000 Subject: Snape name mentioned in OOP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167758 Okay, I am replying to Zara in the round about way, because I could not find her message I wanted to reply to. Yes, looks like I was wrong that Snape's name was not mentioned indeed in the incident Zara quoted. But that was not the one I had in mind or maybe it was. I was flipping pages in OOP, trying to find the one where only **he** giving reports is mentioned and no Snape. I of course did not mean that Snape is never mentioned. So, to make a long story short. I just want to make sure that I did not dream it up and asking people who know OOP better than me ( as I said, I barely reread this book, actually I do not remember when I reread it last time - sooooo not a case with other books). Is there a situation when somebody giving report to the Order and that somebody is not mentioned by name? I guess I did dream it up then. Ooops. Alla. From juli17 at aol.com Thu Apr 19 22:34:09 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:34:09 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704191148r5a38bf6ave4ba8fda8065f8f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167759 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Annemehr: > > Nah. The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like a welding > > torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, and it did. That's murder. > > It's an animal, it doesn't have to have any kind of purpose. And we > don't know what was going through Riddle's mind, whether the intent to > use it to kill had formed prior to that moment > > --Random832 > Julie: Then maybe it's more like a student tossing a rattlesnake into a dorm room. The snake doesn't have a nefarious purpose, it only acts on its instinct to survive. But if it strikes another student and kills said student, is the student who tossed the rattlesnake into the dorm room responsible for murder? Or can he just say "I tossed it in the room for, er...I tell you it was the snake that did it!" The student who tossed it into the room knew it was deadly. He knew what could--and likely would--happen. He's guilty. Julie (who does know rattlesnake bites don't usually kill but let's just say this one does) From juli17 at aol.com Thu Apr 19 22:30:26 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:30:26 EDT Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167760 Goddlefrood: A few little further observations and opinions and then the theory itself in this post. I have mentioned the acronym of the theory before. It is S.L.A.N.O.B.A.N.T.I.T.S. - Snape Looking After Number One, But Also Number Two In There Somewhere. On Lily first, one thing that I find interesting about Snape and Lily is that they were most probably in the same NEWT level Potions class. I have a prediction relative to this, which is that Lily was responsible for the Potions tips contained in Snape's copy of Advanced Potions. Snape copied from her, thus becoming more proficient at Potions himself to the extent that he is often described in canon as the Potions Master. Some of the spells, such as Levicorpus and Sectumsempra were Snape's inventions, but IMO, the Potions tips were not. That Lily was a widely respected and talented witch would also lead to my conclusion that Snape revered Lily without necessarily being in love with her. Julie: I still don't see even a small clue (and JKR loves to drop those) that Lily was responsible for any of the potions tips in Snape's book. Yes, Slughorn said she was talented, but his comment of "Even you, Snape..." when referring to her abilities indicates that Snape was highly talented himself, nearly as much so as Lily. And remember, this is a sycophantic man's interpretation, so their talents might have been quite equal or even tipped the other way. What we can be sure of is that they were *both* very good at Potions. I do agree that Snape could have respected Lily (revered is a little to worshipful for me) without necessarily being in love with her. And clearly Snape did respect Lily, because in all the very numerous instances when he's been thrilled to verbally stick it to Harry where it hurts, he's never once denigrated Lily. That can't be a mere oversight on JKR's part. ("Darn it!" thinks JKR as HBP is off at the publishers, "Here Snape stole Lily's potions notes, called her a mudblood because he hates all Muggleborns, and got rejected by her in favor of James, and for six books I FORGOT to have him vilify her even once though I had him vilify James four hundred and twelve times. What was I thinking?!) Goodlefrood: It is also rather unlikely, but admittedly not quite impossible, for Snape to have gained Dumbledore's complete trust in a period of only about two months. This is calculated from 1st September 1981 (first day of school) until 31st October 1981 (Voldemort's downfall). If he did gain Dumbledore's complete trust in that short time the reason must have been more than just his remorse over effectively sending Voldemort after the Potters. Barty Crouch Jnr has something to say on this matter, this from GoF (Bloomsbury Hardback Edition p. 410: "Course Dumbledore trusts you," growled Moody. "He's a trusting man, isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me - I say there are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, d'you know what I mean?" The real Mad-Eye Moody was less than convinced of Snape's goodness too, witness his expression in Karkaroff's Pensieve proceedings in the same book (p. 513). Julie: I'm afraid I don't see either the real of fake Moody as exactly unbias judges. Barty Jr was a pyschopath, and real Moody is known to be highly distrustful and paranoid. It's a bit like asking Snape his opinion of Sirius and vice versa. Goodlefrood: If Snape was invaluable to Dumbledore, then, as I have said before, surely he would have been *more* useful away from Hogwarts than at it, that is after the rebirth of Voldemort. He would have been able to spy more effectually, I propose, by getting in more with Voldemort and his plans over the course of OotP, which, other than the Prophecy issue, we are not so far privy to. I can not envisage that Voldemort planned nothing other than the Prophecy snatch for an entire year, he simply does not come across as someone who concentrates only on one evil plan at a time, at least not when he is in a corporeal form. Julie: Voldemort originally sent Snape to spy on Dumbledore. Presumably once he was back in corporeal form he wanted Snape to continue with that task. I.e., what Snape does as a spy is actually more dependent on Voldemort's desires than Dumbledore's. And while I suppose Dumbledoe could have "fired" Snape and hoped Voldemort would give Snape a more central task within the DEs, it would become be much harder for Snape to pass along any information he gathers to Dumbledore and the Order when he's no longer expected (by Voldemort) to be in continual proximity to Dumbledore and Company. Goodlefrood: A further matter that has been of interest to me, and for which I have yet to see an explanation is how come Snape seemingly never figured out that Scabbers was Wormtail and that may bear further examination. Not by me here and now, but perhaps one day in the not too distant future I will look into it more closely again, unless someone wants to offer an explanation, which would be welcome. Julie: Others have said it, but it boils down to the fact that we have no evidence that Snape even knew the Maurauders were Animagi, let alone what animal forms they took, or what names they used (e.g. Wormtail for Peter). Thus there's no reason for Snape to even consider Scabbers to be anything other than what he appears. Goodlefrood: Of course we know that Sirius and Snape are not bosom friends, but as you can see the reaction to each of three marauders who were not Death Eaters is one of fury, hatred and twisted features. I apprehend that it gives us a key to his look on the tower, and this is of course notwithstanding what I said in part 2 (Tobias & the Angel), in that Snape ultimately blamed Dumbledore for the prank incident, whether this was a rational belief I will not say. What I will say is that any time Snape is reminded of the prank his fury is terrible to behold. Therefore, Severus finally snapped atop the tower and killed the man he blamed for years of misery. Put that one in your pipe and smoke it ;). Julie: While your theory can't be disproved, it seems much more likely if JKR was making an analogy between Snape's expression on the Tower and previous similar expressions, she'd know that such correlations make a much stronger impression when presented in close proximity. Thus, Harry's expression of disgust and hatred for what he was doing (forcing poison down DD's throat) and Snape's equally disgusted and hateful expression while AKing DD are the intended analogies. And Fang's howl of agony is analogous to Snape's expression of agony a few paragraphs later. The only other explanation for those two instances of analogy to be present in such close proximity in HBP is that JKR didn't recognize the descriptive similarities as she was writing them, and that I find hard to believe. And as for Snape "snapping"...well, we have seen that happen a couple of times, when Sirius "escaped" in POA, and again after he pulled Harry out of his worst memory in the Penseive. Both times Snape completely LOST it. The man just doesn't "snap", he SNAP!s, with big flashing colored lights around that word! On the Tower Snape was in complete control of himself. He acted with cool deliberation, nothing like our previous experiences with Snapped!Snape. Additionally, the stick point for me with the Tower scene will always--ALWAYS--be Dumbledore's pleading before Snape even reaches him or meets his eyes. Until that can be explained in terms that make true sense for any interpretation but Dumbledore pleading for Snape to "do it", then I will never buy a Tower!Snape who turned suddenly turned evil at the last moment. Goodlefrood: Goodlefrood: >From J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12th October 1999: "Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say." Available in full here: _http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm_ (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm) Julie: Okay I'm going to do this once again. You didn't include the first few sentences of this quote. Here it is again in full: Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love? JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ... "Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say." ...now, JKR is talking *to* Lydon. She says "There's so much I wish I could say to *you* etc...I promise *you*..WHOEVER asked that question etc..." "You" (Lydon) who mentioned the redemptive pattern, and WHOEVER ("one of our Internet correspondents" who Lydon referenced) are *two* different people. When JKR is says WHOEVER asked that question, she is referring to the Internet correspondent who wondered whether Snape is going to fall in love. Her response "WHOEVER asked that question, can I say to you (WHOEVER) that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that -erm- and you'll find out why I'm stunned if you read book 7." In other words, her astonishment and promise of an explanation in Book 7 refers to Snape falling in love, NOT to Snape's redemptive pattern (JKR's definitive response to the latter is "It is, isn't it...") That's my reading anyway, and I'm sticking to it! Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 23:15:31 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:15:31 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167761 --- "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > I get the impression is that the Blood Flesh & Bone > spell is a piece of horrid Black wizardry that no > respectable mage would ever consider having anything to > do with. > > Bruce Alan Wilson > bboyminn: Here's the thing, this unlikely theory assumes that Harry has no idea that a Horcrux exists for him. When Voldemort cast the killing curse against him, Harry full expects to die. But what happens if he doesn't? What happens if Harry is trapped in the in-between world of 'vapor!Harry'? He is unable to cross over to his 'eternal reward', and is unable to manifest himself in the material world. Is that really how you want Harry to remain? Now starting from this point, what are you willing to do to get Harry back? What are you willing to assist Harry in doing, for Harry to return to defeat Voldemort? Keep in mind that in this case, the 'flesh of a servant' doesn't have to be a hand. It could be just the very tip of a finger; not even enough to permanently damage the finger. The 'blood of an enemy forcibly taken' could simply be Draco allowing Ron to forcibly take some of his blood. There really is a range of gray here that needs to be considered. So, start from that point. Voldemort /kills/ Harry but Harry doesn't die. He remains on earth in a bodiless form. Now what are you willing to do to get Harry back? How dark does 'Blood, Flesh & Bone' seem in this context? Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 23:26:07 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:26:07 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167762 > Julie: > I'm afraid I don't see either the real of fake Moody as exactly unbias judges. Barty Jr was a pyschopath, and real Moody is known to be highly distrustful and paranoid. It's a bit like asking Snape his opinion of Sirius and vice versa. Goddlefrood: Quite right, however they can not be entirely written off either. Biassed they may be, but we should also ask ourselves why? What had Snape done to make Moody suspect he had not turned? What had Severus done to Barty Jnr to inspire the latter to scorn him? One thought I have on that matter is that Snape had a hand in ensuring Barty Jnr would not give evidence that might exonerate Sitius. It could equaslly well be that Severus was pleased enough for Barty Jnr to suffer the Dementor's Kiss because of his own desire to make sure whatever Barty Jnr might have known that was adverse to Snape's own interests would not have been discovered. > Julie: > And as for Snape "snapping"...well, we have seen that happen a couple of times, when Sirius "escaped" in POA, and again after he pulled Harry out of his worst memory in the Penseive. Goddlefrood: I agree with this, but my thought was that the decision made by Snape was a snap decision, influenced by his hatred of Dumbledore. I do not think it likely that Snape would completely lose it, as I acknowledge he has before, in front of a number of Death Eaters. No more nor less than that ;) > Julie > Additionally, the stick point for me with the Tower scene will always--ALWAYS--be Dumbledore's pleading before Snape even reaches him or meets his eyes. Until that can be explained in terms that make true sense for any interpretation but Dumbledore pleading for Snape to "do it", then I will never buy a Tower! Snape who turned suddenly turned evil at the last moment. Goddlefrood: Well, I'm not saying Severus turned suddenly evil. I do not believe he is necessarily evil, just not Dumbledore's man, and simultanewously not LV's man either. Just that he is working ostensibly as a rogue with an influence from another in the background :) I had obviously overlooked including the explanation I have for the words spoken by Dumbledore, sorry about that, when I wrote that up last night I was recovering from some shocking revelations in Desperate Housewives ;). Here and now, I present a further expansion on the "Severus, please" business. Basically Dumbeldore realised at the time Snape appeared that Severus was, in Dumbledore's own mind, bewtraying Dumbeldore. Having this revelation his words were meant as quite simply a question to reconsider what Snape was about to do, vis kill Duymbledore. It was neither pleading nor was it asking to fulfill a promise in other words. I hioe that makes some sense :). It does to me. > Julie: > I got the impression from the books that Irma Pince was > somewhat older than Snape, making it possible for her to > be his mother, but really not possible for her to have been > a schoolmate of his. Besides, she laughed at him. Why > later would Snape be tied to her? Goddlefrood: As many have before you. Unfortunately there is little descriptive material relative to Irma to confirm this either way. Shye could be older or she may be nearer Severus's age, it is not easy to discern. Anyone who wants to convince me otherwise is welcome to try, but I would need descriptors from canon :), and not the booming kind ;) Julie: > Okay I'm going to do this once again. You didn't include the first few sentences of this quote. Here it is again in full: > Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love? > > JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ... Goddlefrood: Thanks, but you'll see that was in one of my earlier posts on this thread :) > Julie: > In other words, her astonishment and promise of an explanation in Book 7 refers to Snape falling in love, NOT to Snape's redemptive pattern (JKR's definitive response to the latter is "It is, isn't it...") > That's my reading anyway, and I'm sticking to it! Goddlefrood: Well, as you say, and that is your entitlement ;) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 19 23:44:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:44:52 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167763 > Goddlefrood: > On Lily first, one thing that I find interesting about Snape > and Lily is that they were most probably in the same NEWT > level Potions class. I have a prediction relative to this, > which is that Lily was responsible for the Potions tips > contained in Snape's copy of Advanced Potions. Snape copied > from her, thus becoming more proficient at Potions himself > to the extent that he is often described in canon as the > Potions Master. zgirnius; I will side with Carol's earlier posts on this subject. In the course of ragging on mistakes made by both Harry and Neville in assorted scenes througout the books, Snape demonstrates that he can tell by the look of a potion exactly when and in what way a student has failed to follow his instructions. This demonstrates that at each step of the process, he understands what effect adding an ingredient or following another instruction will have. This is the sort of knowledge that would permit him to make improvements - that he has it makes me believe he can, and therrfore did. Though I would not rule out collaboration - two such students in one class would, in my opinion, be very interested in the shortcuts and ideas of the other. > Goddlefrood: > Even though there is a very good likelihood that Severus and > Lily were in the same NEWT level Potions class, it is unlikely > that their nexus to each other existed at any level other than > in the classroom. This would be supported by the fact that > Severus and Lily were in different houses and from what we have > been shown there is little interaction between houses except in > class or at Quidditch matches. zgirnius: Percy dates a Ravenclaw, as does Ginny. Neither relationship is Quidditch based. It also seems highly likely that Muggleborn Ted Tonks, the husband of the Slytherin Andromeda (Black) Tonks, was not himself a Slytherin. Based on Nymphadora's age, these folks had to be school sweethearts. Goddlefrood: > It is noted that Severus was saddened by Lily's death, however > the reason for this is more likely to have been because he did > not realise the consequence of what his reporting the partial > prophesy to Voldemort would be than that he was in love with > her, which view I do not favour. zgirnius: Just how saddened is Severus by Lily's death? Some sources relating to the question... > JKR, interview on "60 Minutes:, 2002: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1002-sixtymin-stahl- reedit.html > Q: And what's this? You brought another book I haven't seen. > JKR: Oh yeah, this is so useful for me because I'm not a gardener at all. And my knowledge of plants is not great. I used to collect names of plants that sounded witchy, and then I found this. "Culpeper's Complete Herbal", and it was the answer to my every prayer. flax-weed, toad-flax, flea-wort, gout-wort, gromel, knotgrass, mugwort... just everything you could possibly... you know, so when I'm potioning, I get lost in this for an hour. And the great thing is it actually does tells you what they used to believe it did, so you can really use the right things in the potions you were making up. zgirnius: The point of the above is that Rowling does not choose her real-life Potions ingredients at random. She reseqarches their meanings and uses. And now, the first words Severus ever directed at our hero, Harry. > PS/SS, "The Potions Master": > "Potter!" said Snape suddenly. "What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?" zgirnius: So, what are the meanings, uses, and beliefs surrounding these potions ingredients? > From http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/w/wormwo37.html, > Wormwood: > The Wormwoods are members of the great family of Compositae and belong to the genus Artemisia, a group consisting of 180 species, of which we have four growing wild in England, the Common Wormwood, Mugwort, Sea Wormwood and Field Wormwood. In addition, as garden plants, though not native, Tarragon (A. dracunculus) claims a place in every herb-garden, and Southernwood (A. abrotanum), an old- fashioned favourite, is found in many borders, whilst others, such as A. sericea, A. cana and A. alpina, form pretty rockwork shrubs. > The whole family is remarkable for the extreme bitterness of all parts of the plant: 'as bitter as Wormwood' is a very Ancient proverb. > From http://botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/a/aspho080.html > Asphodel: > Botanical: Asphodelus Ramosus > Family: N.O. Liliaceae > The ancients planted the flowers near tombs, regarding them as the form of food preferred by the dead, and many poems refer to this custom. The name is derived from a Greek word meaning sceptre. zgirnius: And these two ingredients, we learn, are used in the Draught of Living Death. This, from the guy who always wears black. (The traditional color or mourning in Western societies). Somehow, if Severus indeed did have a love of his life, I tend to think the lady is no longer with us, and his feelings about that fact are of a nature he finds especially hard to bear. All this does tend to make me think that she would have to have been Lily, to whose death he unknowingly contributed as a young man. > Goddlefrood: > If Snape was invaluable to Dumbledore, then, as I have said > before, surely he would have been *more* useful away from > Hogwarts than at it, that is after the rebirth of Voldemort. zgirnius: Indeed so. And yet, since the Wizarding World refused at the end of GoF to believe in that return, what we saw in OotP was a sort of Cold War, in which Snape seems to have played a role of some note. (All those reports to the Order, and his sending of the Order to the MoM at the end of the book.) And in HBP, with the war turned hot, Dumbledore gave Snape the teaching position the poor man had been pining for all these years. (Not! As we both agree). The expected outcome of this decision, in my view, coud only have been that it would cause Snape to leave Hogwarts for some more useful location by the end of the school year. Which is exactly what happened. ? Goddlefrood: > A further matter that has been of interest to me, and for which > I have yet to see an explanation is how come Snape seemingly > never figured out that Scabbers was Wormtail and that may bear > further examination. Not by me here and now, but perhaps one > day in the not too distant future I will look into it more > closely again, unless someone wants to offer an explanation, > which would be welcome. zgirnius: A discussion of why he would not have known prior to Spring of PoA has already been presented in response, with which I concur. Is this what you meant, or are you interested in the specifics of what happened in the Shack? > Goddlefrood: > I have stated before that the decision to kill Dumbledore was a > snap one on Severus's part; IOW I do not believe it was part of > any plan between he and Dumbledore. My reasoning? > I apprehend that it gives us a key to his look on the tower, and > this is of course notwithstanding what I said in part 2 (Tobias > & the Angel), in that Snape ultimately blamed Dumbledore for the > prank incident, whether this was a rational belief I will not > say. What I will say is that any time Snape is reminded of the > prank his fury is terrible to behold. Therefore, Severus finally > snapped atop the tower and killed the man he blamed for years of > misery. zgirnius: Any reason why you suppose Snape might have recalled it just at that particular moment? It seems to me he would have had other things on his mind at the time, like, for example, his Unbreakable Vow. Or is it your position that the Vow was as much the reason - the look just explains how he was able to do it? > Goddlefrood: > This is somewhat reinforced by my belief that we have been > misled regarding Irma. I put it to you all that she was the > sniggering little girl in one of the memories Harry had a > glimpse of when breaking into Severus's thoughts in an > Occlumency lesson. zgirnius: Maths are not the strong suit of Ms. Rowling, perhaps. However, I think she has mental images of her characters which have some correspondence to their ages, so that fact that her interviews place Snape in his latter thirties carries a good deal of weight with me. A playmate of Severus would have to be, at the present time in the series, a woman roughly 35-40 years of age. Madam Pince is described in OotP (Chap. 29) as having a "shriveled" face. That seems wrong for a woman of the age you suppose her to be. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 00:05:17 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:05:17 -0000 Subject: LV - Dorian Grey?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167764 Watched Jeopardy tonight and there was an answer that was a quote from a book about a painting of a headmaster that was hanging on a wall and I thought of DD in HP. But to my shock HP was not the answer. The Portrait of Dorian Grey was the answer. I have never read it, so I went to the internet to get a quick summary. Hum??? for those of you who know the story, do you think that this book may have had an influence on Rowling? And if so does it tell us anything about the possible outcome of the books? It talks of a panting and the man???s soul trapped in it that makes his immorality. Just wondering if there is any clue in this work that may help us understand Rowling. What do you think? From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Apr 20 00:26:52 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:26:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1322769462.20070419172652@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167765 Steve: S> Keep in mind that in this case, the 'flesh of a servant' S> doesn't have to be a hand. It could be just the very tip S> of a finger; not even enough to permanently damage the S> finger. Dave: We don't know that such a small quantity of flesh is sufficient. Causing the "willing servant" pain seems to be part of the process. Besides, unlike LV, Harry has *friends*, rather than "servants". Steve: S> The 'blood of an enemy forcibly taken' could S> simply be Draco allowing Ron to forcibly take some of S> his blood. Dave: Isn't "allowing to forcibly take" a contradiction? Steve: S> So, start from that point. Voldemort /kills/ Harry but S> Harry doesn't die. He remains on earth in a bodiless S> form. Now what are you willing to do to get Harry back? Dave: If I were Ron and Hermione, I'd sooner learn how to make a new Philosopher's Stone than resort to such horrible sorcery. And it isn't just the "flesh, blood, and bone" -- Didn't LV mention unicorn blood too? -- I don't think Harry would want his friends to curse themselves for life!! Aside from all of this, I am quite frankly not really keen on this "accidental horcrux" concept -- If Voldemort regenerating his body is so complicated, I imagine encasing a soul requires an equally elaborate ritual. I'm even wondering if Harry might be forced to witness at least part of it before this saga is over... Dave From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 20 00:27:18 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:27:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slightly OT - The books on CD In-Reply-To: <736385.19211.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <736385.19211.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <462808E6.3000906@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167766 Kathryn Lambert wrote: > By the way, while Jim Dale does have experience on Broadway, he is indeed > British. And a LOT of acting experience. His credits include the lyrics to the hit theme song for the movie, Georgy Girl, was a member of the "Carry On" gang, played lead in a number of Shakespearean plays for the British National Theater. I saw him in Barnum and Candide, and thought he was excellent. Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 20 01:12:21 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:12:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV - Dorian Grey?? References: Message-ID: <004901c782e8$f3531380$a28c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167767 Tonks: Hum? for those of you who know the story, do you think that this book may have had an influence on Rowling? And if so does it tell us anything about the possible outcome of the books? It talks of a panting and the man?Ts soul trapped in it that makes his immorality. Just wondering if there is any clue in this work that may help us understand Rowling. What do you think? Magpie: Not much, I don't think. Dorian Gray gets his pointed painted while he's young. As he gets older and falls further into evil, no sign of it shows on him. However, the portrait shows all the signs of his debauched life, getting older and looking evil. STOP HERE IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS FOR THE PORTRAIT OF DORIAN GRAY. In the end Dorian, having murdered again, tries to go back to the time of his life when he was innocent, and he stabs the portrait. Later people find the portrait looking young and beautiful and Dorian an old, wrinkled corpse with the knife in his heart. I would say that Voldemort is obviously the opposite, if we're talking about influence. The signs of his evil show on himself, turning him into a monster. The portrait in Dorian Gray has magical properties, but it's not alive like JKR's portraits. It just looks different, as if it's a regular portrait of what Dorian "really" looks like. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 01:23:52 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:23:52 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167768 > zgirnius; > This is the sort of knowledge that would permit him to make improvements - that he has it makes me believe he can, and therrfore did. Though I would not rule out collaboration - two such students in one class would, in my opinion, be very interested in the shortcuts and ideas of the other. Goddlefrood: Fair enough, I offer an alternative viewpoint, it is not really provable either way. DH may or may not enlighten. For now I only offer Uncle Horace to support what I say, he was highly complimentary of Lily's potions ability. Nary a word relative to Severus, not proof at all obviously but perhaps a little support for my explanation. > zgirnius: > Percy dates a Ravenclaw, as does Ginny. Neither relationship is Quidditch based. It also seems highly likely that Muggleborn Ted Tonks, the husband of the Slytherin Andromeda (Black) Tonks, was not himself a Slytherin. Based on Nymphadora's age, these folks had to be school sweethearts. Goddlefrood: Hardly a fair analogy, I only stated that in general interaction between houses is in the classroom or at Quidditch, if I was not explicit on that, I now am ;) Do we have any evidence for the assertion that Ted Tonks was not a Slytherin. It does seem likely that he was not, I would agree, but is there evidence for it? And, yes, there is interaction between the houses other than in the places I mention. This does not prove whether Lily and Severus spent much time together other than in class, though. It is strongly implied that they would not have. It would be highly unlikely, IMO, if only because Lily was a Gryffindor and at a point we are so far unsure of began dating James. I simply do not believe that Snape loved Lily, sorry, but there it is. > zgirnius: > And these two ingredients, we learn, are used in the Draught of > Living Death. This, from the guy who always wears black. Goddlefrood: The matter in respect of Asphodel or Wormwood, is of interest, particularly to botanists ;). I must, however be missing something, is it that you believe Snape used the draught of living death to sustain someone? Or is it something else? I would greatly appreciate enlightenment :) On this black colour wearing business, yes it is the colour traditionally associated with mourning, but whay does that lend support to any idea that Lily is the one being mourned? Black is also a colour in which certain people believe they look good. Additionally the traditional period of mourning does not typically extend to 15 or more years, fwiw. I do agree, and state it in my part 3 (c) that the reason Snape gave to Dumbledore may well be the reason Dumbledore believes and is enough for DD to trust Severus. It may be unlikely, but DD was a trusting man and believed in second chances. I can not accept that Snape loved Lily, repetitive perhaps, but I feel a need to stress it. I could be wrong, who knows, but on this matter I am confident of not being :) > zgirnius: > A discussion of why he would not have known prior to Spring of PoA has already been presented in response, with which I concur. Is this what you meant, or are you interested in the specifics of what happened in the Shack? Goddlefrood: Not really the latter, no. Snape was hardly in an observant frame of mind in the Shack. He had focused on Sirius and no distractions were about to turn him from that focus. During the period when Severus was conscious in the Shack Scabbers was in Ron's coat, or so I recall. What it really goes to is my thought that Severus, despite his hatred of Sirius, would probably have a good idea that Sirius was not the traitor. He would not have been much of a spy if he were unaware of his fellow Death Eaters' identities, now would he? I am firmly of the view he knew Peter as Wormtail prior to Peter's disappearance. It may simply be a case, though, as suggested earlier by Ceridwen, that Snape did not pay any attention to the pets of the Gryffindors. There probably is little more to it than that. > zgirnius: > Any reason why you suppose Snape might have recalled it just at that particular moment? It seems to me he would have had other things on his mind at the time, like, for example, his Unbreakable Vow. Or is it your position that the Vow was as much the reason - the look just explains how he was able to do it? Goddlefrood: There is a small one, yes. It is also pertinent to the overheard conversation between DD and Snape. Our witness Hagrid. It would fit with that conversation being about Snape wanting out of whatever he was being asked to do because he had lost some respect for DD and his methods. Not really provable, and too little to go on from the snippets reported by Hagrid. DD persuaded him at that point otherwise but the resentment Snape felt was established and would have been reinforced if my opinion that Severus's hatred went back to the prank is anywhere near being correct. The look does explain how he was able to do it and my explanation is for where Severus summoned the hatred to carry it through from. The UV is not something I'm paying too much regard to as I do not see that it would alter my basic premise. That it was most probably a factor, and perhaps quite a large factor, in Severus's decision atop the tower is a point I would not argue against :) > zgirnius: > A playmate of Severus would have to be, at the present time in the series, a woman roughly 35-40 years of age. Madam Pince is described in OotP (Chap. 29) as having a "shriveled" face. That seems wrong for a woman of the age you suppose her to be. Goddlefrood: It does, the "other" behind Severus may be someone else. Or maybe Madam Pince likes Abyssinian Shrivelfigs or has some fondness for aging potions. Why that might be I could not say ;) From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 20 01:29:35 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:29:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? References: Message-ID: <007401c782eb$5b3565a0$a28c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167770 > Goddlefrood: > > Quite right, however they can not be entirely written off either. > Biassed they may be, but we should also ask ourselves why? What > had Snape done to make Moody suspect he had not turned? What had > Severus done to Barty Jnr to inspire the latter to scorn him? Magpie: These things we do know. The motivation that Barty Junior is giving to Moody and that Snape believes is what he says--a leopard doesn't change its spots. As a paranoid person, of course Moody doesn't trust an ex-DE would ever really become good. As to what Severus did to Barty, we know that too. He abandoned Voldemort. Barty is speaking his own opinion when he says he hates DEs who walked free. He puts it in Moody's mouth knowing that as an Auror who captures them he, too, would hate them because they escaped justice. There doesn't have to be anything personal between Snape and Barty. There doesn't seem to be, except that they both know the other was a DE. > Goddlefrood: > Here and now, I present a further expansion on the "Severus, > please" business. Basically Dumbeldore realised at the time > Snape appeared that Severus was, in Dumbledore's own mind, > bewtraying Dumbeldore. Magpie: But Dumbledore isn't reacting to anything. He's got no reason to think Snape has betrayed him. Snape's only just walked in when Dumbledore starts pleading, and the "Severus, please," is a continuation of that. I think all the impressions of the characters we get in this scene are carefully chosen to tell us what's going on, even if we don't get it yet. Since Dumbdore is said to be pleading and then says words that are pleading, I think we have to go with the pleading, pleading that can't, as far as I see, be in response to Dumbledore realizing that Snape has betrayed him because there's no moment for him to have that realization. > Goddlefrood: > > As many have before you. Unfortunately there is little descriptive > material relative to Irma to confirm this either way. Shye could > be older or she may be nearer Severus's age, it is not easy to > discern. Anyone who wants to convince me otherwise is welcome to > try, but I would need descriptors from canon :), and not the > booming kind ;) Magpie: Has Snape ever had a scene with Madam Pince? I can't believe JKR wouldn't have stuck in clues of connection by having at least throwaway scenes where Harry sees them reacting to each other that we can go back and revisit. Otherwise it seems like a kind of pointless revelation. Why would it matter one way or the other if Irma Pince (who does seem older than Snape to me) laughed at him as a kid? (Or was his mother, imo.) -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 01:44:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:44:07 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: <007401c782eb$5b3565a0$a28c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167771 > > Goddlefrood: > > > Here and now, I present a further expansion on the "Severus, > > please" business. Basically Dumbeldore realised at the time > > Snape appeared that Severus was, in Dumbledore's own mind, > > bewtraying Dumbeldore. > > Magpie: > But Dumbledore isn't reacting to anything. He's got no reason to think Snape > has betrayed him. Snape's only just walked in when Dumbledore starts > pleading, and the "Severus, please," is a continuation of that. I think all > the impressions of the characters we get in this scene are carefully chosen > to tell us what's going on, even if we don't get it yet. Since Dumbdore is > said to be pleading and then says words that are pleading, I think we have > to go with the pleading, pleading that can't, as far as I see, be in > response to Dumbledore realizing that Snape has betrayed him because there's > no moment for him to have that realization. Alla: Is there no time for Dumbledore to realise that Snape had betrayed him though? See that is the reason why I am not buying this argument - there are pretty good indications that Dumbledore is a strong Legilimenc as well, yes? Snape is **there** on the scene. Do we know that Legilimency only works when you look subject in the eye? I mean, we had been shown that it often works like that, but we specifically had not been given explanations how it works in details, IMO. So, what I am trying to say is that I think that it is very possible that strong Legilimenc can pick up subject emotional state without looking him in the eyes. I mean, yes, Dumbledore often looks Harry in the eyes, but those are situations when he has the luxury to do so IMO, to double check etc. I am not even sure if Dumbledore had to do any spells when Snape showed up on the Tower. Wearing emotions on his sleeve, anyone? Maybe Snape emotional state was like smell coming from him, etc. Speculative? Sure, but I believe that possibility is valid and certainly no more speculative than some other possibilities. So, I am coming back to Sigune essay again and say that Dumbledore pleading can really really mean please Severus, please do not tell me that my trust in you was in vain. Of course it can also mean "please take me and not Harry", my other favorite. In short, I do not think that Dumbledore pleading proves in any way shape or form that Snape is DD!M. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Apr 20 02:03:34 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:03:34 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167772 Dana: > This was in front of Harry in the hospital wing. Do you > really think Harry is too stupid to understand what DD > is asking of Snape? He is not sending Snape to gather > Order Members because he has just send Sirius to do that. > And he just witnessed Snape show Fudge his Dark Mark. houyhnhnm: In March, Harry *surmised* that Snape was spying on Death Eaters and Snape confirmed it. Seven months earlier, when he was staying at Grimmauld Place (let alone the night he came back from the graveyard), Harry hadn't gotten nearly that far. Carol has already provided the canon, so I won't repeat it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167745 I think the statement that anyone "knows" is a perilous statement to make in the Potterverse. Many characters think they know, the readers think they know, but time and time again, it turns out that seeing is not believing. >From Snape's hexing of Harry's broom to Buckbeak's execution to Crouch's empty seat, things are not always as they appear to be. "What is truth and how do we know it" is what fascinates in the Harry Potter saga. It is the meta-topic of all Harry Potter discussions. And as Dumbledore says, " The truth is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 20 02:13:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:13:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? References: Message-ID: <009d01c782f1$775aff50$a28c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167773 >> Magpie: >> But Dumbledore isn't reacting to anything. He's got no reason to > think Snape >> has betrayed him. Snape's only just walked in when Dumbledore > starts >> pleading, and the "Severus, please," is a continuation of that. I > think all >> the impressions of the characters we get in this scene are > carefully chosen >> to tell us what's going on, even if we don't get it yet. Since > Dumbdore is >> said to be pleading and then says words that are pleading, I think > we have >> to go with the pleading, pleading that can't, as far as I see, be > in >> response to Dumbledore realizing that Snape has betrayed him > because there's >> no moment for him to have that realization. > > > Alla: > > Is there no time for Dumbledore to realise that Snape had betrayed > him though? Magpie: Not that I can see, no. Not if Dumbledore didn't think he'd betrayed him earlier. All Snape does is walk into the room. In terms of conflict, it's would a huge jump of a conflict rather than a rising one. Snape's got every reason to be walking into the room--Dumbledore even wanted him there moments before. This would be a major revelation for Dumbledore here. It would show. Alla: > > See that is the reason why I am not buying this argument - there are > pretty good indications that Dumbledore is a strong Legilimenc as > well, yes? > > Snape is **there** on the scene. Do we know that Legilimency only > works when you look subject in the eye? I mean, we had been shown > that it often works like that, but we specifically had not been > given explanations how it works in details, IMO. Magpie: Luckily Snape's a superb Occlumens, which cancels that out.:-) And even if he wasn't, we don't see Dumbledore have any sort of revelation. There's no dawning horror. Even if this were happening silently it would still be happening. I do think we do have to go with the "eye contact" idea since it seemed to be established in OotP--again, luckily imo, because all Legilimancy would do in that scene would mean they would have to go through the exact same transition, but in silence. It doesn't, imo, let us skip over important transitions. Alla:> > So, what I am trying to say is that I think that it is very possible > that strong Legilimenc can pick up subject emotional state without > looking him in the eyes. Magpie: My two problems with this are that first, there's still no sign of Dumbledore transitioning from relief or whatever he was supposed to feel when he saw Snape, to horror at his betrayal. If he's been betrayed by Snape, that's a big thing. Imagine if this were Harry and Ron in the scene if Harry was the brilliant Legimens. Even if he "picked up on" Ron's emotional state, would he really flip that quickly, straight from relief at seeing Ron to pleading with him to kill him? And secondly, I think it would be incredibly lame.:-) I don't mean your suggestion that Dumbledore has been betrayed is lame, but that writing the scene that way would be. And completely in conflict with the way JKR usually writes her scenes. Think, for instance, of scenes where Harry realizes he's been betrayed in GoF. It takes him a series of steps to come to accept that Moody is a bad guy, and that Ron is picking a fight. I don' t think JKR would handwave over that important a moment in a scene by saying Dumbledore just knows Snape's a traitor now where 10 seconds ago he didn't. If it was writen via Legilimancy, I think she'd write it so that we didn't need the words. Alla: > Wearing emotions on his sleeve, anyone? Maybe Snape emotional state > was like smell coming from him, etc. Magpie: Not according to canon. He just walks in and sweeps his gaze around the room. The narrator/Harry immediately notices something different about Dumbledore, but Snape looks just as usual at first. Plus, while something like "really angry" might come off him like a bad smell, I don't think "I have just betrayed my mentor and decided to side back with these guys I used to be with" is clear enough to be an emotion. That's not to say I'm right about what side Snape's on--I don't have my own detailed version of what's going on in the scene to go up against it. I just don't see how Dumbledore realizing he's been betrayed in this scene happened. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 02:56:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:56:52 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167774 > Goddlefrood: > > For now I only > offer Uncle Horace to support what I say, he was highly > complimentary of Lily's potions ability. Nary a word relative > to Severus, not proof at all obviously but perhaps a little > support for my explanation. zgirnius: That Sluggie does not praise Snape in the context of Harry's Potions classes does not seem indicative to me. Mentioning Lily seems by far the more effective tactic to try and 'collect' Harry, so his use of it does not surprise me. We have only one scene of Snape and Sluggie interacting, at the Christmas party. There, Slughorn seems to compliment Snape twice. He credits him with some responsibility for Harry's extraordinary Potions skills (an accomplishment Snape denies any responsibility for) and later, when explaining to Snape how phenomenal Harry's first attempt to brew Draught of Living Death was, seems to imply that the other outstanding attempt to which he naturally compares it was Snape's own. > HBP, "The Unbreakable Vow": > "I was just talking about Harry's exceptional potion-making! Some credit must go to you, of course, you taught him for five years!" zgirnius: I must add that this line, and Snape's rejoinder, is quite funny if Snape created the potions improvements himself. > HBP, "The Unbreakable Vow": > "You should have seen what he gave me first lesson, Draught of Living Death - never had a student produce finer on a first attempt, I don't think even you, Severus - " zgirnius: Presumably Snape could not have seen Lily make this potion before the first time it was assigned (unless you grant me they had a relationship outside of class before the NEWT year, a position I do not myself hold). And yet Snape made a memorably fine first attempt at it. It seems to me that the one time Sluggie absolutely would have *had* to say something if Snape were a potions genius, he does. Not that this proves anything (other than that Snape is good at potions, which we already know). > Goddlefrood: > > Hardly a fair analogy, I only stated that in general interaction > between houses is in the classroom or at Quidditch, if I was not > explicit on that, I now am ;) zgirnius: You stated : > > Goddlefrood, previously: > > it is unlikely that their nexus to each other existed at any level other than in the classroom. This would be supported by the fact that Severus and Lily were in different houses and from what we have been shown there is little interaction between houses except in class or at Quidditch matches. zgirnius: I gave three examples of possible cross-house relationships, which involved the parties to them seeing each other during their free hours. There is also Hermione meeting with Victor in the library and the rose garden. And of course, I forgot the big one, Harry/Cho. Quidditch brought them to one another's attention (as I would imagine class brought Lily and Snape to one another's) but that relationship was pursued in Hogsmeade and other non-class locations. We also see cross-house platonic friendships, notably those of Luna with Ginny and Harry. Harry and Luna share no classes and Luna does not play Quidditch. I just don't see evidence that if attraction occurs across house lines, people nonetheless stay away from one another. You don't believe there was any attraction or friendhsip - fair enough. It just seems to me that if there had been, the different houses need not have been an issue. > Goddlefrood: > Do we have any evidence for the assertion that Ted Tonks was not a > Slytherin. It does seem likely that he was not, I would agree, but > is there evidence for it? zgirnius: No, unless you consider the Sorting Hat's stated selection criteria for Slytherin evidence. Muggleborn is even further from pure blood than half-blood is. > Goddlefrood: > It is > strongly implied that they would not have. It would be highly > unlikely, IMO, if only because Lily was a Gryffindor and at a > point we are so far unsure of began dating James. zgirnius: We do know. James and Lily started dating in the seventh year. Which leaves sixth year wide open for Lily, the pretty, popular girl. Not that I think she dated Snape. But they might have had chats in the library or walks on the grounds. > OotP, "Career Advice": > 'How come she married him?' Harry asked miserably. 'She hated him!' > 'Nah, she didn't,' said Sirius. > 'She started going out with him in seventh year,' said Lupin. > Goddlefrood: > > The matter in respect of Asphodel or Wormwood, is of interest, > particularly to botanists ;). I must, however be missing > something, is it that you believe Snape used the draught of > living death to sustain someone? Or is it something else? I > would greatly appreciate enlightenment :) zgirnius: Sure. If Rowling's backstory for Snape involves him having loved Lily, she knew that when she wrote the lines I cited. Her choice of this potion and these ingredients would be symbolic of what she already knows about his character, and we are still guessing. For the purposes of embarassing Harry, it could have been any potion in the world with any ingredients. But she chose that one. "Death and a Lily" and "Bitterness" over it have reduced Snape's life to a "living death", in short. Could be a coincidence, I suppose. But despite my initial lack of enthusiasm for the idea that Snape loved Lily, I am pretty convinced of it after reading HBP. And it has grown on me. > Goddlefrood: > On this black colour wearing business, yes it is the colour > traditionally associated with mourning, but whay does that lend > support to any idea that Lily is the one being mourned? Black is > also a colour in which certain people believe they look good. zgirnius: Snape does have the right coloring for black, actually. Sallow, dark eyes and hair, check. He seems to lack the interest in fashion to be wearing if for this reason, however. My reason for thinking it is Lily is the bitterness (that he was responsible makes it worse - we know of no other females whose deaths Snape had brought about by the time of PS/SS, though naturally one could be produced from a closet somewhere in DH). And that Asphodel is a Lily. > Goddlefrood: > Additionally the traditional period of mourning does not typically > extend to 15 or more years, fwiw. zgirnius: I suppose noone had the nerve to tell the late Queen Victoria? > Goddlefrood: > What it really goes to is my thought that Severus, despite his > hatred of Sirius, would probably have a good idea that Sirius > was not the traitor. He would not have been much of a spy if he > were unaware of his fellow Death Eaters' identities, now would he? zgirnius: Ah, I see. In that case I do have something to add. Karkaroff in his hearing named a total of six Death Eaters, while explaining that the Death Eaters knew only a limited number of their fellows' identities. That Snape was one of them, suggests that they may have been in the same operational unit and thus knew each other to be Death Eaters. (Neither here nor there, but if Snape did know all those same guys, the high rate of incarceration and/or death in this particular group might have something to do with him). Karkaroff did not name Peter, though it is clear he would not know of Peter's supposed death, he has been kept in ignorance of the deaths of others such as Rosier. Further, if Voldemort ever read a spy novel, he would realize that if he has two spies spying on the same person (in this case, Peter and Snape, both spying on Dumbledore), by keeping them in ignorance of each other, he would have a cross check on the information each provides to verify that neither is lying or holding back. And Peter was a very valuable spy - I think few knew his identity. > Goddlefrood: > > There is a small one, yes. It is also pertinent to the overheard > conversation between DD and Snape. Our witness Hagrid. It would > fit with that conversation being about Snape wanting out of > whatever he was being asked to do because he had lost some respect > for DD and his methods. zgirnius: I guess I just don't see why the old wounds would be coming up in HBP. I could see Snape blaming Dumbledore as you suggest, but don't see what was bringing this to a head in HBP, unless you are suggesting the general stressfulness of the situation, which I would have to agree was generally stressful. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 03:12:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:12:57 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167775 > > Goddlefrood: > > > > There is a small one, yes. It is also pertinent to the overheard > > conversation between DD and Snape. Our witness Hagrid. It would > > fit with that conversation being about Snape wanting out of > > whatever he was being asked to do because he had lost some respect > > for DD and his methods. > > zgirnius: > I guess I just don't see why the old wounds would be coming up in > HBP. I could see Snape blaming Dumbledore as you suggest, but don't > see what was bringing this to a head in HBP, unless you are > suggesting the general stressfulness of the situation, which I would > have to agree was generally stressful. Alla: LOL, Zara. You don't see why the old wounds would be coming up in HBP? I think the fact that Snape brings up James on the tower, where events occurred had no relation to James whatsoever could be pretty good indication that old wounds or should I say Snape's little obsession with James and his son IS there all the time. I know you were saying it about DD - in regards to Gavin's assertion, but it seems to me that step to make from Snape's continuous hatred of marauders to his dissapointment with DD is not a large one. I mean, really Snape **hopes** that DD would not interfere in PoA, does he not? DD of course interferes and helps saving Sirius. Greasy git really does not look too happy to me. He reminds DD that Sirius tried to kill **him** What does he get in responce? My memory is as good as ever. I can totally see Snape growing pissed at DD more and more and more and then deciding to abandon any gratitude to the man who saved his neck from Azkaban, because this man dared to stop the execution of the man, whom Snape dearest wanted dead. That is of course not one flavour of Snape that I can see, but this one is soooo plausible to me. IMO of course. Alla, who still thinks that it is possible that Snape's grudge was, is and will be the main motivation of his behaviour. From Mhochberg at aol.com Fri Apr 20 03:18:00 2007 From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:18:00 EDT Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167776 bboyminn: Here's the thing, this unlikely theory assumes that Harry has no idea that a Horcrux exists for him. When Voldemort cast the killing curse against him, Harry full expects to die. But what happens if he doesn't? What happens if Harry is trapped in the in-between world of 'vapor!Harry'What happens if Harry is trapped in the in-between world of 'vapor!Harry'? He is unable to cross over to his 'eternal reward', and is unable to manifes Now starting from this point, what are you willing to do to get Harry back? What are you willing to assist Harry in doing, for Harry to return to defeat Voldemort? Keep in mind that in this case, the 'flesh of a servant' doesn't have to be a hand. It could be just the very tip of a finger; not even enough to permanently damage the finger. The 'blood of an enemy forcibly taken' could simply be Draco allowing Ron to forcibly take some of his blood. There really is a range of gray here that needs to be considered. So, start from that point. Voldemort /kills/ Harry but Harry doesn't die. He remains on earth in a bodiless form. Now what are you willing to do to get Harry back? How dark does 'Blood, Flesh & Bone' seem in this context? ~~~~ Steve, this is a very interesting theory on several levels. The first thought that comes to mind is that it would be a set up for at least one more book, if not a whole series of books. Not-quite-dead Harry would make an interesting part of the trio! This would take the books to a different level of maturity. Handled well, though, it could make for some very interesting reading. I like the idea of shades of gray. On the other hand, if she decides to kill off Harry, this could be a good way to revive him, similar to Conan Doyle bringing back Holmes. Thanks for suggesting it. ---Mary, wondering just what dis-embodied Harry would do for 5 or 10 years. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 03:30:39 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:30:39 -0000 Subject: Snape name mentioned in OOP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > So, to make a long story short. I just want to make sure that I did > not dream it up and asking people who know OOP better than me ( as I > said, I barely reread this book, actually I do not remember when I > reread it last time - sooooo not a case with other books). Is there a > situation when somebody giving report to the Order and that somebody > is not mentioned by name? zanooda: You probably mean the meeting that was going on when Harry and the Advance Guard arrived to 12 GP. When Molly came to meet them, she said:" He's just arrived, the meeting's started..." (p.61 US hardcover). That's what you meant, right? A little later, after Harry finished shouting, the Twins informed him that Snape was at the headquarters, "giving a report" (p.69) and Harry saw Snape downstairs surrounded by the Order members. It seams logical to assume that Snape was a "he" that Molly mentioned. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 03:38:01 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:38:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50704191148r5a38bf6ave4ba8fda8065f8f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704192038q9fecfe7s717f89e19e62eb23@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167778 > Hickengruendler: > > What do you think he wanted to do with it? Taking it for a walk? The > Basilisk is said to be the Deadliest creature, and Riddle searched for > the Chamber for years, because he wanted to finish Salazar Slytherin's > work, as he called it himself. Salazar Slytherin's work, according to > the legend, was to rid Hogwarts of all Muggleborns. There can be no > doubt about Tom Riddle's intentions. Random832: "to rid Hogwarts of all Muggleborns" can be accomplished through intimidation, which doesn't seem to be a crime under Wizarding law. > Julie: > The student who tossed it into the room knew it was deadly. > He knew what could--and likely would--happen. He's guilty. Of negligence. (and, Riddle had, as far as i can tell, no idea there was anyone in the bathroom) --Random832 From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 03:43:34 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:43:34 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: <1322769462.20070419172652@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167779 Dave: > Causing the "willing servant" pain seems to be part of the process. > Besides, unlike LV, Harry has *friends*, rather than "servants". JW: Dobby gleefully chooses to assist Harry in any way possible. IMHO, Dobby could thus be considered a servant. Besides, we haven't heard of any house elves with missing limbs or other body parts. Perhaps "elf magic" includes spontaneous regeneration, to compensate for occupational accidents. > Dave: > Isn't "allowing to forcibly take" a contradiction? JW: One would think so, wouldn't one? So strike "allowing to." From whom would someone try to forceably take blood? Snape? Any Malfoy? > > > Dave: > If Voldemort > regenerating his body is so complicated, I imagine > encasing a soul requires an equally elaborate ritual. I'm even > wondering if Harry might be forced to witness at least part of it > before this saga is over... JW: I have no idea why HP would need to witness the encasement of a soul. However, he DID participate in LV's re-embodiment, and with help from Ron & Hermione could probably perform it. However, I agree that there are huge holes and inconsistencies in Harry Arisen's variation on the "unintentional horcrux" hypothesis. However, let's give him a chance to support it with canonical facts. I am curious to see if he can develope his conjecture into a theory. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Apr 20 03:55:25 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:55:25 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167780 > > Julie: > > > And as for Snape "snapping"...well, we have seen that happen > a couple of times, when Sirius "escaped" in POA, and again after > he pulled Harry out of his worst memory in the Penseive. > > Goddlefrood: > > I agree with this, but my thought was that the decision made by > Snape was a snap decision, influenced by his hatred of Dumbledore. > I do not think it likely that Snape would completely lose it, as > I acknowledge he has before, in front of a number of Death Eaters. > No more nor less than that ;) Julie again: If it was a snap decision, I'd still expect Snape's behavior to reflect that fact. If he suddenly and silently made the snap decision that his hatred for Dumbledore had become too overwhelming to let the old geezer live, the Snape I know would certainly say so. I mean, when has Snape EVER remained silent when he had an opportunity to utter a scathing remark? Here with the Death Eaters watching, he has the perfect moment if he's decided to take out the hated old man who's pushed him too far one too many times. And why shouldn't he lose it, at least verbally, in front of a number of Death Eaters? If he excoriates Dumbledore while killing him, he'll only cement their belief in his loyalty to Voldemort. > > Julie > > > Additionally, the stick point for me with the Tower scene > will always--ALWAYS--be Dumbledore's pleading before Snape even > reaches him or meets his eyes. Until that can be explained in > terms that make true sense for any interpretation but Dumbledore > pleading for Snape to "do it", then I will never buy a Tower! > Snape who turned suddenly turned evil at the last moment. > > Goddlefrood: > > Well, I'm not saying Severus turned suddenly evil. I do not > believe he is necessarily evil, just not Dumbledore's man, and > simultanewously not LV's man either. Just that he is working > ostensibly as a rogue with an influence from another in the > background :) > > I had obviously overlooked including the explanation I have for > the words spoken by Dumbledore, sorry about that, when I wrote > that up last night I was recovering from some shocking revelations > in Desperate Housewives ;). > > Here and now, I present a further expansion on the "Severus, > please" business. Basically Dumbeldore realised at the time > Snape appeared that Severus was, in Dumbledore's own mind, > bewtraying Dumbeldore. Having this revelation his words were > meant as quite simply a question to reconsider what Snape was > about to do, vis kill Duymbledore. It was neither pleading nor > was it asking to fulfill a promise in other words. I hioe that > makes some sense :). It does to me. Julie again: It doesn't make sense to me. You're implying that Dumbledore can read Snape's mind when Snape is expressionless and not even looking at him (as is the case with Dumbledore's first pleading "please"). He wanted Harry to get Snape originally, he knew Snape was there at Hogwarts, the DEs had invaded and it was chaos, so he expected...what? That Snape WASN'T going to make an appearance because he was busy brewing a delicate potion and couldn't be disturbed? No, Snape was going to make an appearance under these circumstances. And Dumbledore pleading before Snape even has a reaction or eye contact means Dumbledore is pleading for Snape to do (or not do) something they've *already* discussed. That's all it can logically mean, unless Dumbledore is proficient at the previously unknown skill of Wizardly ESP. I suppose JKR could write it your way, with Snape not venting his feelings, something that is totally out of character for him, and Dumbledore doing ESP on Snape and then pleading in a deliberately converse manner (not "Please don't do this" but just "Please..."). But if she did write it that way, she'll have played us very deliberately just for the fun of tricking us, and I'll be quite disappointed. IMO of course. > > Julie: > > Okay I'm going to do this once again. You didn't include the > first few sentences of this quote. Here it is again in full: > > > Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet > correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love? > > > > JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that > is a very horrible idea. Erm ... > > Goddlefrood: > > Thanks, but you'll see that was in one of my earlier posts on > this thread :) > > > Julie: > > > In other words, her astonishment and promise of an explanation > in Book 7 refers to Snape falling in love, NOT to Snape's > redemptive pattern (JKR's definitive response to the latter is > "It is, isn't it...") > > > That's my reading anyway, and I'm sticking to it! > > Goddlefrood: > > Well, as you say, and that is your entitlement ;) > Julie again: So you think when JKR said "you" directly to Lydon, and then a moment later said "*Whoever* asked that question..." she was also refering to Lydon, the person she was talking directly to? Maybe I need to rein in my inner Ravenclaw (or my inner Spock), but I can't help being stymied by the illogic! I know in real life people do break up sentences and insert tangential comments and so on when they speak. But this would be a bit beyond the norm. Julie From va32h at comcast.net Fri Apr 20 04:27:44 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:27:44 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167781 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Here's the thing, this unlikely theory assumes that Harry > has no idea that a Horcrux exists for him. When Voldemort > cast the killing curse against him, Harry full expects > to die. But what happens if he doesn't? va32h: Harry not knowing he has a horcrux wouldn't change the idea of the resurrection potion being a piece of very dark magic, of which Harry would want no part. At least not Harry as I understand him. Steve here: > What happens if Harry is trapped in the in-between world > of 'vapor!Harry'? He is unable to cross over to his > 'eternal reward', and is unable to manifest himself in > the material world. Is that really how you want Harry to > remain? > > Now starting from this point, what are you willing to do > to get Harry back? What are you willing to assist Harry > in doing, for Harry to return to defeat Voldemort? va32h here: Well it doesn't really matter what I want does it? What would Harry want? I cannot believe that Harry would either want, or allow, his friends to participate in an act of Dark magic to bring him back. Even to defeat Voldemort - I don't think JKR would throw in a "two wrongs do make a right after all" at this point in the story. Harry's greatest weapon is his inability to fight evil with evil, but to fight it with love insteand. Voldemort, in his vaporous state, could still possess people, so if we are simply talking about defeating Voldie - Harry could do that via possession, and not need to create a new body. Steve here: > Keep in mind that in this case, the 'flesh of a servant' > doesn't have to be a hand. It could be just the very tip > of a finger; not even enough to permanently damage the > finger. The 'blood of an enemy forcibly taken' could > simply be Draco allowing Ron to forcibly take some of > his blood. There really is a range of gray here that > needs to be considered. > > So, start from that point. Voldemort /kills/ Harry but > Harry doesn't die. He remains on earth in a bodiless > form. Now what are you willing to do to get Harry back? > > How dark does 'Blood, Flesh & Bone' seem in this context? va32h here: Still plenty dark. I really don't see a gray area...Harry's power to fight Voldemort comes from his pure, soul, and he will lose that power if he resorts to dark magic. va32h From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Apr 20 04:54:57 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:54:57 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167782 > Julie: > concept that Snape was in fact concerned about their safety has > more canon support--DD's word--than that he was only concerned > with satisfying his debt to James Potter (which DD doesn't even > mention in relation to Snape switching sides, and hasn't referenced > once since the single comment in PS/SS). Dana: HBP pg 513 UKed Paperback 'You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry.' 'I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the *reason* that he returned-' Juli: Of course you can say DD is lying if you like. > Dana: I do not call DD a liar but I have seen many people suggest, he was not honest, while he actually tells Harry he believed it was the reason for Snape's return. Dana From juli17 at aol.com Fri Apr 20 05:25:41 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:25:41 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167783 > > > Julie: > > > concept that Snape was in fact concerned about their safety has > > more canon support--DD's word--than that he was only concerned > > with satisfying his debt to James Potter (which DD doesn't even > > mention in relation to Snape switching sides, and hasn't referenced > > once since the single comment in PS/SS). > > Dana: > > HBP pg 513 UKed Paperback > > 'You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he > realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry.' > 'I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the *reason* > that he returned-' Julie: Thanks for the full canon quote supporting my position. If that's why you posted it? DD doesn't mention the debt, but he does note Snape's remorse, and his belief that relaying the prophecy was the greatest regret of Snape's life. Or am I missing something else you see implied in DD's words? > Juli: > Of course you can say DD is lying if you like. > > > Dana: > > I do not call DD a liar but I have seen many people suggest, he was > not honest, while he actually tells Harry he believed it was the > reason for Snape's return. > Julie: Oddly I agree with you here. But I think DD isn't telling Harry the *whole* story. DD tends to lie by omission, not by telling outright untruths. I don't believe he'd tell Harry that Snape felt great remorse if he didn't truly believe it himself. Which brings us back to BlindOldFool!Dumbledore if Snape invented his remorseful tale and DD fell for it hook, line and sinker. I don't buy that Dumbledore either. Julie From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Apr 20 05:59:12 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:59:12 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167784 Dana before: > > HBP pg 513 UKed Paperback > > > > 'You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he > > realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry.' > > 'I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the > *reason* > > that he returned-' > Julie: > Thanks for the full canon quote supporting my position. If > that's why you posted it? DD doesn't mention the debt, but > he does note Snape's remorse, and his belief that relaying > the prophecy was the greatest regret of Snape's life. Or > am I missing something else you see implied in DD's words? Dana now: Yes, You missed something because it doesn't say Snape regretted bringing the prophecy to LV but only on *HOW* LV interpreted the prophecy. HBP pg 512 UKed 'Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's Prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply. But he could not know - he had no possible way of knowing - which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onwards, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father-' End quote from canon. Of course you can read it anyway you want but Snape did not defect, when LV was murdering other families, before the prophecy was made and he hated James with a vengeance. And in PS DD, only assessed Snape trying to safe Harry's life because he wanted to settle the score with James, not that he was so concerned with Harry for Harry. So we have to assume these two things are not related because Snape was so concerned LV was going to kill people (He has been doing nothing else) and not just because the choice of *who* LV was going to kill? > Julie: > Oddly I agree with you here. But I think DD isn't telling > Harry the *whole* story. DD tends to lie by omission, not > by telling outright untruths. I don't believe he'd tell Harry > that Snape felt great remorse if he didn't truly believe it > himself. Which brings us back to BlindOldFool!Dumbledore > if Snape invented his remorseful tale and DD fell for it > hook, line and sinker. I don't buy that Dumbledore either. Dana: Yes, that figures because it is always DD not being honest or omitting things, when it concerns Snape, because forward reading just does not seemed to cut Snape any slag. JMHO Dana From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 20 06:58:01 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:58:01 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > This thought just popped into my head, and I thought I > would pass it on. I'm not even sure I believe it, but it > is something to think about. > > This came up from the "Harry and his Parent's Graves" > thread. It occurs to me that if we now know the location > of Harry parent's graves, then we know the location of > the 'Bones of His Father'. We also know from experience > what those bone can be used for. Geoff: Much as I appreciate your postings, Steve, and often read them with great interest, I can't really see any canon evidence on which you could base a theory like this. And, like other contributors, this sails too close to the wind in terms of Dark Magic for my liking. Am I just being thicker than usual? Geoff PS Don't answer the last question..... From aslitumerkan at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 05:13:37 2007 From: aslitumerkan at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-9?Q?Asl=FD_T=FCmerkan?=) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:13:37 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV - Dorian Grey?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6467e1f0704192213u6673efcdrb8f2c60a3ec935a7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167786 Maybe it influenced her a little, the horcrux idea could have come from there. Although I don't think it gives us any information_about possible outcomes. It may show that LV is corrupted and becoming a more terrible person every day is due to the horcruxes- we already knew that I think. And the end of the book may give a clue, but I think we already know that also, and I don't want to give a spoiler here. Hope somebody else finds a clue though. Asli [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 09:20:26 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:20:26 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167787 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167770 > Magpie: > These things we do know. The motivation that Barty Junior is giving to Moodyand that Snape believes is what he says--a leopard doesn't change its spots. As a paranoid person, of course Moody doesn't trust an ex-DE would ever really become good. Goddlefrood: I'll grant you the latter, Moody is paranoid, but having said that, at the point in the Pensieve scenes where he says this aside we can not know that he was as paranoid as he is in canon some 13 or 14 years later. He still had an intact nose for a start, but that may be of little significanace to his paranoia. On Barty Jnr though I beg to differ. We do not know his thoughts on Severus, other than his resentment of any Death eater who escaped a stint in Azkaban (from someone who did in fact escape a full stint himself :)). He was certainly a clever mimic of Moody, he had most of us fooled, I'll wager, but on rereading and knowing what is to come a different light was cast, for me at least, on his comments during The Egg and The Eye. My extrapolation of Barty Jnr's word relative to Leopards not changing their spots is that it is more expressive of Barty Jnr's own opinion, rather than Moody's. Of course that does not mean I entirely disagree with you :). I just mean that we can't really know whether Barty Jnr and Snape at some point back in the day had some deeper enmity. > Magpie: > But Dumbledore isn't reacting to anything. He's got no reason to think Snape has betrayed him. Goddlefrood: Here's somewhere we differ. I do have a little snippet for you: '... the door to the ramparts burst open once more and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to the four Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and Malfoy.' ... 'Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore and there was revulsion and hatred on etched in the harsh lines of his face' Both from p. 556 - HBP, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition. The pleading occurs between the two. The possibility, although perhaps slight, exists that when Snape swept the room Dumbledore caught his eye for just long enough to read the hatred in Severus at that time. The mask of Occlumency had slipped for those few moments on the tower due to Snape's boiling anger, which he contained to the extent of showing it in no more way than the revolted, hating look on his face. There was no time for his trademark tirade, IOW :) Of course, I'm well aware that this can be argued either way, the beauty of discussion is that this is the case and one reason for our shared view that Snape is an interesting and difficult to fathom character. I have stated in an earlier post of today (for me) some reasons behind DD's possible realisation that he has been betrayed. These, IMO, stand up to some scrutiny. > Magpie: > Has Snape ever had a scene with Madam Pince? Goddlefrood: This gave me pause, and then I trawled the books for references. There is only one reference to them in close proximity (textwise, not physically). Here it is: 'Wishing he'd been a bit quicker at thinking up some story, Harry left the library. He, Ron, and Hermione had already agreed they'd better not ask Madam Pince where they could find Flamel. They were sure she'd be able to tell them, but they couldn't risk Snape hearing what they were up to.' p. 146 - PS, Blomsbury Paperback Edition It is sugestive of a link, however tenuous, between Irma and Severus, in that the first person thought of to be reported to by the librarian from HRH's perspective was the man himself. A little ridiculous perhaps, but then there are also quite a number of references throughout the books to Severus being in or proximate to the library. That there is no further clue does not disprove the matter. We have been blindsided before. I am not confident of the link between Irma and Severus, but I do have confidence about the basic theory, which is that someone other than the usual suspects is influencing Snape's actions. She could, as indicated, also be his mother or sister or even some other female relative. Of course one intriguing possible link between Irma and Severus is that they have both at times in canon been compared to vultures :). There is a little more, this from An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp 2nd August 2006: "JK Rowling: I thought you were going to attack me for Madam Pince and I would like to apologize for you and any other librarians (crowd laughs) present here today and my get-out clause is always if they'd had a pleasant, helpful librarian, half my plots would be gone. 'Cause the answer invariably is in a book but Hermione has to go and find it. If they'd had a good librarian, that would have been that problem solved. So, sorry." Extracted from: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html Not much there, but that's about all I could find on this matter of a link. This quote suggests to me that her disposition is not dissimilar to Snape's, fwiw. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167773 > > Alla: > > Is there no time for Dumbledore to realise that Snape had betrayed him though? Goddlefrood: Well, see above, it is fleeting, but it is there. > Magpie: > Luckily Snape's a superb Occlumens, which cancels that out.:-) Goddlefrood: Perhaps, perhaps not, see above for my view on this matter. Snape only needs a fleeting moment for the mask to slip to allow DD, one of the acknowledged two greatest Legilimens to see his thoughts. > Magpie: > And even if he wasn't, we don't see Dumbledore have any sort of revelation. There's no dawning horror. Even if this were happening silently it would still be happening. Goddlefrood: When have we ever really seen Dumbledore with a less than calm expression. Only one time I can recall when he looked slightly perturbed in the battle with LV in the MoM Atrium. As he himself has said "to the well organised mind, death is but the next great adventure." In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167775 > Alla > I know you were saying it about DD - in regards to Gavin's assertion, but it seems to me that step to make from Snape's continuous hatred of marauders to his dissapointment with DD is not a large one. Goddlefrood: Who is this Gavin of whom you speak? ;). Thank you for pointing this out. The link between the prank and the tower is difficult to completely exclude. There is simply too little to go on in respect of Severus to make concrete assertions. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167775 > zgirnius: > That Sluggie does not praise Snape in the context of Harry's Potions classes does not seem indicative to me. Goddlefrood: Let's have a closer look at the quotes you bring in and explore them further. > HBP, "The Unbreakable Vow": > "I was just talking about Harry's exceptional potion-making! Some credit must go to you, of course, you taught him for five years!" This one is suggestive of Uncle Horace praising Snape's potions teaching ability only, IMO, it would not lead to a further extrapolation that Snape was one of Uncle Horace's favourite students from his former tenure at Hogwarts. > HBP, "The Unbreakable Vow": > "You should have seen what he gave me first lesson, Draught of Living Death - never had a student produce finer on a first attempt, I don't think even you, Severus - " This one does indicate that Snape was a good student, but again it is inconclusibe of Uncle Horace regarding Severus on anywhere near the same level as he clearly regarded Lily. I have nowhere said I think Snape was a poor student, in fact I have no doubt he was a very good student, just not as exceptional as others. It would not preclude my thought that Lily assisted Snape in class. In addition, just to make it crystal clear, in case it wasn't before, I do favour a friendship between Lily and Snape. What I can not credit is anything deeper than that. If their was such a friendship as I believe then I contend it began no earlier than the NEWT level, which is the final two years of their time together at Hogwarts. I have agreed that their are relationships between house outside of the classrooms and Quidditch games. That all of those we have been shown are between Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors does not exclude my view that Slytherin are often excluded out of such things. I see little to counter this view in canon. zgirnius: "Death and a Lily" and "Bitterness" over it have reduced Snape's life to a "living death", in short. Could be a coincidence, I suppose. But despite my initial lack of enthusiasm for the idea that Snape loved Lily, I am pretty convinced of it after reading HBP. And it has grown on me. Goddlefrood: Possible, but then what isn't when discussing Severus? I will say that it is not a view I favour, while also not excluding the alternative offered that, yes, Lily and Snape had a friendship, but it never grew any more than that in either one of them. > > Goddlefrood earlier: > > Additionally the traditional period of mourning does not typically extend to 15 or more years, fwiw. > zgirnius: > I suppose noone had the nerve to tell the late Queen Victoria? Goddlefrood: She would NOT have been amused had anyone done so :| ----------------------- On the question of Snape's spying it seems to me enough has been said, round and round the hosues I will not go ;) ----------------------- > zgirnius: > I guess I just don't see why the old wounds would be coming up in HBP. I could see Snape blaming Dumbledore as you suggest, but don't see what was bringing this to a head in HBP, unless you are suggesting the general stressfulness of the situation, which I would have to agree was generally stressful. Goddlefrood: The suggestion has been made by me in another post o this thread, that does concur with the latter part of this actually. I dated it from the argument in the Forest that Hagrid partially overheard. Are we actually in agreement on this matter? :) In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167780 > Julie again: > If it was a snap decision, I'd still expect Snape's behavior to reflect that fact. Goddlefrood: Well, see my earlier comments in this respect. His face certainly changed a good deal between his initial entry and the moment he cast the AK. He was not pleased at all, as one example, when he had to hand Harry and Ron over during CoS after the Flying Ford Anglia / Whomping Willow incident, now was he? He did not start flting off the handle at that time. He also controls his anger during the whole GoF Moody revealed as Barty Jnr matter. Why not on the tower? > Julie: > And why shouldn't he lose it, at least verbally, in front of a number of Death Eaters? If he excoriates Dumbledore while killing him, he'll only cement their belief in his loyalty to Voldemort. Goddlefrood: Not if the reason for his seething under anger is as I have suggested, he's hardly likely to start screaming "YOU FOOLISH OLD MAN, WHY DID I GIVE YOU MY ABILITY ALL THESE YEARS, ALL FOR NOTHING, YOU'RE AS WORTHLESS NOW AS WHEN THOSE SAINTED MARAUDERS NEARLY KILLED ME!" Or words to that effect? ;). Not likely to endear him to the crew of Death Eaters present. These same Death Eaters may well have caused more destrution within Hogwarts had Snape lost control, he was at least competent enough to divine that. Neither his interests nor the interests of the one behind him would be served in any way by mass killings at the school, and that would have been a not completely unlikely outcome had Severus not taken steps to remove said Death eaters immediately. > Julie again: > So you think when JKR said "you" directly to Lydon, and then a moment later said "*Whoever* asked that question..." she was also refering to Lydon, the person she was talking directly to? Maybe I need to rein in my inner Ravenclaw (or my inner Spock), but I can't help being stymied by the illogic! I know in real life people do break up sentences and insert tangential comments and so on when they speak. But this would be a bit beyond the norm. Goddlefrood: I did not impute that, I merely stated that the opinion you hold is a valid one and one to which you are entitled. It seems to me that she is switching between addressing Lydon and the original question sender. It's just a pity that English is not more like Fijian where there is a clear distinction between the you being addressed and a you elsewhere :). My interpretation of the sentence is equally valid IMO. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Apr 20 10:07:08 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:07:08 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167788 Alla: > I don't know, dear :) Snape seemed to be rather confident to me that Harry got that map straight from manufactures in PoA. Of course one may say that he only heard the nicknames of how Marauders called each other. But I will go on a limb and **speculate** that his greasiness knew much more than we give him credit for. Ceridwen: Hee! Yes, you're right about the map. Maybe the name "Moony", and Lupin's convenient appearance, made it suddenly clear. But, I'm not dismissing the idea that Snape might have known the Marauders' nicknames. I'm not buying that, by knowing the nicknames, he knows the reason for those nicknames. Goddlefrood asked why Snape didn't recognize Scabbers as Wormtail. That was all I was thinking about. I don't think Snape knew for certain, or if he even suspected, that they were Animagi. And if he knew or suspected, I don't think he would have seen them in animal form. I'm certainly convinced that he would not have seen their animal forms often enough to know Scabbers as Wormtail and not as another rat altogether, even with the missing toe. And, I don't think Snape knew all of the Death Eaters. I don't think anyone knew all of the Death Eaters. Wormtail, too, would have been a special case, a spy whose identity should be protected from too many people knowing. Not that LV would have thought someone could get away with hoodwinking him and be a spy for DD, but for the chance that a DE would be captured and give the information to the Ministry or the Order. (Or try to run and hide using that info as a ticket into the Ministry or Order) It doesn't seem that the DEs in Azkaban know that Pettigrew was Wormtail. They didn't seem to know that he was supposed to be dead. Bella & Co. were arrested and convicted a while after LV's disappearance and Sirius's imprisonment for having killed Pettigrew. If they knew that Wormtail was Pettigrew, would they have gnashed their teeth over him in prison? Or would they have thought that he'd gotten his just desserts? If Snape knew that Wormtail was Pettigrew's nickname, and if he was reasonably certain that this was the same "Wormtail" who worked for LV (given that he was considered important enough to know), then he would have seen Pettigrew's death as the end of that particular spy or danger to the Order. I don't think that he would have put Scabbers' magically long life down to his being an unregistered Animagus. Ceridwen. From mattcbuff at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 14:02:26 2007 From: mattcbuff at yahoo.com (Matthew Buffington) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:02:26 -0000 Subject: I know what "Deathly Hallows" means! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167789 I have done several searches to see if this theory has been covered yet. Thus far, I haven't found it so I hope this has not been discussed in other posts. The secret to what the Deathly Hallows (DH) are rests in the cover art for the British Adult versions. Let me clearly paint it out. Title=Philosopher's Stone; Cover art=the Philosopher's Stone Title=Chamber of Secrets; Cover art=the door to the Chamber of Secrets Title=Prisoner of Azkaban; Cover art=Azkaban Prison Title=Goblet of Fire; Cover art=the Goblet of Fire Title=Order of the Phoenix; Cover art=a Phoenix Title=Half Blood Prince; Cover art=the Potions book (which is basically the Half-Blood Prince throughout the book) Considering this overwhelming pattern, I think it is logical to assume that... Title=Deathly Hallows; Cover art=Slytherin's Locket (or in other words, the Deathly Hallows) Put another way, Slytherin's locket is a horcrux, therefore Deathly Hallows refers to the Horcuxes... What is the Deathly Hallows? They are horcruxes! This concept is consistent with the definition of Hallows referring to relics or holy objects (sometimes considered to contain the spirit of the saintly owner). However in this case, the Hallows are not holy, but Deathly. I would love to hear your responses. Matt From random832 at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 14:32:41 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:32:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I know what "Deathly Hallows" means! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704200732p413cec1r65aa3bd4af19c9e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167790 On 4/20/07, Matthew Buffington wrote: > The secret to what the Deathly Hallows (DH) are rests in the cover > art for the British Adult versions. Let me clearly paint it out. > Title=Philosopher's Stone; Cover art=the Philosopher's Stone > Title=Chamber of Secrets; Cover art=the door to the Chamber of Secrets > Title=Prisoner of Azkaban; Cover art=Azkaban Prison Shouldn't the cover art be Sirius in this case, if this is the pattern?? > Title=Goblet of Fire; Cover art=the Goblet of Fire > Title=Order of the Phoenix; Cover art=a Phoenix Same, shouldn't it be a group photo of the Order? Here we see that in the two cases where the nature of the thing named in the title would be a spoiler, your pattern was _not_ followed. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 20 16:01:32 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:01:32 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167791 Goddlefrood: > Here and now, I present a further expansion on the "Severus, > please" business. Basically Dumbeldore realised at the time > Snape appeared that Severus was, in Dumbledore's own mind, > bewtraying Dumbeldore. Having this revelation his words were > meant as quite simply a question to reconsider what Snape was > about to do, vis kill Duymbledore. It was neither pleading nor > was it asking to fulfill a promise in other words. I hioe that > makes some sense :). It does to me. Pippin: I think I understand what you mean. But in terms of story development, how could this meaning be conveyed? Harry, the boy with no subtlety, is hardly likely to come up with any such nuanced interpretations on his own. In fact, only one character now living knows what Dumbledore actually meant -- Severus Snape. But as matters stand, it wouldn't help to have Snape's interpretation because we wouldn't know whether he was telling the truth or understood Dumbledore well enough to interpret his wishes correctly. Coming from Snape, an explanation of Dumbledore's plea will have no credibility unless and until it can be established that Snape is DDM! --or the meaning is so obvious that it needs no explanation at all. Of course JKR could leave it a mystery forever... Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 20 16:41:30 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:41:30 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > This thought just popped into my head, and I thought I > would pass it on. I'm not even sure I believe it, but it > is something to think about. > > This came up from the "Harry and his Parent's Graves" > thread. It occurs to me that if we now know the location > of Harry parent's graves, then we know the location of > the 'Bones of His Father'. We also know from experience > what those bone can be used for. > Ken: There's hardly a theory been floated that is too crazy for me to entertain and I won't make this one an exception. I think that it does fit with what we know from the story so far. I think another author might go there with the conclusion. I guess I don't think that this author will, but she could if she wanted to. I don't have a hang up about keeping Harry pure. He's an adult by WW standards and adults sometimes have to do things they'd rather not in order to serve a greater good. I suspect you are right about the amount of flesh required for the spell. It didn't take much blood from Harry, Pettigrew's lost hand probably says more about Voldemort and his relationship to Peter than it does about the requirements of the spell. I can see Neville cheerfully extracting a few drops of blood from Bellatrix. Yeah, in many ways it would be a fitting conclusion. I just doubt that it is Rowling's conclusion. Maybe there is no dark magic, just dark wizards and witches. Ken From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 17:17:52 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:17:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are a hor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470704201017y348793fdm1a300035f8c3b216@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167793 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com , "Paul" wrote: > > > When Voldemort killed Moaning Myrtle -fifty years ago - Voldemeort > > made the glasses a horcrux and somehow James stole them Paul L. Responds- Did Voldemort kill Moaning Myrtle or did she die from looking at the basilisk? ========================== Jeremiah: I had to read all of the Myrtle stuff carefully. What I understand is this: Tom Riddle opened the Chamber of Secrets in his 5th year. Diary!Riddle says that he spent 5 years trying to find the chamber. That was when Myrtle dies and she says all she saw was a piar of big yellow eyes... and that is the exact description of a Basalisk as mentioned in Fantastic Beasts. (One of the little books that came out from JKR). It wasn't until the following year that he asks Slughorn about how Horcruxes are made. Then the following summer he makes one. It's like: basalist @ age 15 then the question about Horcruxes then he turns 16 and then he makes the first Horcrux. It goes something like that. I mapped it out once and I think I still have it somewhere. Any way, each event barely misses each other and I'm sure it was deliberate. I think LV made his first Horcrux with his Father's murder. It would be most appropriate, seeing as how he killed his father and his father's family the same summer he made his first horcrux. That's the way I understand it. (And I'll look for that timeline and see if anyone has things ot add or change. That would be cool). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Apr 20 17:53:06 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:53:06 -0000 Subject: Transitions on the Tower (was Re: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forwar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167794 Ceridwen: If Snape knew that Wormtail was Pettigrew's nickname, and if he was reasonably certain that this was the same "Wormtail" who worked for LV (given that he was considered important enough to know), then he would have seen Pettigrew's death as the end of that particular spy or danger to the Order. I don't think that he would have put Scabbers' magically long life down to his being an unregistered Animagus. Magpie: Doesn't Sirius say that *Peter* will have told LV about Sirius being an Animagus? It seems pretty established that it was a secret only known by the four of them, period, whatever Snape knew about nicknames. Also, of course, if you start claiming that Snape knew about Peter important parts of PoA fall apart, because Snape is accusing Sirius of being the spy who betrayed the Potters, where later on he still hates Sirius, but no longer says he was the spy. Of course one can say Snape was making the whole thing up just trying to have a reason to get Sirius, but I think that's cutting out some emotional legs from the book and from Snape. If Snape were lying there, I think there'd be some signs of it. > Goddlefrood: > > Here's somewhere we differ. I do have a little snippet for you: > > '... the door to the ramparts burst open once more and there > stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes > swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to > the four Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and > Malfoy.' > > ... > > 'Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore and there was revulsion > and hatred on etched in the harsh lines of his face' > > Both from p. 556 - HBP, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition. > > The pleading occurs between the two. The possibility, although > perhaps slight, exists that when Snape swept the room Dumbledore > caught his eye for just long enough to read the hatred in Severus > at that time. The mask of Occlumency had slipped for those few > moments on the tower due to Snape's boiling anger, which he > contained to the extent of showing it in no more way than the > revolted, hating look on his face. There was no time for his > trademark tirade, IOW :) > Perhaps, perhaps not, see above for my view on this matter. > Snape only needs a fleeting moment for the mask to slip to allow > DD, one of the acknowledged two greatest Legilimens to see his > thoughts. > Goddlefrood: > > When have we ever really seen Dumbledore with a less than calm > expression. Only one time I can recall when he looked slightly > perturbed in the battle with LV in the MoM Atrium. As he himself > has said "to the well organised mind, death is but the next great > adventure." Magpie: Tragically, I already wrote out a reasponse to this and then stupidly lost it--you'll get the short version now--lucky!:-) Basically, no, imo.:-) I think the fact that you've added things like Dumbledore picking up Snape via Legilimancy and catching his eye and Snape's boiling with rage is further proof that there are things that we *need* in the scene in order for it to make sense as what it's claimed to be, and they're not there. You have to argue that they are there, only they're not written in, which I don't think JKR would ever do. (I doubt you could find a single scene in canon where you couldn't clearly map that sort of thing out.) Whatever happens in the scene, we need to have cause and effect and transitions from one emotional state to another-even if they're not always described in the same amount of detail. Dumbledore may canonically react to stress by going still and not changing his expression, but we certainly have seen Dumbledore show emotions other than calm. He's been angry and agitated and sad and pleased and touched--a whole range of emotions. He has his own style of showing emotions, but he certainly has them, or he'd be a cypher to whom we couldn't, imo, relate. Here are two scenes in canon where Dumbledore is allegedly getting new, bad information. In the first scene, JKR, in her usual style, makes every beat in the scene clear and lets the conflict rise naturally and logically through cause and effect, attack and counter- attack etc. Harry has just learned that Snape was the eavesdropper. He runs to Dumbledore's office, furious at Snape. Dumbledore has been waiting for Harry, because he's found a Horcrux. HBP (UK ed. p. 510): 'Well, Harry, I promised that you could come with me.' For a moment or two, Harry did not understand; the conversation with Trelawney had driven everything else out of his head and his brain seemed to be moving very slowly. Magpie: That's logical. Harry has arrived with a specific agenda and Dumbledore has a different agenda. It takes a transition to get Harry onto the same track. HBP: 'Only if you wish it, of course.' 'If I...' And then Harry remembered why he had been eager to come to Dumbledore's office in the first place. 'You've found one? You've found a Horcrux?' 'I believe so.' Magpie: Now Harry's caught up to Dumbledore. Dumbledore, otoh, has not yet noticed that his own agenda isn't the only one in the room, because he's not yet got a reason to realize it. HBP: Rage and resentment fought shock and excitement: for several moments, Harry could not speak. 'It is natural to be afraid,' said Dumbledore. Magpie: Dumbledore has no idea that Harry has changed since he saw him last, so when Harry does not speak he assigns a motive that fits what he knows: Harry is afraid about the Horcrux, since that is what he is talking about. Dumbledore may be quick on the uptake and therefore able to usually be a few steps ahead of people or at least not far behind, but with no reason to think things are different than they were the last time he saw Harry, he can't jump to the correct conclusion, even with several moments of silence to work it out. If Harry is not speaking, it must be because of the new information Dumbledore has introduced. HBP: 'I'm not afraid!' said Harry at once, and it was perfectly true; Magpie: Dumbledore's got Harry completely wrong here, though he did still react to Harry's silence. The two of them then have a quick discussion about the Horcrux. Dumbledore warns Harry it will be dangerous. HBP: 'I'm coming,' said Harry, almost before Dumbledore had finished speaking. Boiling with anger at Snape, his desire to do something desperate and risky had increased tenfold in the last few minutes. This seemed to show on Harry's face, for Dumbledore moved away from the window, and looked more closely at Harry, a slight crease between his silver eyebrows. 'What has happened to you?' Magpie: Now THAT'S a transition. Dumbledore has something to react to: the expression on Harry's face. And even then he doesn't leap right to the answer. Just as Harry needed a moment to rid himself of his initial mindset, so Dumbledore needs a moment to really take in the information before him. Harry's expression really *doesn't* match up with the situation they're in. He figures out something's wrong, that something is going on he doesn't know about. HBP: 'Nothing,' lied Harry promptly. 'What has upset you?' 'I'm not upset.' Magpie: Now Dumbledore is on the offensive and Harry is trying to block him, but he keeps coming. And we can follow this because Dumbledore had a transitional moment that believably moved him from the important topic of Horcruxes to What Is Bothering Harry. Harry and Dumbledore are now in a stalemate. Harry will lie forever and Dumbledore will keep pressing, unless something happens to change one of them. HBP: 'Harry, you were never a good Occlumens--" The word was the spark that ignited Harry's fury. 'Snape!' he said, very loudly, and Fawkes gave a soft squawk between them. 'Snape's what's happened! He told Voldemort about the prophecy, it was *him*, *he* listened outside the door, Trelawney told me!' Magpie: Not only does the word Occlumency fit naturally into Dumbledore's dialogue, but it gives Harry the believable trigger we needed to go up a notch and start raging at Snape--which JKR calls our attention to in case we don't get it. Note that even though Harry's mind is on Snape, JKR knows she has to up the ante to break the stalemate once Harry has chosen to lie. Harry has to have a reason to blow. It didn't have to be Occlumency--she could have written something else, even if she just had Harry get more irritated and want to break the stalemate himself. But there's something. HBP: Dumbledore's expression did not change, but Harry thought his face whitened under the bloody tinge cast by the setting sun. For a long moment, Dumbledore said nothing. 'When did you find out about this?' he asked at last. Magpie: And here's the biggest transitional moment of all, because Dumbledore has just received the blow. Not quite as big as learning his trusted lieutenant is a traitor who's going to kill him, but a big blow nevertheless, because Harry learning this about Snape changes the whole emotional landscape Dumbledore's got to deal with. He keeps his expression neutral, as is his instinct, but JKR still clearly shows him reacting to it. He whitens (Harry thinks). He says nothing for a long time. Then, only after processing the information, can he decide on a response. I hope this all doesn't sound like a lecture--I'm just truly excited by going through this stuff and seeing how it fits together step by step.:-) But now here's the scene on the Tower, which imo lacks the transitions it needs to have. Dumbledore has been chatting with the DEs, again in a stalemate since Draco isn't acting. And then: HBP (UK ed., p. 556): 'Draco, do it or stand aside so one of us--' screeched the woman, but at that precise moment the door to the ramparts burst open once more and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to the four Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and Malfoy. Magpie: What an entrance! So Snape changes the scene by entering. He had no way to know what exactly he'd find up there, so he, too, needs a moment to take it in and process. He just looks around. There's no boiling anger. He's just ready. He hasn't yet decided on a course of action. Snape doesn't come up and fix his eyes on Dumbledore as his intended victim. His attention comes back to him when Dumbledore begins to plead. HBP: 'We've got a problem, Snape, said the lumpy Amycus, whose eyes and wand were fixed alike upon Dumbledore, 'the boy doesn't seem able--' But somebody else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly. 'Severus...' The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. Magpie: Dumbledore has nothing to react off of from Snape to make him think of betrayal if he wasn't a moment ago. Snape has done exactly what he would be expected to do. Compare it to Harry's entrance in the earlier scene--Dumbledore took far longer to register something different about Harry, and Harry's the one who isn't an Occlumens and is broadcasting his feelings plainly. Even if it were a case of Dumbledore "breaking through" Snape's Occlumency, or the Occlumency "slipping" (conveniently) that would need some effort (and some reason for Dumbledore to even think he needed to use Legilimancy, probably). From what we know Dumbledore would need a long moment to look him in the eye and then he could only gradually understand how Snape was not what he expected him to be. Instead all he gets is the sweep of Snape's eye as he takes in the whole scene. So Dumbledore has nothing to trigger a worry that something is different, nor does he have a moment like the two he had with Harry for his thoughts to change or a sign that they have changed. Snape's look around is followed quickly by the DE's explanation and Dumbledore's pleading, which overlap--are possibly simultaneous. It's Harry who registers something different--in Dumbledore's voice. HBP: Snape said nothing, but walked forwards and pushed Malfoy roughly out of the way. The three Death Eaters fell back without a word. Even the werewolf seemed cowed. Magpie: The DEs have noted a change here as well, one that's set up from their perspective. They know DE!Snape has been undercover, working for LV all this time. They're waiting for a revelation from Snape to Dumbledore about his true loyalties. They know he is the one to break the stalemate. HBP: Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. 'Severus...please...' Magpie: Dumbledore does not change in response to the look of hatred and revulsion in Snape's face that's only appeared now, because he already started pleading (quite specifically, so there's no confusion over that). Whatever Dumbledore's final mindset is, it's in response to Snape's entrance and stays firm through Snape's look of horror and revulsion. And what's happened to Snape's transition? If the pleading is Dumbledore's way of asking Traitor!Snape not to be a traitor, where's Snape's realization that Dumbledore knows he's betrayed him? That's why to so many people it looks like whatever is going on between Snape and Dumbledore has been gone through somewhere else, because there's no sign the two of them are surprising each other at all. (Nor has Snape had any change that shows him deciding to go from ally to murderer in the scene, and certainly no trigger to bring the Marauders to his mind the way that Occlumency triggered Harry's outburst about Snape--and Harry was already all about Snape in that scene to begin with.) So that's why it's very hard for me to read a scene as having much at all about Snape betraying Dumbledore. It seems far more about Harry's reaction to what he's seen and can't understand--and that even though he's a ESE!Snaper himself. Afterwards he's had no trouble believing that Snape was evil all along, but within the scene it was Dumbledore's pleading that struck fear into his heart, not Snape was going to kill Dumbledore before he did it because he sees Snape revealing himself to be a DE at last. -m From juli17 at aol.com Fri Apr 20 19:13:53 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:13:53 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167796 > > Goddlefrood: > > Here's somewhere we differ. I do have a little snippet for you: > > '... the door to the ramparts burst open once more and there > stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes > swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to > the four Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and > Malfoy.' > > ... > > 'Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore and there was revulsion > and hatred on etched in the harsh lines of his face' > > Both from p. 556 - HBP, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition. > > The pleading occurs between the two. The possibility, although > perhaps slight, exists that when Snape swept the room Dumbledore > caught his eye for just long enough to read the hatred in Severus > at that time. The mask of Occlumency had slipped for those few > moments on the tower due to Snape's boiling anger, which he > contained to the extent of showing it in no more way than the > revolted, hating look on his face. There was no time for his > trademark tirade, IOW :) Julie: I snipped most of your replies, because as you say, anything is possible when it comes to Snape. But your theory is built on a lot of "slight" possibilities like the one above, as you admit yourself. The slight possibility that Dumbledore could have caught Snape's eye and deduced Snape's unexpected betrayal just as Snape momentarily dropped his Occlumency shields. Added to the slight possibility that Irma Pince looks much more aged than she really is (if she was Snape's schoolmate), added to the slight possibility that Snape has some relationship with her even though they don't have a single scene together in the books to foreshadow such a critical plot element... Which leads to the complete lack of the exposition which Magpie so eloquently showed is very typical of JKR's writing, and I can't see this theory as anything but a very remote possibility. But that's just me ;-) Julie From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Apr 20 19:34:28 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:34:28 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are a hor In-Reply-To: <948bbb470704201017y348793fdm1a300035f8c3b216@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167797 > Jeremiah: > I had to read all of the Myrtle stuff carefully. What I understand is this: > Tom Riddle opened the Chamber of Secrets in his 5th year. Diary! Riddle says > that he spent 5 years trying to find the chamber. That was when Myrtle dies > and she says all she saw was a piar of big yellow eyes... and that is the > exact description of a Basalisk as mentioned in Fantastic Beasts. (One of > the little books that came out from JKR). > It wasn't until the following year that he asks Slughorn about how Horcruxes > are made. Then the following summer he makes one. It's like: basalist @ age > 15 then the question about Horcruxes then he turns 16 and then he makes the > first Horcrux. > > It goes something like that. I mapped it out once and I think I still have > it somewhere. Any way, each event barely misses each other and I'm sure it > was deliberate. > > I think LV made his first Horcrux with his Father's murder. It would be most > appropriate, seeing as how he killed his father and his father's family the > same summer he made his first horcrux. > > That's the way I understand it. (And I'll look for that timeline and see if > anyone has things ot add or change. That would be cool). > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Hickengruendler: Tom already had the Peverell ring, in the Pensieve scene, where he asked Slughorn about Horcruxes. Meaning that he killed his father before he learned about the Horcruxes. Still, I don't think this means anything. According to Slughorn, a wizard, who wants to make a Horcrux, takes advantage out of the fact, that his soul split because of a murder he commited. I don't think the murder had to happen shortly before making the Horcruxes. The soul splits and than you can make a Horcrux anytime you want. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 19:57:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:57:37 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167798 Carol earlier: > > >I think you're probably right. It seems likely from the anticipation among the Order members and the excitement afterward that they expected Snape to provide important information and that he came through brilliantly. A crowd of people, including "Harry's entire guard," even Mad-Eye Moody and Lupin, surrounds Snape as he leaves 12 GP. > > Dana responded: > Could you provide canon that Snape came through brilliantly or that anyone thought so because him leaving was before Harry's conversation with Sirius and Lupin and I do not see any one jump of their seat about Snape's brillance and also that Harry's entire guard were surrounding Snape and not just leaving at the same time as he was, just talking amongst themselves? And Lupin just went with them to close the door behind them? > Carol again: I provided the canon about the Order members eagerly anticipating the meeting and crowding excitedly around him in another post. If you choose to interpret it in some other way than the obvious implication that it was Snape's report that they found exciting, that's up to you. > Carol earlier: > > And Snape leaves behind about a dozen scrolls, including the plan of a building, which Bill belatedly Vanishes. > > > Dana: > Can you provide canon that Snape leaves these behind or even that these scrolls are brought in by him? Carol again: The scrolls were left behind after the meeting at which Snape gave his report. We know of nothing else that happened at that meeting, no one else who gave a report, no one else whose presence and information is stirring up excitement. What else would they be except documents and floorplans that Snape used in his report? Dana: > Harry got a glimpse of what looked like the lay out of a building, why would Snape bring such information with him or how did he even get it. > This is MoM information so it seems far more likely it was provided by a MoM employee. There would be no need for Snape to steel such information from LV. The Order has access to this information through other means. Carol: I agree that it's *probably* "MoM information" though that deduction is never confirmed. If the Order had access to this information by other means, why have Snape give a report at all? And Arthur Weasley and the other MoM employees probably didn't have easy access to the plans for the Department of *Mysteries*--which had to be kept *mysterious.* Even the voice on the lift doesn't list the departments as it does for other floors (offices that are accessible to the wizarding public once they've passed the security wizard). The DoM employees are called Unspeakables because they can't or don't speak about their jobs. Mr. Weasley says in GoF that he has "no idea what goes on there." (BTW, I did wonder the same thing you did about a Ministry employee possibly providing the plans, and I'm stating the only explanation I can come up with. I can't see Snape using plans supplied by someone else in his report, whidh is clearly both exciting and informative. And even Sirius Black grudgingly implies that Snape's job is dangerous. One such danger would be stealing or duplicating the plans that LV intended the DEs to use in the heist. Possibly those plans were in Lucius's possession since he was the leader of the expedition. And Lucius would never suspect his friend Severus of using those plans to help the Order. Just some thoughts on the relationship between the floorplans and Snape's report.) > Dana: > How do you know Snape even knows LV's real name is Tom Riddle and that therefore the Riddle House belongs to him. You assume LV is staying there but there is no canon to support, he is still using the house. Just because he was there in GoF before he regained his body is no proof, he still uses it and the room Harry's sees LV talk to Rockwood in, does not remind him of the Frank Bryce murder. So there is no proof he is still using the Riddle House as his hide out. Carol: I didn't say anything about Snape's knowing that LV's real name is Tom Riddle (though I imagine that he does know it because DD, who trusts him completely, would know it, as would Snape's friend Lucius Malfoy, who had Tom Riddle's diary in his possession). Nor do I actually assume that he's still hiding there--I just didn't want to go into any more details than necessary on a side note). I was merely offering a plan of the Riddle House--or wherever LV is currently hiding out--as an alternative to a plan of the DoM though that doesn't seem to fit the plot of OoP. We don't *know* that the plan is of the DoM, only that it appears to be the plan of a building. Snape is certainly familiar with the room in which LV spoke to Rookwood ("What are that man and that room doing in your head, Potter?"). So it doesn't matter whether LV is still hiding in the Riddle House or not. Call it DE Headquarters or LV's hideout if you prefer. I'm only saying that we should consider alternatives rather than assuming that the floorplan is that of the DoM even though that seems likely. Again, I *agree with you* that the floorplan is *probably* that of the DoM, perhaps provided to LV by Rookwood. The problem with that idea, of course, is that Rookwood was one of the escapees from Azkaban and could not have acquired the plan recently. For all we know, he could have created the floorplan magically from memory much as MWPP created their map of Hogwarts. Certainly, such floorplans aren't going to be lying around the MoM for any employee or visitor to pick up. Snape had to get it somewhere, and his stealing it from the DEs or LV would certainly add to the excitement of his report. Carol: > > On another point, Alla mentioned Dumbledore's comment in GoF, "A connection I could have made without help," in relation to the Pensieve memory of Snape saying that his Dark Mark is growing darker and adding, "Karkaroff's, too." It does sound as if DD is downplaying the importance of Snape's revelation, and in front of Harry, too (which I, for one, didn't like at all), but the memory does show the reader that Snape is reporting to DD, and I don't think that DD could have known about the Dark Mark itself growing darker without Snape's telling him (he might have suspected it, but he couldn't have confirmed it). The connection he could have made on his own relates to Karkaroff: if Snape's [Dark mark] is growing darker, so is Karkaroff's. > Dana: > DD is not downplaying the information Snape gives him, about the Mark. It just did not add anything on what LV is planning. Carol: My sense is that he's downplaying it. Your sense may be different. That's a feeling we get as we read, not a provable point. As for "planning," as far as DD and Snape knew, LV was still vapor at that stage. What the darkening of Snape's Dark Mark indicated, though not even DD could have known it at that time, was that Vapormort had achieved physical form as a fetus. All that Snape and DD knew at that time was that Vapormort was rumored to be in Albania and that Peter Pettigrew, revealed as the traitor, had escaped and was likely to go to him. DD suspected that the disappearances of Bertha Jorkins and Frank Bryce were connected with Voldemort. Snape, teaching at Hogwarts and acting not as a spy so much as DD's righthand man (though "Moody" partially usurps that role in GoF), had obviously not returned to LV on DD's orders at that time, but he did provide the one piece of information available to him, that his and Karkaroff's Dark Marks were growing darker. That in itself would confirm that LV was growing stronger and strengthen DD's suspicions about the deaths. Beyond that, Snape, who was at Hogwarts, not circulating among former DEs, could do nothing (except possibly report Karkaroff's terror and intention to flee--and possibly keep an eye on Harry or "Moody" or other suspicious characters). DD has, at that point, no way of knowing what LV's plans are, or even that they're connected with the Goblet of Fire. He may suspect a disguised DE in their midst, but he has no proof, and no idea of the graveyard plan. Neither, of course, does Snape. He has not yet returned to spy on LV because LV himself has not yet been resurrected. and even after his return, the information he can acquire on LV while he's at Hogwarts is necessarily limited. Dana: > DD already knows LV is actively trying to comeback to Power. Harry tells DD about Trelawney's prediction about LV rising back to Power with the help of his servant at the end of PoA. > So it makes sense that Snape's Dark Mark is growing Darker because DD already KNOWS LV is going to be coming back. > Carol: Dumbledore is not a great believer in Treawney's predictions, as we see again in HBP. In any case, all that Prophecy predicted was that the Dark Lord's servant would escape that night and return to him, which, of course, did happen. Not very helpful. However, Snape's showing DD the Dark Mark would give some indication of how strong LV was at that point. "Greater and more powerful than ever" certainly did not come to pass that night or even after the graveyard scene, which has not yet occurred when Snape tells DD about the Dark Mark growing darker. BTW, that incident is probably one of many clues that DD uts in the Pensieve to figure out the connections between events. If DD didn't think Snape's information was important and that it fit in with the events he was studying to find out who put Harry's name in the GoF and why, he would not have put it in the Pensieve. Also, that snippet of a memory shows, along with other evidence, that Snape regularly reports to Dumbledore and tells him anything that may be important regarding Harry or LV. We just don't see those reports because the books are presented from Harry's pov (which helps to keep Snape mysterious). Dana: > Even Sirius notices in GoF there is an extraordinary amount of DE activity and rumours floating around about LV returning, Snape's information adds nothing specific. Carol: Black certainly doesn't know about this activity firsthand since he's either far away in the tropics or living as a dog in a cave in GoF. He finds out about the DEs casting the Dark Mark and wreaking havoc at the QWC from the Daily Prophet. Any other information he has comes from his correspondence with DD--and notice how wrong he is about Barty Crouch Jr. and Karkaroff. Black's primary function in the cave scene is to provide a mixture of clues and red herrings--not useful information on the activities of the Death Eaters. To be sure, Snape can't provide useful information on the activities of the DEs either at that point because LV is a fetus in Wormtail's care and neither the DEs nor the Order have regrouped. In OoP, Black never gets out of the house except to be seen on Platform 9 3/4 by Lucius Malfoy, as Snape informs him. Black must be getting his information (most of which he's not sharing with Harry) from someone more informed. It makes sense that this information would come from DD's spy among the Death Eaters, Snape. ("Yes, Potter, that is my job.") Black is not going to give Harry and the other kids the specific information that Dumbledore has ordered them to keep quiet about! The kids, even Harry, are kept away from the Order meetings. Mrs. Weasley is concerned that Black is telling them too much, even with his lie about a "weapon." The Order members are all, including Snape, hiding the existence of the Prophecy from Harry on DD's orders. The fact that Sirius Black doesn't tell Harry the "rumours" he's heard doesn't mean that Snape has not provided specific information in his reports--plural. What Harry knows, and what the Order reveals to him, is inadequate as a source of information as to what really goes on in those meetings. Unfortunately for us, the narrator is reporting from Harry's point of view so we don't know what information Snape is providing. But that he *does* provide specific information, and that the other Order members (except possibly Padfoot) find it significant, is evident from canon. Would Snape give reports if he had nothing to say? Would the others clamor to hear those reports if they weren't important or if they had some other source for the same information? Would they gather excitedly around him afterward (black no doubt excepted) if Snape were giving them meaningless drivel? (I'd like to know what's on those other scrolls, BTW, but I doubt we'll ever be told.) Black is not an objective witness to the reports, in any case. Even if it were okay with DD to reveal the contents of Snape's reports to the kids, which it obviously isn't, Black isn't about to glorify Snape's information and accomplishments to Harry. Ironically, he'd love to be risking his life as Snape is doing--only maybe not among the DEs. And Lupin always keeps what he knows to himself if he can. Harry isn't going to hear about Snape's reports from Lupin any more than he's going to hear from DD what Snape reports to him. > Dana: > You are implying that if DD took this information more seriously (and there is no indication he does not just that he didn't need it because he already knew) that he could have prevented the Graveyard ordeal? How? > Carol: What? I'm sorry. I'm confused. Where are you getting this idea? I said nothing about Snape's Dark Mark preventing the graveyard ordeal. Please don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that DD seems to downplay the significance of Snape's words, but what he's actually downplaying is the connection he could have made for himself, that Karkaroff's Dark Mark is also growing darker. The very fact that the memory of the conversation is in the Pensieve with everything else related to the Goblet of Fire and the QWC incidents shows that DD does think it's important. Carol ear;ier: > > We have evidence of other information that Snape must have provided to DD as DD has no other spy among the Death Eaters. In VW1, he must have informed DD that LV was targeting the Potters. > Dana: > Well I do not know if this can be correctly assumed because some people working as spies for DD could be dead now. It is certainly no proof that just because Snape is the only one now, he was the only one then, besides Snape is not the only spy now either he is just the only spy within LV's inner circles. Carol: I am not claiming anything as proof. What is provable need not be argued. There's no point in arguing, for example, that Snape is an Occlumens or that he can make the Wolfsbane Potion or perform the countercurse to Sectumsempra. Those statements can be considered as proven. However, the *evidence* we have (as opposed to *proof*) certainly points to Snape as the one member of DD's extensive spy network who could have provided this information, and it fits with what we know of the tale of Snape's remorse (admittedly incomplete at this point. I take Snape's words to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End with a grain of salt. DDM!Snape is hardly going to tell her the truth.) As for another spy within LV's inner circle, what other Death Eater besides the traitor Peter Pettigrew, whom no one knew to be a DE, could have spied for Dumbledore during VW1? What other DE or former DE (not counting the untrustworthy coward Karkaroff, who doesn't report to Dumbledore and the murderously deceitful Fake!Moody) ever taught at Hogwarts and could work for Dumbledore directly, in constant contact with him as teacher, HoH, and spy during the holidays? Sure, DD has spies in Knockturn Alley (Mundungus Fletcher) and the Hog's Head (Aberforth) and probably other places, but not among the Death Eaters. Look at the DEs we've seen, whether they were escapees from Azkaban or not. Lucius Malfoy? Bellatrix and the Lestrange brothers? Wormtail? Dolohov? Barty Jr.? Anyone in the MoM battle or at Hogwarts on the day DD died? Is any of those people likely to be providing DD with information? Or how about the dead Evan Rosier, who took a chunk out of Mad-Eye Moody's nose because he was so loyal to LV that he went down fighting? I suppose you could suggest that the equally dead Wilkes, also killed by Aurors, provided DD with information, but that's a long shot with no support in canon. Regulus Black is the only possibility, and I don't think that he was a spy because his conversion seems to have begun and ended with stealing the Horcrux. "I trust Severus Snape completely" rather suggests that he really was risking his life to provide important information as DD testified to the Wizengamot that he was and Barty Sr., that merciless sceptic, also believed. > Dana: > Sirius in GoF is also aware of the increased DE activity and about the rumours about LV returning to power. With this I just want to indicate that information through other resources, can be just as valuable and still can add to the overall picture one can lay out about enemy activity. Carol: As I said earlier, Sirius Black in GoF is reading the Daily Prophet, which reported the Muggle baiting and the Dark Mark at the QWC, and is corresponding with Dumbledore. There's no DE activity directly related to LV at that point because he hasn't returned yet. And BTW, I'm not saying that Snape was reporting on the DEs at that time, either, only working as usual at Hogwarts and aiding DD in other ways besides teaching. He had not yet returned to the DE camp as a spy because LV was still hiding in fetal form. So any new information on LV and his plans was unattainable at that time. > Dana: > Besides it also seems Snape could not find out who the spy was within the inner circle of the marauders. It is not even implied DD got information there was a spy just that LV's actions seemed to indicate there was a spy, close to the Potters. Carol: You're assuming that Severus was a member of the Order at that time. I don't think he was since he's not in the photo of the old Order that Moody showed Harry. I think he was spying for DD alone, and the fewer people who knew about it, the better. (By the time the Wizengamot learned about it in Karkaroff's hearing, LV had long since been vaporized.) > Dana: > We also know that Snape only gave DD this information because he owed James Potter a debt, not because he was so concerned with their safety. Carol: Know? We don't *know* any such thing. DD did not state his "ironclad" reason for trusting Snape. As it happens, I agree that the debt that Snape *felt* he owed to James played a part in his returning to DD and in his protecting the Potters, but it would hardly be cause for the *remorse* that DD believes he really felt. Occlumency can help a wizard to conceal a lie, but, AFAWK, it can't help him fake a deep emotion like remorse. You're mistaking your own assumptions for canon here and elsewhere. Dana: It can still be read as Snape attempting to wash himself from responsibility. So unless knew information on Snape's activity in the first war comes to light in DH, then as it now stands he did not do very much then either. Carol: Sorry. I'm not following you. According to DD, young Snape discovered how LV interpreted the Prophecy, went to Dumbledore, and spied for him "at great personal risk." It appears to be on Snape's information that DD recommended the Fidelius Charm to the Potters and offered himself as their Secret Keeper. "Did not do much then either" simply does not fit with canon as presented by Dumbledore or with DD's continued trust in Snape. Carol earlier: > > Dumbledore trusts Snape, and that trust seems deeper and stronger than ever in HBP. That would surely be the case only if Snape really was risking his life to provide information that no one else could provide and at the same time concealing important information (such as his sending or the Order to the MoM and the real nature of Dumbledore's "serious injury" and his own role in preventing it from being fatal). > > Dana: > Personally I do not read DD's actions in HBP as his trust in Snape being stronger then ever, it seems he has more and more trouble to convince himself that he is indeed trustworthy and that he has trouble to be called on this mistake by Harry. We never see DD argue with Snape before while we have lots of examples Snape is arguing with DD. > Carol responds: "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely" (HBP Am. ed. 549). "It is Professor Snape whom I need" (580). "Severus . . . I need Severus" (580). "Go and wake Severus. Tell him what has happened and bring him to me. Do nothing else, speak to nobody else, and do not remove your cloak. I shall wait here" (583). (To Draco) "It so happens that I trust Professor Snape" (588). Read those remarks any way you like, but IMO they not only imply but in two cases directly state DD's trust in Snape, a deeper trust than we've yet seen. They state it directly. In earlier books, DD also says, "I trust Professor Snape," and we see reasons why he does so. In HBP, Dumbledore *depends* on Snape--*and* he gives him the cursed DADA position that Harry believes has been withheld from him because DD doesn't trust him. Clearly, he does. He puts his life (and perhaps his death) in Snape's hands. Trouble convincing himself that the man who sent the Order to the MoM, who saved him from the ring Horcrux, who later saved Katie's and Draco's lives, is trustworthy? I think you're reading backwards from the tower, assuming that Snape is a murdering traitor and therefore DD either doesn't really trust Snape despite his telling Harry that he trusts him *completely* or is a fool to do so. I don't know what you mean about the reader never seeing DD arguing with Snape but seeing Snape arguing with DD. Dumbledore is the boss. He's in charge. Snape occasionally expresses dissenting opinions, which he probably would *not* do if he were disloyal but wanting to appear loyal, but DD usually silences them. In HBP, Snape may well be right that DD is "taking too much for granted," especially if what he's taking for granted is that Draco can't get DEs into the school. Not even Harry overhears the argument in the forest. It's reported incompletely and at secondhand by Hagrid. Harry assumes the worst, but Harry may well be wrong. JKR is tantalizing us with fragments that are open to various interpretations. But based on previous overheard conversations, I'd say the chances of Harry being right are slim. And I think we can simply dismiss Hagrid's opinion about Snape being overworked. He *is* overworked, at least by my Muggle standards, but that's not the problem. The problem is Draco and whether he can or should be stopped. Snape may be saying that it's better for him to die from the Unbreakable Vow than to let Draco keep on doing what he's doing in the RoR. We just don't know, but arguing with DD is not evidence of disloyalty. Harry does it, too. Dana: > You know I was thinking about why the Order was no longer patrolling the DoM and then suddenly it occurred to me. Because there was no need for it anymore. Snape told DD about Harry's vision that Rockwood told LV about the protection on the prophecy and that it would mean that only 3 people could retrieve it. DD himself, LV himself or Harry. DD was not going to hand it over, it would be unlikely LV would come to get it himself and because the Order has no information that LV would be able to use Harry to get it for him, there is no reason to assume he can get to Harry because he is safely at Hogwarts. Carol: That's an interesting idea, which I'll return to in a moment. And it sounds as if you're beginning to see why Snape didn't take immediate action in OoP other than to confirm that Sirius Black was safely at Headquarters (and relay the information that Harry believed Black had been captured, as he must have done or Black would have wondered why Snape was asking this question). And we keep pointing out that Harry had no broom, couldn't Apparate, and was (seemingly safely) in Umbridge's custody, so the likelihood of his leaving the safety of Hogwarts, whether he wanted to or not, was extremely slim. (Snape could not have anticipated the timely appearance of the Thestrals responding to Grawp's blood.) Dana: > It is interesting that Harry never told Snape about what he heard Rockwood tell LV and visa versa but DD does imply that the information came from Harry himself during the DoM aftermath conversation. Carol: When does DD imply that the information came from Harry? He simply indicates that he knows this information without revealing its source, and Harry, who is preoccupied with his godfather's death, isn't thinking about how DD would know this, but, as I'll show in a moment, the source has to be Snape. Dana: Snape only saw a man sitting on his knees in a certain room (in the second occlumency lesson)and then responds with the remark that it is not up to Harry to know what LV is telling his DE's. Carol: You're skipping most of the scene here. Actually, Snape asks Harry what that memory was and then uses Legilimency on him ("Snape's dark eyes bored into Harry's," OoP Am. ed. 590). He then asks Harry how "that man and that room" come to be in his head. Harry, avoiding Snape's eyes, tells him that it was a dream. Snape has Harry remind him why they're there and asks how many other dreams Harry has had about the Dark Lord. Harry's answer, "Just that one," is obviously a lie and Snape knows it since Harry told Snape during the first lesson that he's been dreaming of the DoM corridor "for months" (539), information that Snape surely passes on to DD since it could have come from no other source (see below). And in case we miss the point that Harry is lying, the narrator states it directly ("'Just that one,' lied Harry"). Only after Harry lies to Snape does Snape resort to wondering aloud whether "these visions and dreams" (astute deduction on Snape's part that they're not all dreams) make Harry feel special and important and suggest that Harry wants to keep having them--which, as it happens, is quite true. And *then* Snape tells Harry that it's not up to him to find out what LV is saying to his Death Eaters (again, quite true). Harry thinks he's crossed a line when he asks whether that's Snape's job, but Snape says calmly, with a satisfied expression, "Yes, Potter. That is my job." (He's glad, I think, that Potter has figured it out without his having to say so). But you're missing Snape's concern that Harry is having these visions and dreams that belong to Voldemort (the only times during the lessons when he becomes really angry or disconcerted) and the obvious implication that he's reporting the lessons to DD, who could not otherwise know what Harry is seeing and dreaming. You're forgetting that Harry isn't speaking with DD all year except on rare occasions. DD testifies at Harry's trial but avoids Harry's eyes. He looks past him when Harry has the snake dream. When their eyes do meet, Harry feels that he's the snake and wants to bite him. DD has Snape give Harry the Occlumency lessons because he's afraid that LV will use Harry in some dangerous way. Harry, in turn, refuses to tell DD about Umbridge's horrific detentions because of DD's seeming coldness or indifference. They see each other again after the DA fiasco, when DD takes the "blame" for Dumbledore's Army. DD then leaves the school and Harry has no idea where he is until the night of the MoM battle. There's simply no opportunity for Harry to tell DD about his vision of Rookwood. It has to be Snape who tells DD about seeing Rookwood kneeling in front of LV in one of Harry's fleeting memories during the Occlumency lessons. How much Snape could have heard Rookwood say is unclear. Since the memories appear to Harry as "a rush of images and sound" (590), Snape may well have heard a small part of the conversation. But the memory seems to be only a flash, enough for Snape to see a man he recognizes as Rookwood kneeling in a darkened room that he also recognizes. And that much he has clearly reported to Dumbledore. How DD could know what Rookwood and LV were talking about is unclear. We don't know to what extent Snape was in on LV's plans (he certainly didn't know about Kreacher), but Lucius Malfoy could have confided the plot to trick Harry into going to the MoM as a result of Rookwood's information to LV. But, in any case, the source of *DD's* information about Rookwood and LV has to be Snape. It can't be Harry. (BTW, it's Rookwood, not Rockwood, FWIW.) Dana: If this is right then Snape knew about what was said in the conversation and he forgot to mention, LV telling Rockwood he had a new plan to get it. Carol: As I said earlier, it's unclear how much Snape heard in relation to Harry's Rookwood memory, but I doubt that he heard enough of the conversation to determine that Rookwood was telling LV that the Prophecy orb can only be touched by the subjects of the Prophecy. If, however, he did hear this information, he certainly didn't "forget" to tell Dumbledore since DD knows what the Rookwood conversation is about. Either DD's detailed knowledge is a Flint, or Snape told DD all he knew, which must be more than Harry realized. As I said, *Harry* didn't tell DD about the Rookwood visions or his dreams of the corridor. Snape has to be DD's source of information for the revelations of the Occlumency lessons. It can't be anyone else. You could be right about the reason that no one was guarding the Prophecy being the realization that no one could pick up the Prophecy orb other than Harry or LV, but that seems like information that DD, at least, would know already. But if the Order members took it upon themselves to stop guarding the Prophecy for this reason, that's actually a lucky thing for the Order because the guard would have been Imperio'd or killed facing twelve DEs. (BTW, the inadequate security provisions at the MoM are rather troubling in themselves. Do we ever find out what happened to Eric, the security wizard who's not at his desk when Harry and his friends arrive? Maybe someone else works the night shift, but still, the desk should have been manned.) Carol, who is rather partial to the idea that the door *was* being guarded by Emmeline Vance and would like to hear more about that theory from the person who posted it From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 20:12:14 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:12:14 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167799 --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > ... > > > > This came up from the "Harry and his Parent's Graves" > > thread. It occurs to me that if we now know the > > location of Harry parent's graves, then we know the > > location of the 'Bones of His Father'. We also know > > from experience what those bone can be used for. > > Geoff: > Much as I appreciate your postings, Steve, and often > read them with great interest, I can't really see any > canon evidence on which you could base a theory like > this. > > And, like other contributors, this sails too close to > the wind in terms of Dark Magic for my liking. > > Am I just being thicker than usual? > > Geoff > PS Don't answer the last question..... > bboyminn: Well, of course, there is no real canon to support it; it is a wild, crazy, and unlikely theory. But still all the pieces for such an end to come into play are now there in the book. Further this idea plays on themes that have been implied both in the books and outside them. JKR has said that when we read the end of the series we will see clearly that she is a Christian (or word to that effect). That's one of the reason why I like my 'Behind the Veil and Back' theory, because it contains a resurrection theme. This new scenario also carries a resurrection theme. In it, in a manner of speaking, Harry comes back from the 'dead' to save the day. So, even though canon does not strongly hint at this idea, the pieces for this to take place are all there. As far as the Dark Magic aspect of it, this goes back to how we define Dark Magic. Is it dark because of how it is used, or is there something in the making of it that makes it dark regardless of how it is used? Is it dark because it is used for evil, or is it dark because it is created out of evil (more or less)? People have said that Harry would never accept this option, but that is normal Harry, and I am not talking about normal Harry. He is not planning to live a disembodied life, nor to exist for eternity wandering the earth as a bit of smoke and vapor. Harry seems the type to pick Life or Death, but accept nothing in between. Consequently, I think Harry would chose to find a means of re-embodiment over a life in limbo. I think he would chose to fight to the death rather than exist on the sidelines as an bodiless and helpless observer. Even though you won't find direct canon, the foreshadowing and canon are merely that all the necessary parts exist in canon for this speculative result to also exist. I'm sure will will also find that far crazier and far less founded ideas have been speculated in the past, and will likely be speculated again before July. It was just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 20 20:29:15 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape the Spy Message-ID: <13606548.1177100955829.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167800 From: Dana >I do not call DD a liar but I have seen many people suggest, he was >not honest, while he actually tells Harry he believed it was the >reason for Snape's return. Bart: However, JKR LOVES to have readers conflate things which are really separate (or, more precisely, trick them into jumping to conclusions). For example, Snape's remorse may be the reason he switched sides, but may not be (and, in my opinion, is almost certainly not) the reason why DD trusts him. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 21:23:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:23:33 -0000 Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167801 Goddlefrood wrote: > A further matter that has been of interest to me, and for which I have yet to see an explanation is how come Snape seemingly never figured out that Scabbers was Wormtail and that may bear further examination. Not by me here and now, but perhaps one day in the not too distant future I will look into it more closely again, unless someone wants to offer an explanation, which would be welcome. > Carol responds: My apologies for snipping your theory, but I wanted to focus on this little paragraph since I've asked myself similar questions. The problem is not, IMO, that Snape didn't recognize *Scabbers* as Pettigrew. (Neither did Lupin, who knew Pettigrew well and actually rode on the Hogwarts Express with the Trio.) Snape thought, as did Lupin and Dumbledore and everyone else in the WW except Sirius Black, that Pettigrew was dead, and PoA indicates that he didn't know until the Shrieking Shack that any of the Marauders were Animagi. His reaction to the suggestion that Pettigrew was a rat Animagus is outraged disbelief. He thinks that the Trio were confunded and is furious that Black, whom he still seems to believe is the traitor and murderer, has gotten away. He doesn't see Scabbers Transformed into Pettigrew, and has no reason to believe the story. IMO, only when he sees the black dog transform into Sirius Black does he believe the story, and we get the reaction you cited before: Goddlefrood: > Once Severus and Sirius come face to face again in the hospital wing near then end of GoF we find (Bloomsbury Hardback Edition, p.618): 'Snape had not yelled or jumped backwards, but the look on his face was one of mingled fury and horror.' Carol: Note not just fury but horror. IMO, he thinks, as Mrs. Weasley does, that he's facing a murderer and a traitor. On reflection, he realizes that the Animagus story is true after all and controls his emotions. If Black is a dog Animagus and in the hospital wing under DD's orders, then he, Snape, is wrong about his being a murderer and a traitor. The murderer and traitor must be Pettigrew after all. Snape, IMO, is not happy with this revelation, but he has to accept it, and grudgingly shakes Black's hand. He still hates him, still thinks that Black tried to murder him when they were both sixteen, but his cherished delusion regarding James Potter's mistaken trust in Black have been shattered. The real question, for me, is how Snape, as a spy for DE pretending to be loyal to LV, could not know that Wormtail was Pettigrew before Wormtail's supposed death. (He did not need to know that Wormtail was a rat Animagus; that little detail Wormtail and Voldemort would have kept to themselves.) The only explanation that I can come up with is that the DEs were always hooded at their meetings, and, as Karkaroff states when he's testifying against his fellow DEs, many of them did not know each other: "You must understand that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named operated always in the greatest secrecy. He preferred that we--I mean his supporters --we never knew the names of every one of our fellows--He alone knew exactly who we all were--" (GoF Am. ed. 588). Sirius Black tells Harry that some of the Death Eaters screamed in their sleep about Wormtail's treachery, but this remark seems to refer to Bellatrix and her cronies, the only four who actually went looking for information on LV's whereabouts and who came in after the events at Godric's Hollow. Most of the others seem to have been arrested (on Snape's information?) before Godric's Hollow, so they would have no reason to scream about Wormtail's treachery. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Bellatrix and her friends were among the few who knew that Wormtail was the Order spy. They may not even have known that he was the Secret Keeper, or that there was a Fidelius Charm. All they would need to know is that their master went after the Potters on Wormtail's information. Whether they knew that Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew is unclear. Snape, who was teaching at Hogwarts by the time of Godric's Hollow, need not have known who the spy was. To the best of *his* knowledge, the Secret Keeper who betrayed the Potters, and therefore the spy who was giving information on them before that, was Sirius Black. (If DD didn't tell Snape personally that the Potters had rejected his offer to become SK and chosen Black instead, Snape would have read it in the Daily Prophet. Damning evidence after Godric's Hollow, from Snape's perspective.) He may never have heard the nickname Wormtail in reference to the spy given Voldemort's tendency to secrecy and the limited number of DEs who would have known it. That tidbit may have been one of the precious pieces of information that LV trusted Bellatrix with (in lieu of or in addition to the existence of a Horcrux). Or if Snape did hear the nickname, he didn't connect it with Peter Pettigrew, whom he didn't know to be a rat Animagus. It would have seemed suitable to anyone who would rat out his friends, even assuming that he made the Wormtail/rat connection. There is, of course, the possibility that Snape overheard the Marauders using those nicknames, but he may not have known who was whom (other than the obvious link of "Moony" to Lupin post-Prank). Probably they were careful not to use the nicknames around him after that. Carol, convinced that Snape's suspicions of Black and his werewolf accomplice in PoA are entirely genuine and that he could not have known that Scabbers was Wormtail, in any case From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 20 21:46:14 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:46:14 -0000 Subject: The death of Emmeline Vance (WAS: Re: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who Killed Sir...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167802 Carol: > Carol, who is rather partial to the idea that the door *was* being > guarded by Emmeline Vance and would like to hear more about that > theory from the person who posted it zgirnius: Oh, OK, twist my arm, why don't you! As I said before, I read the idea somewhere else and no longer recall exactly where, but the details presented herein may be different,as they represent my own considered view on the subject. We know that on at least a couple different occasions, an Order member on guard duty at the DoM ran into trouble. It seems Sturgis Podmore may have been Imperiused by Lucius Malfoy while on duty, and of course Arthur Weasley was bitten by Nagini under like circumstances. However, there was no sign of an Order guard the night Harry and company showed up. One possible explanation for this lack is that there *was* an Order guard, and he or she was neutralized by the Death Eaters in preparation of their ambush for Harry. There is only one Order member whose death is not accounted for - Emmeline Vance. She was not in the rescue mission, and did not appear later in OotP, so she could have been missing from before Harry showed up at the MoM. What we know of her death comes from two sources. The Muggle Prime Minister indicates she was found dead of unspecified causes near his Downing St. residence, and Snape comments on her death and his own role in it. > HBP, "The Other Minister": > "And then Emmeline Vance, maybe you did not hear about that one-" > "Oh yes I did!" said the Prime Minister. "It happened just around the corner from here, as a matter of fact. The papers had a field day with it, 'breakdown of law and order in the Prime Minister's backyard-'" > HBP, "Spinner's End": > "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for fninishing him off." zgirnius: Snape's remark reveals an interesting bit of information not known to the Muggle Prime Minister - *capture* and murder. This suggests that she was first captured and held somewhere by the Death Eaters, and later killed. That this last was done in the Prime Minister's backyard was probably a calculated element of the terror campaign in which the Death Eaters are engaged at the start of HBP. She could of course have been captured somewhere else doing something else, but supposing it was the DoM answers questions like 'why was there no guard?' and 'what did Snape have to do with it?' using information we already have. The other thing I note is that Snape speaks of her death in the same sentence as he brings up Sirius's. This again seems to make it reasonable to me to suggest that the deaths were consequences of the same incident. If Snape passed information to Voldemort during the planning stages of the DoM operation, and both Vance and Black were casualties of that mission, then this statement by Snape would ring true to Bellatrix. As far as the nature of the information he passed - I would suggest it was not specific to Vance, since if she was captured while on guard duty, the same would have befallen anyone else in her position. So it could have been anything that would be seen by Voldemort as furthering that mission. The same, naturally, applies to Black, since, again, anyone might have found themselves duelling Bellatrix once they rode to the rescue. Neither the capture of Vance (supposing it happened then) nor the death of Sirius were planned outcomes of that raid. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 21 01:34:36 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:34:36 -0000 Subject: Transitions etc. (Was Re: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167803 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167791 > Pippin: > I think I understand what you mean. But in terms of story development, how could this meaning be conveyed? Harry, the boy with no subtlety, is hardly likely to come up with any such nuanced interpretations on his own. Goddlefrood: I did a little further expansion in a later post than the one quoted. I do accept it is a difficult theory to swallow. As I have also said we have been blindsided before. Having been around the HP fandom for a number of years now I can't say I've seen many theories at all that turned out correct. In fact there are very few, IMO, that came even close. If they did it was more by luck than good judgement :). The genesis of my theory was that I did not believe Snape was DDM, nor did I believe he was LV's man. I also did not share a view that has been expressed that if Snape were out for himself the reason would be that he wanted to become the next Dark Lord. He just does not read that way to me. The original premise as I saw it when the bare bones of my theory were in process was that as a satisfactory alternative, to me at least, there should be someone else behind Snape, someone to whom he is loyal and for whom he acts in the way we have seen. After JKR revealed that we had met all the characters in play this became a little more problematic. If the theory is close to being right then the person behind Snape has to be someone we have met. There is some suggestive material in canon, particularly descriptors and the anagram business that point to Irma. That it may not be her is a concession already made. If the theory itself is thought meritorious then I would welcome suggestions as to who this other might be :) As you rightly say, Pippin, Harry is not the ww's most reliable witness, His interpretations have proved incorrect, even in respect of Severus, whom he was convinced was the real villain throughout PS. On the above query I would only say that there will be a way of gaining further insight to the events atop the tower. One possibility is for Harry himself to put his memory of it in a Pensieve and have someone else who knows Severus and Albus better than Harry himself does analyse that memory. Or perhaps we will get to the point where Harry realises that Snape is in fact not hindering his quest but assisting it and Snape then offers his explanation. As you go on to say, quite rightly, Harry may not believe this version, if, however, Harry has realised what I mention above then he just may. As ever we have no way of knowing prior to the release of DH, but it is always a pleasure to speculate, and sometimes rather wildly, as I freely admit this theory of mine does in parts :) In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167794 > Magpie: > Tragically, I already wrote out a response to this and then stupidly lost it--you'll get the short version now--lucky!:-) > Basically, no, imo.:-) I think the fact that you've added things like Dumbledore picking up Snape via Legilimency and catching his eye and Snape's boiling with rage is further proof that there are things that we *need* in the scene in order for it to make sense as what it's claimed to be, and they're not there. - Examples of transitions Goddlefrood: Pity you lost the longer version, it would most probably have convinced me ;). The only difficulty I have with your fine response is that the entire scene atop the tower, at least the bit where Severus was present, only lasts half a page. Many of the other examples last a good deal longer than that :). Negative aversions are certainly evidence, but they remain negative aversions until further facts can be ascertained to fill in the gaps. The scene atop the tower does not, IMO, contain enough hard facts to support a reading of a pre-arranged plan, as has been speculated on by many. The turning point, as I see it from HBP, is the argument in the forest. A heated exchange from Hagrid's perspective, and Hagrid has not been one to exaggerate too much, although he is a blabbermouth :) > Magpie: > And here's the biggest transitional moment of all, because Dumbledore has just received the blow. Not quite as big as learning his trusted lieutenant is a traitor who's going to kill him, but a big blow nevertheless, because Harry learning this about Snape changes the whole emotional landscape Dumbledore's got to deal with. > Magpie: > Dumbledore has nothing to react off of from Snape to make him think of betrayal if he wasn't a moment ago. Snape has done exactly what he would be expected to do. Goddlefrood: Absolutely, it is a big transitional moment. It only lasts half a page so little else was thought necessary to add by JKR in that scene. My initial reaction when reading HBP was that Snape had finally been revealed as evil. It is only based on certain persuasive material in some theories and interviews of JKR since HBP that I have modified that view. If Snape is DDM then I can't say I would be disappointed, but I would certainly felt let down after the enormous change of direction for his character in HBP. The other thing to bear in mind, which I do, is that in the several minutes atop the tower before the arrival of the Death Eaters and then Snape (another Death Eater) Dumbledore is clearly described as fading fast. Even the usually not so observant Harry notices this. Also we have to remember that the pleading was Harry's pov, it is not a pov I share. > Magpie: > That's why to so many people it looks like whatever is going on between Snape and Dumbledore has been gone through somewhere else, because there's no sign the two of them are surprising each other at all. Goddlefrood: Back to the forest, as I have stated. There was a beginning of a build up of tension back then and despite Dumbledore's persuasion of Snape at that time, Severus simply does not come across as someone who accepts defeat, whether in an argument or otherwise, very well. IMO of course. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167796 > Julie: > I snipped most of your replies, because as you say, anything is possible when it comes to Snape. But your theory is built on a lot of "slight" possibilities like the one above, as you admit yourself. The slight possibility that Dumbledore could have caught Snape's eye and deduced Snape's unexpected betrayal just as Snape momentarily dropped his Occlumency shields. Added to the slight possibility that Irma Pince looks much more aged than she really is (if she was Snape's schoolmate), added to the slight possibility that Snape has some relationship with her even though they don't have a single scene together in the books to foreshadow such a critical plot element... Goddlefrood: Of course, I agree with this assessment, but the basic concept is actually as outlined earlier herein and I give you the reasons for the genesis of the theory. The tower scene is too short to get an adequate handle on, and btw I have yet to see a truly convincing Snape as Dumbledore's man theory, nor have I come across one that puts the opposing view that he is Voldemort's well. I do believe Snape lies between those two extremes and that there is a great deal of merit in my theory. It does, of course, remain just a theory and we will be privileged to find out whom the real Severus Snape is in DH. I will also put up the residual post (Snape 4) fairly soon, which is a ridiculous theory about Snape as LV's (I won't say man, as that would give too much away ;)) Goddlefrood who finds himself convinced by Carol's post on why Snape did not recognise Wormtail and who says that between her and Ceridwen that matter appears to be resolved :) From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Apr 21 02:42:47 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:42:47 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Wormtail (was Transitions, etc Will the Real...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167804 The argument over whether or not Snape would have known that Scabbers was Peter Pettigrew has got me to wondering again, why does Voldemort address Pettigrew as "Wormtail"? There's something about that strikes a wrong note with me every time I read GoF. Would Pettigrew have introduced himself as "Wormtail" when he first went over to the Dark side? It is not a very flattering nickname, although I suppose it would be difficult to come up with a nickname for a rat that was complimentary (Cheddar or Whiskers would at least be a little more neutral). Its use by the Marauders seems to reinforce Peter's low status tag-along position within the group. I can see him enjoying being called Wormtail by James, Sirius, and Lupin because it signified his acceptance by those three, even if he was at the bottom pf the pecking order, but I can't see him wanting DEs to call him that. Voldemort clearly uses it in a way that is derogatory, as if to rub it in that Peter is a coward who betrayed his former friends. It just stikes me as odd that Peter would volunteer the information. How did Voldemort learn the nickname? Perhaps by the use of Legilimency? houyhnhnm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 21 03:03:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:03:08 -0000 Subject: Snape name mentioned in OOP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167805 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > > So, to make a long story short. I just want to make sure that I did > > not dream it up and asking people who know OOP better than me ( as I > > said, I barely reread this book, actually I do not remember when I > > reread it last time - sooooo not a case with other books). Is there a > > situation when somebody giving report to the Order and that somebody > > is not mentioned by name? > > > zanooda: > > You probably mean the meeting that was going on when Harry and the > Advance Guard arrived to 12 GP. When Molly came to meet them, she > said:" He's just arrived, the meeting's started..." (p.61 US > hardcover). That's what you meant, right? > > A little later, after Harry finished shouting, the Twins informed him > that Snape was at the headquarters, "giving a report" (p.69) and Harry > saw Snape downstairs surrounded by the Order members. It seams logical > to assume that Snape was a "he" that Molly mentioned. > Alla: Oh, but this is the same meeting that Zara quoted, no? I don't know. Maybe I was thinking about it and the fact that there is a short time difference in between in my mind made it possible that it was not Snape. I mean, I agree with you - it is logical to assume that it was Snape, but I keep hoping that somebody else appeared in between as well. I am just thinking that Fudge's **spies** will mean in DH that Snape was not the only spy in DE camp. I think that by the way even if Snape is DD!M. I just think it would be cool if we learn that someone else infiltrated DEs. And of course if Snape is not precisely DD!M, second spy would mean that somebody would be truly helping, hehe. But as I said, I am thinking of this regardless of Snape's loyalties. I just think that **spies** may be a clue. You know I so dislike that I am so less versed in OOP details than other books for discussion purposes, but still won't reread the book completely, only bits and pieces as needed sometimes. Heeeee. Hate so many more things in that book than love. I loved angry Harry, but that was the only thing I loved in OOP. I certainly do not want to cultivate DD's hatred in me and that is the main reason I won't reread that book probably. Oh wait, there is also Umbridge and Sirius' death and that ugly speech of DD ( oh I guess that counts under *Alla does not want to hate DD*, LOL) So, yeah, thanks for your help :) I guess I just have to live with insufficient knowledge of OOP, hehe. Alla. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Apr 21 04:09:46 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:09:46 -0000 Subject: The death of Emmeline Vance (WAS: Re: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who Killed Sir...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167806 zgirnius: > The other thing I note is that Snape speaks of her death in the same > sentence as he brings up Sirius's. This again seems to make it > reasonable to me to suggest that the deaths were consequences of the > same incident. If Snape passed information to Voldemort during the > planning stages of the DoM operation, and both Vance and Black were > casualties of that mission, then this statement by Snape would ring > true to Bellatrix. Jen: You've reminded me of something that doesn't match up in OOTP. When Molly is talking to Harry about saving Arthur, she mentions Dumbledore coming up with a cover story because 'you've no idea what trouble he would have been in otherwise, look at poor Sturgis...' (chap. 22, p. 480, US ed.) Molly doesn't seem to be covering there, acting like something happened to Sturgis other than the MOM finding him in the wee hours of the morning and sending him to Azkaban for months. Does that mean Dumbledore may have had suspicions about Sturgis that he didn't pass on to the Order members and if so, why not? It's hard to believe the Trio came up with something Dumbledore didn't. Maybe I've just misread what Molly means, her words have a double meaning. That's just not something I think of her character pulling off--verbal nuance. ;) All that to say if Snape passed info early on re: the Order guarding the door, why didn't Dumbledore pass this info on to the Order members? That's a fairly large omission, the difference between saying they might be at risk if LV and the DE's find out about them vs. LV already *knows* about them from the start (DD wouldn't have to include how he knows this if he's protecting Snape's secret-agent status). And if Snape didn't pass the information from day 1, then his information was useless because LV found out as early as August when Lucius gets to Sturgis. Snape would either have been punished and wouldn't have risked telling Bella or Narcissa, or LV didn't tell him he already knew about the guard and he's stringing Snape along (as I see the options). Another thing I'm not clear about after perusing OOTP for a little while is whether the guard ended after Arthur was hurt. When Harry and Co. arrive at the MOM, Harry mentioned being concerned the noise will attract a security guard but not an Order guard. And then again when he saw the 'plain black door' in the DOM, he didn't wonder why no one was guarding it or what happened to the Order member. Do we get canon whether the guard continues or if the mission is considered compromised and they move to plan B, Occlumency?? Jen From va32h at comcast.net Sat Apr 21 04:29:17 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:29:17 -0000 Subject: Spies (was Re: Snape name mentioned in OOP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167807 Alla wrote: > I am just thinking that Fudge's **spies** will mean in DH that Snape was not the only spy in DE camp. I think that by the way even if Snape is DD!M. I just think it would be cool if we learn that > someone else infiltrated DEs. > > And of course if Snape is not precisely DD!M, second spy would mean > that somebody would be truly helping, hehe. > > But as I said, I am thinking of this regardless of Snape's > loyalties. I just think that **spies** may be a clue. va32h: You know, I have always thought the "big blond Death Eater" mentioned so many times at the end of HBP was another spy. He fires off a bunch of jinxes, but never hits anyone in the Order, *but* manages to kill another Death Eater. He's the one who breaks the barrier on the stairs, by firing at the walls and collapsing the ceiling. The only "enemy" he actually hits with a curse is Hagrid, whose giant blood conveniently gives him extra protection. He does set fire to Hagrid's house, and doesn't he Crucio Harry as well? The fire I could see as acceptable collateral damage to keep his cover, not sure the torture of Harry could be considered in that category though. But I find it odd that the big blond DE isn't given a name, and manages to be so ineffectual at his job. The Order didn't drink Felix that night, just the kids...how did everyone get so lucky? va32h From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Apr 21 04:34:24 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:34:24 -0000 Subject: Symbol on spine of the British Edition Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167808 Sorry if this has already been discussed. I tried to find a reference in the old post, but gave up. I just stumbled on this symbol while looking for something else. I found the symbol that is on the book spine. It is call Solomon's Magic Triangle. It is the second most important thing in magic after the circle. It is ued to bind evil spirits and demons. Here is a link: http://www.speakingwithspirits.com/solomon_triangle.htm And here I have copy and pasted some information about it: --------------- It is used in the Conjuring of the Demonic or Celestial/Angelic spirits. It is in this Triangle that they will appear and are forced to obey. Why will it make them obey? Because it has 3 Sacred names of God - Tetragrammaton, Primeumaton, and Anaphaxeton one on each side and it has the name Michael (Archangel Michael) which is split into 3 sections MI - CHA - EL. This contains the spirit from escaping and compels them to obey. This does not mean in every case they are going to obey you... but it helps the process. Some Magicians such as the Great Crowley would use Fresh Blood of a Sacrificed animal in the Triangle to attract the Demon. For Blood is the Life force and Demons thrive on it. Crowley would Sacrifice three white doves and pour the Blood into each corner of the Triangle... the Demon would stay until the life force was exhausted, then Demon would leave. ----------------- Very interesting. I wonder if the line down the center is simular to the crack in the ring horcrox. Tonks_op Haven't been here in awhile. Have been at Yahoo Answers. Tonks_op From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Apr 21 05:00:25 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:00:25 -0000 Subject: The death of Emmeline Vance (WAS: Re: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who Killed Sir...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167809 > Jen: You've reminded me of something that doesn't match up in OOTP. > When Molly is talking to Harry about saving Arthur, she mentions > Dumbledore coming up with a cover story because 'you've no idea what > trouble he would have been in otherwise, look at poor Sturgis...' (chap. 22, > p. 480, US ed.) zgirnius: I think Molly knows what Sturgis was up to, and that Sturgis could not explain it to the Ministry, hence his jail time. She is grateful that Dumbledore has a cover story for Arthur that the Ministry can accept and that Arthur can give. Anyway, that is what I find to be the the straightforward reading of these lines. > Jen: > All that to say if Snape passed info early on re: the Order guarding the > door, why didn't Dumbledore pass this info on to the Order members? zgirnius: I was not suggesting it was the information about the guard and where s/he is stationed that Snape passed. It could be anything Snpae told Voldemort that might have been helpful in planning the operation. My own guess as to the nature of the information is that it was stuff about Sirius, a lot of which Snape had to fear Voldemort would get anyway, from Peter. That Harry and Sirius are close, that Sirius is a dog Animagus, that he is around, perhaps that he is staying at Order HQ (an excellent reason why Snape cannot say *where* he is). All it has to be is information that was part of the planning/decision process for the DoM raid, if Vance was there. The info helped with the raid, which led to the two deaths. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 21 07:31:43 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 07:31:43 -0000 Subject: Symbol on spine of the British Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167810 > Tonks: > Sorry if this has already been discussed. I tried to find a reference in the old post, but gave up. I just stumbled on this symbol while looking for something else. Goddlefrood: Well, it has, but not quite from the atheist viewpoint ;), You'll see why I say this shortly. The symbol on the spine of the UK Child's cover differs in several ways from Solomon's Magic Triangle. It's a line drawing with no text for a start, unlike the Solomon's Magic Triangle. Here are some links just to the images, they are only similar in that they are both triangles that have a circle inside :). Other than that they are differenct. Those links: http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2630/solomonstrianglejpgsx3.jpg http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/9214/screenhunter001nh4.gif What stung me to respond, though, was not this but the extract brought in from an unrevealed source. It mentions Crowley in the same breath as magic. Aleister Crowley may have been many things but he was not, except perhaps in his own mind, a magician. What he was was an atheist and his published works, some of which I have read extracts of, would support this view. One should always be suspicious of someone who spells their name Aleister too ;). This is about him: 'Crowley gained much notoriety during his lifetime, and was famously dubbed "The Wickedest Man In the World."' That from Wikpedia. So Crowley is hardly someone to rely on to prove something, he was no more than a mischief maker and no less than a deeply disturbed human being. Take a look at the source of the quote wiki has: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/module-subjects-viewpage-pageid-18.phtml That written in Crowley's own lifetime, not a pleasant man at all. Is the suggestion that due to this we are to see some form of quasi-religious rite performed in DH, in that evil spirits will be summoned to give guidance in some way? The HP books are many thing, but "Charmed" they certainly are not, IMO. On that level I disagree with this post and say that the similarity is just a coincidence, but as you will see, the two are hardly similar at all. The significance of the spine drawing should, I suggest, be looked for elsewhere ;), even if it is argued that the Solomon's Magic Triangle can also be used to summon benign spirits. It would be so far removed from anything seen so far in canon that it should quite simply be ignored :) Goddlefrood, not an atheist, but concerned about the implications of the post to which this responds. From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Apr 21 07:48:37 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 07:48:37 -0000 Subject: Snape the Spy (WAS Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167811 Carol: > Dumbledore is not a great believer in Treawney's predictions, as we > see again in HBP. In any case, all that Prophecy predicted was that > the Dark Lord's servant would escape that night and return to him, > which, of course, did happen. Not very helpful. Dana: POA Pg 238 UKed Paperback The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible then before. Pg 311 UKed `She said the servant was going to help him come back to power.' Harry stared up at Dumbledore. Was it ? was she making a real prediction? Do you know Harry, I think she might have been,' he said thoughtfully. Who'd have thought it? That brings her real predictions up to two. End quote canon. She did not only predict the servant went back to LV but that he also would help in back to power. And Harry tells this to DD and so he knows. The Dark Mark appearing at the Word Cup was also an indication of this. The DEs fled the scene after seeing it, so it was not set by them and it was with Harry's wand and Barty Crouch Sr's house elf. DD did not need Snape mentioning his Dark Mark information to understand that DEs all around the country were becoming restless and that rumors had began to spread. DD could have made the link about LV becoming stronger without Snape mentioning his Mark growing darker and so why he mentions it. You imply that Sirius got his information from DD while DD could not even send the guy something to eat. I think it was the other way around, Sirius picking up on rumors and informing DD about it. DD was at Hogwarts while Sirius pretended to be a loveable stray, I think it was easier for him to pick up on things then for DD. DD was looking in the pencieve to see what he was missing because someone from the inside had put Harry's name into the Goblet and he must have had some idea about LV's come back and Harry being entered in the tournament somehow being linked, just not know how they where linked. He was looking at DD's memories of Barty Crouch Sr and they were both related to Karkaroff and the reason Crouch fell from grace with the general public after his son was caught as a DE and died. Crouch suddenly not attending the tournament seemed to be linked and also Bertha was Crouch employee. It had nothing to do with Snape or his dark mark growing stronger. Sirius had witnesses Barty Crouch JR being buried by Dementors, how could he possibly know that it was actually his mother? If Bertha hadn't found out by visiting Crouch house, no one would have known not even LV. It was a clue that this would become important later and why DD was looking at memories related to Crouch as well. Sirius did make the connection that all was somehow related to Crouch and he was right in that wasn't he? Because it was Crouch who swapped his wife for his son and had kept his son in hiding all those years and it was Bertha, finding out his secret, that made it possible for LV to find this out too. The pensieve scene was by the way after Sirius conversation with Harry not before because Harry did not know Snape had been a DE yet or he would have told Sirius about it. I do not think Sirius got his information from DD, Sirius got part of it from Harry and made the links himself. Carol: > In OoP, Black never gets out of the house except to be seen on > Platform 9 3/4 by Lucius Malfoy, as Snape informs him. Black must be > getting his information (most of which he's not sharing with Harry) > from someone more informed. It makes sense that this information would > come from DD's spy among the Death Eaters, Snape. ("Yes, Potter, that > is my job.") Black is not going to give Harry and the other kids the > specific information that Dumbledore has ordered them to keep quiet > about! The kids, even Harry, are kept away from the Order meetings. > Mrs. Weasley is concerned that Black is telling them too much, even > with his lie about a "weapon." The Order members are all, including > Snape, hiding the existence of the Prophecy from Harry on DD's orders. > The fact that Sirius Black doesn't tell Harry the "rumours" he's heard > doesn't mean that Snape has not provided specific information in his > reports--plural. Dana: I'm not certain where you are going with this because the rumors, I was referring to, was about what Sirius said in GoF and not OotP and thus when Sirius was still free to go outside and pick up on information himself. And in hindsight Sirius was the only one that was right about wanting to tell Harry everything he should know, wasn't he? Everybody is so focused on Sirius supposedly being so reckless and not knowing what was good for Harry, while actually all could have been prevented if Harry would have been in the know. He was the only one that thought treating Harry like Harry and not like some innocent child that needs protection, was the right way to go. Because according to all others it was not up to Harry and in the end, it was precisely what Harry did and had always done. Maybe the bad Godfather knew his godson better then the rest of them, even if his mental state failed him on occasions. And to be honest I think he certainly knew Snape better then the rest of them and was not afraid to call him on it while others just followed DD like blind sheep but again I have no problem if you can call me bias. Besides Snape is not the only one reporting to HQ and I am sorry if I get you wrong but you seemed to think Snape is the only one actually doing anything? He might think he is but he is certainly not and all of them are risking there lives not just Snape (or actually even more then Snape because we do not see Snape in any mortal peril while we see Arthur almost dying, Emmyline Vance died and Sirius died). Remus is away on specific Order business for periods of time, Arthur and the other MoM employees keep them up to date on what the MoM is up to and there are many other Order members we do not actually see but it is a lot to assume they are just there to fill up the room a bit and have come to see the show. You cannot win the war with just one person and come to think of it in my opinion putting too much trust in this so-called brilliant spy was precisely what caused disaster to strike because the so-called super spy, who came through so brilliantly, could not even deliver information on LV's new plan. It makes you wonder why just a few months later Snape has suddenly moved up in ranks with LV, is it just because there was no one left to fill that spot and why he is now LV's main man? I do not think so but maybe I am just too blind to see what a wonderful brilliant spy Snape actually is. Come to think of it Snape should have been death by sending the Order and ruining LV's plan because LV knew there was no other Order Member left at Hogwarts to report, Harry, went to the DoM but we actually see that Snape is still on LV's good side. Mhhh makes you think doesn't it but you will probably say there is no proof LV knew that, well I think he did know and why he choose that specific time to plant the vision because I think he was also responsible for getting Hagrid out of Hogwarts by having Lucius rub Umbridge the right way and he just got lucky McGonagall was take out at the same time, saved him a lot of trouble. Now there was just Snape and he conveniently lost Harry out of his sight for several hours. You might think LV could not have known Harry being caught by Umbridge but I think he could because why did Kreacher hurt Buckbeak to get Sirius away from the kitchen, if he did not count on Harry trying to check in on Sirius? I believe he was planning on Harry getting expelled and thrown out of Hogwarts. Hermione just changed the plan slightly but still it turned out to be nothing to worry about. Carol: > But that he *does* provide specific information, and that the other Order members > (except possibly Padfoot) find it significant, is evident from canon. Dana: Please provide canon evidence of the *significant* information you are referring to because we only hear Snape giving reports and DD mentioning Snape getting information from Harry, otherwise we see no proof about information specifically provided by Snape. Every information is significant, Snape's information is not more important (all thought it could have been if he actually had provided new information, instead of confirming that what was already known) then the information provided by others. Even Hagrid's information on the Giants and Bill's information on the Goblins is very important. Carol: > Would Snape give reports if he had nothing to say? Dana: Of course he would because he needs to keep his cover, he can't pretend to work for the Order and then not provide them with any information at all but it does not have to mean the information has to be of any significance and so he brings to the table absolutely nothing, that we see anyway, that makes the Order able to remain one step ahead of LV and just because Lucius messed up and not get out before the Order arrives still is no proof Snape tried to thwart LV's plan. To be honest with you, for me there is canon evidence JKR left in OotP about Snape's true loyalties. The whole Rookwood topic is the clue to Snape not being DDM. He is not LV's man either because he does not risk Order information that could blow his cover with the Order but he is definitely not DDM. Snape is only loyal to one person and that is himself. I will write a separate post with all what I perceive as relevant canon to support my above claim. It will not be enough for those that have made up their minds about Snape being DDM but at least there is real canon supporting Snape being out for himself and for himself alone and that he is a person that would never risk his own life not even in HBP but I have to work it out and it will take some time so to be continued. All just my humble opinion. Dana From christopherauk at yahoo.co.uk Sat Apr 21 13:15:16 2007 From: christopherauk at yahoo.co.uk (Christopher) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:15:16 -0000 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167812 Steve wrote: > People have no problem speculating that Harry is, > Why can't Voldemort accidentally be Harry's Horcrux? Or perhaps, > by taking a bit of Harry's blood Voldemort has also > taken a bit of Harry's spirit. How would Voldermort have become Harry's Horcrux? Don't you have to commit murder to create one? I don't class Voldermort dying from a rebounded spell as murder. Harry's sould been in the blood is a possibilty, though I lean towards the possiblity that the blood contains a portion of Lilly's love in it, which might change Voldermort. Christopherauk From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Apr 21 14:32:23 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:32:23 EDT Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167813 >Goddlefrood, with a little date for you once more, this time >1492, the death year of Nearly Headless Nick (and I wonder if >JKR, when putting this date had taken account of the Julian >Calendar?). It was the same year in which, not only was America >"discovered" by Christopher Columbus, but it was also Year 7000 >from the Dating Creation, and one of the many in which an >anticipated Apocalypse failed to happen :) Bart Also, the year of the Spanish Inquisition. Nikkalmati Bart, the Spanish Inquisition went on for over 400 years with various period of activity and inactivity. There was no "year of the Spanish Inquisition." To bring this into compliance with the rules, I must wonder why Nick (and the Bloody Baron and the Fat Friar ) haunt Hogwarts. Did they die there like Myrtle? That seems unlikely. Did they return there because they were students or teachers who liked the place? Did they have no where else to go? Did they originally want to haunt someone who was at Hogwarts like Myrtle haunted , was it Olivia ?, the girl who laughed at her? Nikkalmati Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Apr 21 14:49:40 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:49:40 EDT Subject: OOTP and Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167814 >MusicalBetsy >Another quote I found very telling is when DD and Harry are back at Hogwarts having their little chat, and one of the first things DD says to Harry is, "I know how you are feeling, Harry" (pg. 823). That's a pretty bold thing to say unless he *really* does know how Harry feels. On the next page, DD even tells him how he feels when he states, "You care so much you feel as though you will bleed to death with the pain of it." (pg. 824) Now doesn't that sound like DD has been in a similar situation? I wonder if this has anything to do with what DD was talking about when taking the potion in HBP. It sounds like there is some pretty important event from DD's past that Harry needs to learn about. >And finally, there's the prophecy. There has been some discussion on here about whether it will be Harry who destroys Voldy or some other person, but the prophecy is very clear about it - "And either *must die* at the hand of the other..." (pg. 841). In fact, Harry asks DD, "So does that mean that...that one of us has got to kill the other one...in the end?" "Yes," said Dumbledore. (pg. 844). And interestingly, DD does not correct him by saying he can destroy him using other means. Nikkalmati You may not have seen it, but there has been some speculation that "the Other" is a third person, perhaps even Neville, who will destroy LV. The quote you give from DD at the MOM does seem to support that DD does not want to kill LV. I would vote that he does not want Harry to kill LV either. The discussion about the prophecy is just that - its about what the prophecy says. Recall that DD does not believe in the prophecy or prophecies, as such. By believing the prophecy, you make t come true, so Harry is free to do something else. DD seems to believe that each person must learn the important lessons in life on their own. This belief works to advance the plot, but I sometimes want to yell "Just tell him for ***'s sake." (It doesn't work). I tend to agree with other listees who have suggested that Sibyl actually does correctly predict the future but misinterprets what she sees. The incident with the Tarot cards gives us this hint. Also, her grandmother was named Cassandra. Cassandra was the Trojan seer who angered Apollo somehow. Perhaps, she turned him down? In any case, he cursed her by making her always correctly predict the future, but made it so no one would believe her. Imagine the frustration. Sibyl seems to be in a similar position, except that she herself doesn't always believe or doesn't recall her own predictions. Nikkalmati (who bets Sibyl is right on the money). ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Apr 21 15:28:25 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:28:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Transitions etc. (Was Re: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward?) References: Message-ID: <004b01c78429$b4c76340$4298400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167815 > Goddlefrood: > > Pity you lost the longer version, it would most probably have > convinced me ;). The only difficulty I have with your fine > response is that the entire scene atop the tower, at least the > bit where Severus was present, only lasts half a page. Many of > the other examples last a good deal longer than that :). Magpie: But the length of the scene is irrelevent. If the scene is shorter, then the reactions are quicker, but they still exist. My second post may have been shorter than the first, but you still had to read it and process it before you responded to it. Even if your reaction could probably be very fast because you already had an idea of the jist of what I was going to say. Dumbledore's transitions don't have to take long, but they have to exist in some way, in life as well as fiction. If you came home one evening and found your grandmother holding a gun on you, even if you had as little time as Dumbledore has here (and of course, Dumbledore doesn't know he's only got a half a page), you still wouldn't be able to go straight from "Hi Grandma" to "Oh Grandma, please don't do this!" You'd have to pass through different things to get from one to the other. If she shot you before you finished, you'd probably die in confusion. For instance, in Dumbledore's case, he might have said, "Severus?" showing that there was something not quite right. Even if Dumbledore was already suspicious of Snape Snape would have to do something to show him his suspicions were correct and Dumbledore would have to take that in. (And I actually doubt he'd plead with him, personally. He'd, imo, sound more sorrowful that Snape was making this mistake.) Goddlefrood > Negative aversions are certainly evidence, but they remain > negative aversions until further facts can be ascertained to > fill in the gaps. The scene atop the tower does not, IMO, > contain enough hard facts to support a reading of a pre-arranged > plan, as has been speculated on by many. The turning point, as > I see it from HBP, is the argument in the forest. A heated > exchange from Hagrid's perspective, and Hagrid has not been one > to exaggerate too much, although he is a blabbermouth :) Magpie: I agree we don't know what's going on on the Tower--I don't think we have the information we need yet, and when we do the Tower scene will fall into place and there will be no other way it will have worked. What we see on the Tower certainly doesn't give us enough facts to say there was definitely a prearranged plan, but that idea does, at least, follow the reactions that we have in the scene. > >> Magpie: > >> And here's the biggest transitional moment of all, because > Dumbledore has just received the blow. Not quite as big as > learning his trusted lieutenant is a traitor who's going to kill > him, but a big blow nevertheless, because Harry learning this > about Snape changes the whole emotional landscape Dumbledore's > got to deal with. > > > >> Magpie: > >> Dumbledore has nothing to react off of from Snape to make him > think of betrayal if he wasn't a moment ago. Snape has done > exactly what he would be expected to do. > > > > Goddlefrood: > > Absolutely, it is a big transitional moment. It only lasts half > a page so little else was thought necessary to add by JKR in that > scene. Magpie: I don't understand. JKR didn't write this particular transition, so where is the transition? She wrote one in the earlier scene (and wrote others in this scene). Since this scene is taking place more quickly Dumbledore doesn't have time to not speak for a long moment before he adjusts himself (that is, he doesn't--I see no reason why Dumbledore couldn't have taken more time to compose himself without speaking; apparently he doesn't need to), but he still has to go through the steps from one to the other. In fiction, as in real life, you can't decide that since you don't have much time you can skip thought progression. The other scene may have been longer and offered more detailed descriptions of the transitions, but every scene in canon is working the same way, even the lightest, quickest exchange between the kids at the breakfast table. Also remember nobody was arbitrarily confined to only half a page at the end of the Tower scene. It's half a page because JKR said all she needed to say in that amount of time. What's happening in the scene is what decides the length of it. Goddlefrood: > The other thing to bear in mind, which I do, is that in the > several minutes atop the tower before the arrival of the Death > Eaters and then Snape (another Death Eater) Dumbledore is clearly > described as fading fast. Even the usually not so observant Harry > notices this. Also we have to remember that the pleading was > Harry's pov, it is not a pov I share. Magpie: Harry has often been known to get things wrong, but I would consider it a cheat OOC for JKR if Dumbledore wasn't really pleading--or at least doing something close to pleading--there. Harry doesn't understand what's going on and can't interpret it for us, but I think it's a bit much for Harry to have a shocked reaction to the pleading voice that he heard and then have it later turn out to have not happened. Dumbledore has been fading throughout the scene and not sounded as if he were pleading. I don't think we yet have enough information to know what's going on in that scene yet, but I do think that everything we've got we should take as solid clues. The Harry filter means Harry will misinterpret, but also tell us what's there. I know that "pleading" is an interpretation technically, but I think it's meant in this case to be a real physical descriptor, given Harry's instinctive reaction to it (and how utterly strange it strikes him as being). Harry might get wrong why Dumbledore is pleading or who he's pleading too or what he's pleading for, but taking away the pleading seems like JKR seriously cheating, as if she can't write this scene as one of her classic misdirections without writing in an artificial misdirection into it. Especially in HBP, where the major plot things are happening amongst people outside of Harry's understanding, we get our hints about what's going on from what emotion shows on the outside. (Sometimes Harry won't be able to identify the emotion and tells us so.) As an aside, Snape's had a whole hit parade of odd expressions throughout the books that Harry reports but can't interpret, and if there's one I want explained more than any other, it's the way he looks at the petrified Mrs. Norris as if he's trying not to laugh in CoS. >> Magpie: > >> That's why to so many people it looks like whatever is going > on between Snape and Dumbledore has been gone through somewhere > else, because there's no sign the two of them are surprising each > other at all. > > > > Goddlefrood: > > Back to the forest, as I have stated. There was a beginning of a > build up of tension back then and despite Dumbledore's persuasion > of Snape at that time, Severus simply does not come across as > someone who accepts defeat, whether in an argument or otherwise, > very well. IMO of course. Magpie: So one possibility is that Dumbledore knows that Snape is a traitor--only that requires an explanation about why he was just saying how much he trusted him completely to Harry and why he wanted Snape alone to help him on this night. Or else Dumbledore just already knows it's a possibility--that would work, except Snape doesn't show him that he has gone to the other side as Dumbledore feared he might (which Dumbledore would then have to take in and process before responding to) before Dumbledore starts pleading. The Tower scene being short does not make it different than any other scene. The actions and responses are still as clear as they are anywhere else. We can all follow them. I'm not saying that the Tower proves that Snape is DDM, of course. But I don't see how it can be a scene where Dumbledore realizes Snape is going to betray him without Snape showing Dumbledore he's going to betray him followed by Dumbledore's realization and reaction to that. -m From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 21 16:19:05 2007 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: I know what Deathly Hallows means! Message-ID: <898602.35001.qm@web81207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167816 Matt wrote: Put another way, Slytherin's locket is a horcrux, therefore Deathly Hallows refers to the Horcuxes... What is the Deathly Hallows? They are horcruxes! Witherwing now: Bravo! You've put into words the one reason to love that UKadult cover art, imo. I want to add, however, that I am sure JK Rowling has MORE than this in store for us. For example, think of all the things the Half Blood Prince almost was - a *girl* (Hermione's hunch), James Potter (Harry's desire)... I enjoyed the constantly changing view Harry has through the book, of the Prince as mentor, as mysterious but certainly not Dark, as giver of life-saving information, as murderous scribe of the sectumsempra... In short, the Deathly Hallows, whatever they literally turn out to be, promise to be more than that, as they will signify many things to us, the devoted readers. That they are described as Deathly...that adjective alone makes a reader quake and tremble in a way that a photo of a locket, no matter how artfully done, cannot. -Witherwing From bureau13a at yahoo.com Sat Apr 21 14:24:37 2007 From: bureau13a at yahoo.com (bureau13a) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:24:37 -0000 Subject: The End of Book Seven Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167817 Consider this -- throughout the series one underlying theme is there. Harry wants to be Harry. No Chosen One. No The Boy Who Lived. Therefore, at the end of Book 7 Harry will die. But die in the sense that he will disappear with only the Weasleys, Hermione and perhaps a few members of the Hogwarts staff ever knowing that Harry is alive. He will move into Grimmauld place, marry Ginny at some point in the future and live happily ever after anonymously. Oh and as a parting gift to the Dursleys, I think Harry should leave Kreacher at Privet Drive to help his aunt and uncle maintain their lovely home. bureau From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Apr 21 17:29:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:29:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I know what "Deathly Hallows" means! In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704200732p413cec1r65aa3bd4af19c9e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50704200732p413cec1r65aa3bd4af19c9e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <462A4A0B.2030707@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167818 Jordan Abel wrote: > Here we see that in the two cases where the nature of the thing named > in the title would be a spoiler, your pattern was _not_ followed. Well, I've decided to stick to my theory that it's Sirius calling from beyond the Veil. Not that I really think it's going to be that, but if it is something like the Horcruxes, I am one of thousands, but if it's what I say, I can tell everybody, "You see? I told you so!!!!" Bart From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Apr 21 17:37:34 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:37:34 EDT Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167819 --- "katmandu_85219" wrote: > > I was reading the prank topic, and someone stated > that Snape was responsible for Sirius' death. That > started me to think. Why would Snape be responsible > for his death? ... > > katmandu_85219 > >bboyminn: >Here's the thing, Harry blames Snape for Sirius's death, but that is partly to deflect his own feelings of responsibility onto someone else. >That is understandable, but I think Harry it taking too much guilt onto himself. Yes, we can say if Harry hadn't been so foolish, Sirius would still be alive. But we can also say that if Dumbledore had kept Harry more informed, Sirius would still be alive. We can also say that if Sirius had been paying attention instead of gloating and bragging, he would still be alive. We can say if Dumbledore has wasted less time questioning Kreacher, he would have arrived sooner and could have saved Sirius. So, there are lots of people we can blame for this event. Nikkalmati I think we also can consider that SS did not advise Black to stay at GP to be safe. He told him to wait for DD so he could fill him in on things. Then presumably SB could come with DD to save Harry. SB unreasonably and recklessly ignored that order or advice and came with the Order members, leaving DD to arrive at an empty house and requiring that he take the time to question Kreacher, thus, delaying DD's own arrival at the MOM. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Apr 21 18:25:52 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:25:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167820 Nikkalmati I think we also can consider that SS did not advise Black to stay at GP to be safe. He told him to wait for DD so he could fill him in on things. Then presumably SB could come with DD to save Harry. SB unreasonably and recklessly ignored that order or advice and came with the Order members, leaving DD to arrive at an empty house and requiring that he take the time to question Kreacher, thus, delaying DD's own arrival at the MOM. Nikkalmati Sherry: Would any parent sit around and wait for someone else when there child is in danger? I think not. To me, Sirius acted like any parental figure would have acted. He was a damn fool for taunting Bellatrix and not taking her seriously in the duel, but he wasn't wrong for rushing off to try to help Harry in the first place. in my opinion, anyway. He was just being parental. Sherry From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Apr 21 18:35:13 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:35:13 -0000 Subject: The death of Emmeline Vance (WAS: Re: Snape the Spy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167821 > zgirnius: > I think Molly knows what Sturgis was up to, and that Sturgis could > not explain it to the Ministry, hence his jail time. She is grateful > that Dumbledore has a cover story for Arthur that the Ministry can > accept and that Arthur can give. Anyway, that is what I find to be > the the straightforward reading of these lines. Jen: I meant Molly doesn't seem to know Sturgis was likely Imperio'd by Lucius and that's why he was caught at the MOM, that it wasn't simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I misunderstood your theory and thought Snape had passed information specifically about the Order guarding the door before the Order ever started, and therefore Dumbledore and the Order members should have known Sturgis was tampered with on the night in question. Since you cleared up for me that Snape didn't pass anything so specific as the Order guarding the door, today I'm thinking the plausible explanation for Molly's comment is that DD and the Order didn't realize what happened to Sturgis until after Arthur was attacked. > zgirnius: > My own guess as to the nature of the information is that it was stuff > about Sirius, a lot of which Snape had to fear Voldemort would get > anyway, from Peter. That Harry and Sirius are close, that Sirius is a > dog Animagus, that he is around, perhaps that he is staying at Order > HQ (an excellent reason why Snape cannot say *where* he is). > All it has to be is information that was part of the > planning/decision process for the DoM raid, if Vance was there. The > info helped with the raid, which led to the two deaths. Jen: Okay, so Snape was sort of taking credit for something he wasn't involved in but which couldn't be proven otherwise by Bella and Narcissa. Well, that's not entirely true because I still don't understand why he took credit for Sirius with Narcissa standing right there knowing Kreacher was the one who passed the information? But about Vance, if she was the unlucky one to be guarding the door and was captured and later killed, then Snape could say his information led to those events. I do wish JKR would have made it clear whether there was an Order guard the night in question. Harry doesn't wonder where the Order guard is, only the MOM security. None of the kids think about or mention the possibility of an Order member around to help Sirius before they can arrive. There were moments in the story when the information could have been slipped in as a clue and it wasn't. But then I'm still trying to figure out the whole point of the guard at the door to begin with! Dumbledore knows only LV or Harry can pick up the orb so the guard isn't really guarding the orb because how could one person keep Voldemort from entering the room?? That leaves the notion that what the guard is doing is keeping Harry *out* should Voldemort lure him there. So in my mind Occlumency took the place of the guard after Arthur was attacked and the Order realized what had happened to Podmore. The new way to 'guard' Harry was to keep him from being lured there to begin with. I do like this Vance theory because it explains Snape's comments about Sirius and Vance in one fell swoop. Although I get the sense that even if Bella and Narcissa were fooled into thinking Snape had a big role in the events of the DOM raid (and it's hard for me to understand why given Kreacher's supposed role), that Voldemort was *not* fooled, and Snape's lack of helpful information throughout OOTP caused the undercurrent of mistrust directed at him in HBP, i.e., Bella's comments, Peter at Spinner's End, Snape not in on Draco's mission once it starts, Draco being helped by Bella and not Snape, etc. Jen From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Apr 21 19:07:36 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:07:36 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: DH Spoiler Policy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167822 Greetings from Hexquarters! As we all count down the days until the release of Deathly Hallows, the rumour-mill is beginning to spin faster and faster, spitting out tidbits (whether true or false) about what we'll find between the covers come 21 July. While each of the publishers of DH is reputed to be a superb Occlumens, certain unauthorised persons with equally superb Legilimency skills may leak portions of the book before July 21. Do Not Discuss Any Such Leaks on the HPFGU Lists. They are violations of the Wizarding Statute of Secrecy (not to mention copyright laws). If you violate this rule, the elves reserve the right to confiscate, or even destroy, your wand. Unlike leaks, sometimes tidbits of information are released ahead of time which are authorized by JKR herself; these we consider 'spoilers'. Beginning today, we would like members to use the "DH" prefix for any post to any of our lists that contains spoilers for DH. Subject headers should not, of course, contain spoilers themselves: "DH: JKR released chapter title called 'Petunia's Plan'!" rather defeats the point of the DH prefix. For example, an appropriate subject header might be, "DH: Harry, Horcruxes" since we know the Horcruxes will be part of the story. "DH: Longbottoms to play important role" on the other hand *would* be a spoiler since that's new information which gives too much away in the subject line. Spoiler text is a wonderful thing...when it works. Please keep in mind we have members reading in three different formats: individual e-mails, digests and webview, and each one requires a different length of spoiler text. What works best is to write letters vertically down the side of the page, original text WITHOUT chevrons (> >), and then add three or more lines of original text underneath with no spoiler information. Here's an example of a spoiler text which was tested and works for all formats: Spoiler******************** P O I L E R S A H E A D************************************************************ After you write out a vertical line of letters (and you can be creative, the word 'Spoiler' isn't required), please write out at least three lines of text like we're doing here before you get to the juicy part. What's a spoiler? Use common sense. A spoiler is anything you KNOW will be in Book 7. Not as in 'I saw it in a dream'; more 'I saw it in the Scholastic catalog/ on the press release/ on JKR's website.' Anything that you THINK will be in DH based on evidence in Books 1-6, or your own wild speculation, is *not* a spoiler. We've been speculating about what we THINK will be in DH for the last couple of years, after all... So, if you KNOW that parts of your post include information that will be in DH, you need the DH: prefix and spoiler space. Please begin using the new "DH" prefix and spoiler space on all of our lists --especially the main list and OT-Chatter -- beginning today. And if you don't use it, don't be surprised if you suddenly find yourself being hung upside down over the Slytherin Common Room fire. ;-) And remember, if you have any comments about any DH release issues, holler at us: hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Or post on the Feedback list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ "The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." [PS/SS Chapter 17] Be like Dumbledore. Tell people as little as possible. ;-) Counting down to 21 July, The Administration Team From sam2sar at charter.net Sat Apr 21 20:20:52 2007 From: sam2sar at charter.net (Stephanie) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:20:52 -0000 Subject: The End of Book Seven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bureau13a" wrote: > > Oh and as a parting gift to the Dursleys, I think Harry should leave > Kreacher at Privet Drive to help his aunt and uncle maintain their > lovely home. > > bureau > Oh, that would be hilarious. The first thing that Petunia would do is give Kreacher some clean clothes and he would take off so fast it would leave skidmarks. Sam From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 21 23:19:49 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:19:49 -0000 Subject: Part 4 - A Tale of Two Pretties (Was: The Good, the not so good and the downrigh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167824 The Downright Ridiculous Snape or The Enigma and the Snake Goddlefrood: Firstly, thank you all for the tremendous responses to this thread so far. It appears to me to have been a very useful exercise to reopen the matter of the duplicitous one from different perspectives :) The final instalment now, having delivered my favoured views of a possible good Snape and a possible not so good Snape. Here mostly for your entertainment is the downright ridiculous Snape. Simply Snape's patronus is Nagini. Odd? No more so than his being Fawkes the Phoenix, IMO ;). There is little support for this and from the matters in GoF, particularly relative to the Foe Glass it is almost certainly incorrect. I give you the tale of two pretties :). It would, having said that be an alternative for the two snakes seen when DD checked his instruments in OotP. On Snape's boggart I suggest that that may take the form of seeing the Potters killed again, not that he saw that the first time, but he has their deaths as his one true moment of regret, IMO. Both the suggested patronus form and the suggested boggart form are presented to you due to JKR not being able to tell us what they are, as in her words: "that would give too much away." --------------------- Just to wrap up the series of originating posts now I'll offer a few possible ways in which Severus's story ark may play out in DH. The one that is not hard to fathom is that when we first meet him in DH, if we actually do get some of Harry's radar chapters, he will be with Draco and making plans as to how they can hide from detection, being as Snape is now the second most wanted wizard in the ww. As I have said in other posts on this thread I do believe Severus will be a help to Harry in his Horcrux quest rather than a hindrance. If that is not the case then Harry will have problems due to my other opinion of Severus, which is that he is in the top three most powerful wizards we have met in the books to date. Can anyone honestly envisage a scenario where Harry and Snape team up early in the book and Harry accepts help from he whom he currently considers to be the worst and most repulsive murderer in history bar none? I have to say, I really don't think so, but then I've been wrong before. I hope that Snape will turn out to be assisting the "good" because he has had a rough life from what we have been shown. I hope that Snape will turn out to be "good" as Harry will have severe problems if he is truly with LV. Perhaps Aberforth will transpire to be an extraordinarily powerful ally for Harry, but even then Snape and LV on the same side would be a formidable opposition, not to mention Bellatrix and the often underestimated Peter. The only other small points that I want to say to wrap this up, barring responses ;) are: (i)When Hagrid says "No one ever lived after Lord Voldemort decided to kill them", it is my prediction that Snape will be one possible exception to this. (ii) The smoky white matter that took the shape of a phoenix at Dumbledore's funeral I predict will be DD's last message to Snape, whom DD did trust, whether misguidedly or otherwise :) Over to others Goddlefrood, who commends Nikalmati for pointing out once again that the Spanish Inquisition was an ongoing situation. That no one ever expected such a thing is by the by :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 22 01:47:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:47:15 -0000 Subject: The death of Emmeline Vance (WAS: Re: Snape the Spy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167825 Jen R: > But then I'm still trying to figure out the whole point of the guard > at the door to begin with! Dumbledore knows only LV or Harry can > pick up the orb so the guard isn't really guarding the orb because > how could one person keep Voldemort from entering the room?? Pippin: According to Lupin, Voldemort's strategy was to keep the DE's quiet and the Wizarding World in ignorance of his return until he had rebuilt his organization. The Order, IMO, tempted him to abandon this strategy with disinformation -- that the Prophecy contained information about how to destroy Harry. As Voldemort did not know that only he or Harry could retrieve the prophecy, he might be tempted to send Death Eaters to steal it. The Ministry, you will recall, was denying Voldemort's return and blaming the mass breakout from Azkaban on Sirius Black. If the Order could catch DE's in the act of breaking in to the DoM and then trimphantly produce evidence that Sirius Black had been in the custody of the Order the whole time, it would go a long way to convince people that Dumbledore and Harry were telling the truth. But once Voldemort was aware that only he or Harry could retrieve the prophecy, a guard was no longer necessary. If the prophecy was stolen and Harry could not possibly have taken it, that would be proof in itself of Voldemort's return. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Apr 22 02:01:24 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:01:24 -0000 Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167826 Goddlefrood: >>> Goddlefrood, with a little date for you once >>> more, this time 1492, the death year of Nearly >>> Headless Nick (and I wonder if JKR, when putting >>> this date had taken account of the Julian Calendar?). >>> It was the same year in which, not only was America >>>"discovered" by Christopher Columbus, but it was also >>> Year 7000 anticipated Apocalypse failed to happen :) Bart: >> Also, the year of the Spanish Inquisition. Nikkalmati: > Bart, the Spanish Inquisition went on for over > 400 years with various period of activity and inactivity. > There was no "year of the Spanish Inquisition." houyhnhnm: 1492 may have been only the beginning of the Inquisition, but it was the year of the fall of Granada and with it the end of the /convivencia/ of Muslim Spain. Moors and Jews were expelled or forcibly converted to Christianity. Gypsies, those consumate cross-cultural pollinators, were also included in the list of peoples to be assimilated or driven out. This much is history. Fancy takes over from here and in my imagination I can see Spanish Witches and Wizards enjoying the cultural crossroads that was Andalusia, mixing freely with Muggles, engaging in debates over philosophy, alchemy, and science versus magic. It must have been a very Dumbledorian atmosphere. They experienced their share of the intolerance that followed, I'm sure. I don't doubt that January 2, 1492 was a dark day for the European Wizarding World in general. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 02:53:12 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:53:12 -0000 Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167827 > Goddlefrood: > > >>> Goddlefrood, with a little date for you once > >>> more, this time 1492, the death year of Nearly > >>> Headless Nick (and I wonder if JKR, when putting > >>> this date had taken account of the Julian Calendar?). > Bart: > > >> Also, the year of the Spanish Inquisition. > > Nikkalmati: > > > Bart, the Spanish Inquisition went on for over > > 400 years with various period of activity and inactivity. > > There was no "year of the Spanish Inquisition." > > houyhnhnm: > > 1492 may have been only the beginning of the Inquisition, > but it was the year of the fall of Granada and with it the > end of the /convivencia/ of Muslim Spain. Goddlefrood: Sorry, but no, on all responses to my origianl date. The canonical establishment of the Inquisition, as disticnt from the Spanish Inquisition, is in the 13th century under Pope Innocent III. It was formally abolished in the early 19th century. The so-called Spanish Inquisition particularly refers to the time during which Frey Thomas de Torquemada instigated widespread persecution of heretics, mostly in Spain. His origianl treatise to establish that was promulgated in 1484 and effectively ended with his death. 1492 was "a" year in which the Spanish Inquisitionn continued, but the entire period of the so-called Spanish Inquisition was only around 30 or 40 years. The Inquisition itself existed for about 600 years altogether. Hope that may be clear ;) The year of the Spanish going into Granada to forcefully remove the Moors was quite a bit later, 1536 in fact. There was a battle at Granada in 1492, the siege part of which ended on 2nd January. The terms of the treaty the made allowed the Moors to stay. 1492 was the year in which Jews were expelled from Spain, but Moslems only were fully removed 50 or so years later, by force. My source for all this is "Torquenada and the Spanish Inquisition" by Rafael Sabatini (House of Stratus). Perhaps there is some link being made to the various words in canon that do come to us from the Spanish Inquisition. Unfortunately all these response were so wrong that some clarity was thought necessary. Having said that I do thank houyhnhm for pointing out what may have happened in Europe in the year under consideration. It would have been a great time for all, even if witches and wizards actually existed ;). This would be the case due to the several leaps forward made in that year from a European perspective. The European witches and wizards may well have enjoyed relations with their North American counterparts a little earlier also, but this has no real relevance, just a little fun :) Goddlefrood who also says that 1492 was the same year in which Lorenzo the Magnificient died :), as well as Pope Innocent VIII. Not ready to tie all this to canon just yet, but there it is ;) From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 02:39:30 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:39:30 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167828 Ok so is it just me or does she seem to get away with doing magic outside of school? She fixed Harry's glasses on the train in the first book and in the middle of Diagon Alley in the second book (I'm sure there are more examples but as I am reading through the books again and am only on book 3, I don't have anymore right now LOL) Did anyone else notice this or is it just me? And didn't she also mention practicing magic once she got her letter and then books in the first book? PS please just bear with me as I go through the books again. I'm noticing a lot of little things I missed all the other times I've read the books :-) tkjones9 From toonmili at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 02:50:58 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:50:58 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167829 Because of RAB's note I am inclined to think that Voldemort has a secret. At first glance we are supposed to believe that Horcruxes made RAB turn away from Voldemort, but if you look at the wording carefully: "To the Dark Lord I know I will be dead long before you read this but I wanted you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can. I face death in the hope that when you meet your match you will be mortal once more. R.A.B." (HBP, chap. 28) "...it was I who discoverd your secret." It sounds like the secret is the Horcrux but look at the next line: "I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can." "I face Death in the hope that when you meet your match you will be mortal once more." It sounds to me like the secret prompted him to destroy the Horcrux and not that the Horcrux is the secret. Why would a Death Eater be surprised that Voldemort has Horcruxes? They know he kills mercilessly. So would it take such a stretch to imagine that he would have Horcruxes. No the secret is not the Horcrux. The secret is much worse. The secret prompted a Death Eater, RAB, to sacrifice himself so Voldemort can be easier to kill. The Death Eaters are not the same as Voldemort. Most of the known Death Eaters have some sort of love and family relationship, even Bellatrix has her husband and her sister, who she loves enough to go against the Dark Lord's orders. We have evidence from Dumbledore that Voldemort does not know, undertand or is capable of love. J.K also said that fact that someone has loved Snape and he knows of love makes him more culpable. This can apply to most of the Death Eaters if not all. This does not apply to Voldermort. Therefore Voldermort is a being, so far removed from human emotions that his actions reflects that of someone who has no conscience and is completly void of any emotions that will make him feel remorse. I believe that Voldermort's plan is something so unspeakable that even Death Eaters would be against it. I believe that he hasn't let anyone in on his real plans. Remember Dumbledore said that Voldemort has no friends and no Death Eater, even though they like to claim to be, is in his complete confidence. Therefore it is logical to assume that he would not let his Death Eaters in on his ultimate plan. This is the secret I believe RAB was speaking of. Then we must ask ourselves. What can Voldemort have in mind that would scare even a Death Eater? Voldemort's ambitions are totally selfish and most likely do not include the Death Eaters and will only benefit himself or due to his pattern of self-hatred, no one. As for what it may be: I'm afraid that this is where my speculation comes to an end. It is one of the few things that I think will surprise me in Deathly Hallows. I have spent a great deal of time developing, accepting and rejecting theories and I'm afraid I have left myself with very little to be surprised about. toonmili From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 04:00:44 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:00:44 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok so is it just me or does she seem to get away with doing magic > outside of school? She fixed Harry's glasses on the train in the first > book and in the middle of Diagon Alley in the second book (I'm sure > there are more examples but as I am reading through the books again > and am only on book 3, I don't have anymore right now LOL) > > Did anyone else notice this or is it just me? And didn't she also > mention practicing magic once she got her letter and then books in the > first book? Hermione did not fixed Harry's glasses on the train, and it was Arthur Weasley who did it in Diagon Alley. You are confusing the books with the movies, I'm afraid :-). Hermione did mention practicing spells before going to school in SS/PS. I personally think that they don't punish Muggleborn children for this, because they (the children) don't know that it's forbidden, as they haven't been to Hogwarts yet. After all, they did accidental magic all their lives, not knowing what it was. Kids get their first wands and spellbooks maybe a month before the school starts, and there is little chance that they'll manage to do spell even if they try (not everyone is Hermione, just remember their first transfiguration and charms lessons). So I think they are not warned not to use magic before school, because there is little chance that this will happen. And if they are not warned, they can't be punished. There was a discussion some time ago about this, where other theories were presented, but I can't remember the name of the thread. As for doing magic on the Hogwarts Express, it seems to be allowed, at least we see it happen rather often (I don't want to give examples and spoil your rereading for you :-)). I think the students are considered at school from the moment they get on the train. Hope it helps, zanooda From va32h at comcast.net Sun Apr 22 04:17:16 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:17:16 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "toonmili" wrote: > > Because of RAB's note I am inclined to think that Voldemort has a > secret. At first glance we are supposed to believe that Horcruxes >made RAB turn away from Voldemort, but if you look at the wording >carefully > It sounds to me like the secret prompted him to destroy the Horcrux >and not that the Horcrux is the secret. > > Why would a Death Eater be surprised that Voldemort has Horcruxes? They > know he kills mercilessly. So would it take such a stretch to imagine that he would have Horcruxes. > > No the secret is not the Horcrux. The secret is much worse. va32h here: I do agree that the secret is not the horcrux, and that people who call themselves Death Eaters would not find a horcrux particularly distressing. They'd probably want one for themselves, actually. My feeling is that the secret is Voldemort's half-blood status. It seems such a minor thing now, but I do think the original DEs were motivated to join on the whole "ethnic cleansing" program, led by Salazar Slytherin's last descendant who wished to carry on his noble work. Since I believe RAB is Regulus Black, and the Blacks were all about the blood purity thing,I find it plausible that a young boy, utterly convinced in the notion of blood purity, would be disgusted and horrified to learn that he had pledged himself to the service of a filthy half-blood. One idea that I've toyed with is that Regulus comes home boasting about his new and wonderful leader, and says something that makes his father, Orion, mention an old schoolmate named Tom Riddle, and Reggie puts two and two together. Or Voldemort has spun some tale about his pure-blood ancestry and Regulus checks up on the history and finds out about Merope. There are problems with these scenarios, but I definitely agree that the horcrux is not the secret. va32h From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Apr 22 04:51:50 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:51:50 -0400 Subject: Absolute Crazy Thought - Harry Arisen Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167832 > bboymin asks 'How dark does "Blood Flesh & Bone" seem in this situation?' (This being Harry trapped between death and life as a Vapor!Harry.) < Still pretty dark. Far better to find a spell to send Harry all the way over to the afterlife. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From juli17 at aol.com Sun Apr 22 06:44:10 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:44:10 -0000 Subject: Part 4 - A Tale of Two Pretties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167833 Goodlefrood wrote: > > The final instalment now, having delivered my favoured views of a > possible good Snape and a possible not so good Snape. Here mostly > for your entertainment is the downright ridiculous Snape. > > Simply Snape's patronus is Nagini. > > Odd? No more so than his being Fawkes the Phoenix, IMO ;). > > There is little support for this and from the matters in GoF, > particularly relative to the Foe Glass it is almost certainly > incorrect. I give you the tale of two pretties :). It would, > having said that be an alternative for the two snakes seen when > DD checked his instruments in OotP. Julie: The problem with figuring out Snape's Patronus is that he has used it to communicate with the Order. What would Order members (or Dumbledore) think if Snape's Patronus was Nagini? Isn't that rather a dead giveaway that his loyalties lie elsewhere? Equally, if his Patronus is something tied directly to DD or the Order, such as a phoenix, then wouldn't the Order members have commented on it ("But Snape's Patronus is a phoenix, and how could he lie about what's in his heart!")? I don't know if we have any canon for whether the Wizard has any control over the shape of his Patronus, but I've assumed a Patronus comes from the subconscious, reflecting the true heart/feelings of the Wizard. Thus Harry's Patronus manifests itself as a stag, representing his father as his protector. And Tonks's changes from whatever it originally was to a wolf in HBP to represent her newfound love for Lupin. Again, that leaves us in a bit of a quandry trying to figure out Snape's Patronus. If it clearly indicated his loyalty to Voldemort or Dumbledore, this surely would have come up in conversation in the books. If it indicates some past love, like Lily, that too would likely have been mentioned by Remus or Sirius (if only to harass Snape). So either Snape's Patronus is something apparently innocuous that may turn out to have a hidden meaning (say, his mother, if she were to turn out to be Irma Pince, who's also been spying in some way for Dumbledore all along)...or Snape's Patronus is something actually innocuous (say, his mother again, if she turns out to be dead or have little role) and it will *change* in DH to reflect a new protector/guardian (a bee or phoenix for Dumbledore, or this would be the time for Nagini, if Snape is ESE and loyal to Voldemort). Goodlefrood: > > On Snape's boggart I suggest that that may take the form of > seeing the Potters killed again, not that he saw that the first > time, but he has their deaths as his one true moment of regret, > IMO. > > Both the suggested patronus form and the suggested boggart form > are presented to you due to JKR not being able to tell us what > they are, as in her words: "that would give too much away." Julie: I can buy this boggart, since no one else but Snape has to have ever seen it. Of course such a boggart rather suggests a DDM!Snape, if he's so deeply regretful about the Potters' deaths (as Dumbledore also stated). I have to wonder though if we will ever see or know Snape's boggart. Given all he's facing in DH, I'm not sure that a boggart would even faze him! Goodlefrood: > Just to wrap up the series of originating posts now I'll offer > a few possible ways in which Severus's story ark may play out in > DH. > > The one that is not hard to fathom is that when we first meet him > in DH, if we actually do get some of Harry's radar chapters, he > will be with Draco and making plans as to how they can hide from > detection, being as Snape is now the second most wanted wizard in > the ww. > > As I have said in other posts on this thread I do believe Severus > will be a help to Harry in his Horcrux quest rather than a > hindrance. If that is not the case then Harry will have problems > due to my other opinion of Severus, which is that he is in the > top three most powerful wizards we have met in the books to date. > > Can anyone honestly envisage a scenario where Harry and Snape > team up early in the book and Harry accepts help from he whom he > currently considers to be the worst and most repulsive murderer > in history bar none? I have to say, I really don't think so, but > then I've been wrong before. Julie: I can't envision Harry and Snape teaming up early in the book either, though I hope they do so in the final push to defeat Voldemort. Of course, that can't happen until Harry finds out more about the Tower and Snape's motives, thus deducing that Snape, no matter how vile his personality, is DDM. Goodlefrood: > I hope that Snape will turn out to be assisting the "good" > because he has had a rough life from what we have been shown. > I hope that Snape will turn out to be "good" as Harry will have > severe problems if he is truly with LV. Perhaps Aberforth will > transpire to be an extraordinarily powerful ally for Harry, but > even then Snape and LV on the same side would be a formidable > opposition, not to mention Bellatrix and the often underestimated > Peter. Julie: Aren't you then hoping that Snape will be DDM? I do expect Aberforth to be an ally for Harry, possibly a very powerful one, no matter how Snape's character plays out. Though I remain convinced Snape, Harry, and Aberforth are all on the same side anyway ;-) Goodlefrood: > The only other small points that I want to say to wrap this up, > barring responses ;) are: > > (i)When Hagrid says "No one ever lived after Lord Voldemort > decided to kill them", it is my prediction that Snape will be > one possible exception to this. Julie: I hope Snape is the exception, as well as Draco (if the latter actually took the Dark Mark). Goodlefrood: > (ii) The smoky white matter that took the shape of a phoenix at > Dumbledore's funeral I predict will be DD's last message to Snape, > whom DD did trust, whether misguidedly or otherwise :) Julie: I haven't heard that theory before, but it is an interesting one. I wonder what message would Dumbledore have sent? Julie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 06:46:55 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:46:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167834 --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- "Tandra" wrote: > > > > Ok so is it just me or does she seem to get away > > with doing magic outside of school? She fixed Harry's > > glasses on the train in the first> book and in the > > >middle of Diagon Alley in the second book ... > > > > Did anyone else notice this or is it just me? And > > didn't she also mention practicing magic once she got > > her letter and then books in the first book? > > > > Hermione did not fixed Harry's glasses on the train, > and it was Arthur Weasley who did it in Diagon Alley. > ... > Hermione did mention practicing spells before going to > school in SS/PS. I personally think that they don't > punish Muggleborn children for this, ... > > ... > > As for doing magic on the Hogwarts Express, it seems > to be allowed, at least we see it happen rather often > ... I think the students are considered at school from > the moment they get on the train. > > Hope it helps, > > zanooda > bboyminn: Zanooda is right, but I want to expand on the subject further. Keep in mind that the Statute of Secrecy and the Reasonable Restriction of Under Age Magic are not absolute. That is, it is not one infraction and you instantly get the death penalty. It certainly covers a range of infractions with a range of seriousness and therefore a range of disciplinary actions. Keep in mind that the Statute of Secrecy exist to prevent muggles from finding out. I suspect if Harry had been more in favor with the Ministry, they would not have thought to seriously about his defending himself against Dementor. They say he performed magic in from of a muggle, but the muggle was Dudley and Dudley is already aware of the magic world, so that did not represent a true breach of Secrecy. Of course, Fudge is out to get Harry, so there is no listening to reason with him. So, if Hermione performed magic at home, it also would not be a breach of the Statute of Secrecy because her muggle parents are already magic-aware; they know about the wizard world, they've been IN the wizard world. So barring magic in front of magically UNaware muggles, this isn't a problem. Keep in mind that breach of Secrecy if far more serious than Underage Magic. Now as to Underage Magic, I firmly believe Harry was caught because Privet Drive and the surrounding area is VERY closely monitored by the Ministry. Supposedly this is done for Harry's safety, but it also provide a very convenient excuse for the Ministry to persecute Harry when Harry is out of favor. Now at the Burrow, the twins are performing magic all the time making their tricks for the joke shop. But magic is happening all the time at the Weasley's because it is an ALL MAGIC household. That makes it very difficult to separate our normal magic from underage magic. Further, since the Weasley's is a all magic household, and as long as the Twins don't require any disaster intervention, I don't think the Ministry is going to make a big deal out of it. They leave it up to the parents to deal with, unless, like I said, it become disastrously out of control. So, the central point is that underage magic is a minor concern for the Ministry as long as no unaware muggles are exposed and as long as it doesn't require any kind of disaster response. Notice that when Harry allegedly performed the Hover Charm, which we know was actually performed by Dobby, there were UNAWARE muggles present; the Dursley's house guests. That is a much bigger deal, and must be dealt with more severely than simple underage magic. So, again, in cases of simple uncomplicated underage magic, I think the Ministry treats this as a minor problem that is generally left to the parents to police and punish. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Apr 22 06:47:05 2007 From: amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk (AmanitaMuscaria) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:47:05 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Wormtail (was Transitions, etc Will the Real...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167835 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > The argument over whether or not Snape would have known > that Scabbers was Peter Pettigrew has got me to wondering > again, why does Voldemort address Pettigrew as "Wormtail"? > There's something about that strikes a wrong note with me > every time I read GoF. Would Pettigrew have introduced > himself as "Wormtail" when he first went over to the Dark side? > > It is not a very flattering nickname snip > Its use by the Marauders seems to reinforce Peter's low > status tag-along position within the group. snip > Voldemort > clearly uses it in a way that is derogatory, as if to > rub it in that Peter is a coward who betrayed his former > friends. > > It just stikes me as odd that Peter would volunteer the > information. How did Voldemort learn the nickname? > Perhaps by the use of Legilimency? > > houyhnhnm > AmanitaMuscaria now - I think that's _exactly_ why Voldemort addresses Peter as Wormtail - to make it clear that he considers Peter a traitor. Even if Voldemort himself doesn't have or want friends, he knows people do, and that friends do not betray each other to death. Peter isn't in search of knowledge, at least as far as we've been told, like Quirrell. He may want power, but he obviously couldn't wield it in an efficient way. I assume Voldemort is letting Peter know that he will never be trusted, or given any higher role, because Voldemort knows if a bigger bully comes along, Peter will turn to him. I would also assume that Voldemort Legilimences each person who comes to him, as well as Crucios/Imperios them, simply to test their character, abilities and strengths. I'm interested in how Peter became Voldemort's servant though - do you think he sought Voldemort out after maybe one too many put-down, or that he was befriended and recruited subtly, without knowing who it was he was telling secrets to until it was too late? Or do you think Voldemort just threatened him and he collapsed and told all? Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 22 08:42:01 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:42:01 -0000 Subject: OOTP and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167836 >> MusicalBetsy: "So does that mean that...that one of us has got to kill the other one...in the end?" "Yes," said Dumbledore. (pg. 844). > Nikkalmati: You may not have seen it, but there has been some speculation that "the Other" is a third person, perhaps even Neville, who will destroy LV. Kvapost now: "The Other" may or may not be a third person, but if this indeed was the case, then it would mean that Harry asked a question about himself and LV, but DD's response was about either Harry or LV having to kill that third person. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 09:23:28 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:23:28 -0000 Subject: Part 4 - A Tale of Two Pretties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167837 > Goodlefrood wrote: > > Simply Snape's patronus is Nagini. > > There is little support for this and from the matters in GoF, > > particularly relative to the Foe Glass it is almost certainly > > incorrect. > Julie: > The problem with figuring out Snape's Patronus is that he has > used it to communicate with the Order. Goddlefrood: It is not a problem that excludes speculation :). That's why this part of the thread is entitled the downright ridiculous part. It is not known what form Severus's Patronus takes, but it's always fun to speculate. This part is hardly supportable at all. If anyone thinks otherwise then I would be interested to see them try. Oh, and btw, the reference to a Phoenix was to a recent thread where it was put forward that Snape's animagus form might be Fawkes. That, IMO, is as unlikely as his Patronus form being Nagini :) I agree that there is not much at all to go on to give a really concrete opinion as to how Patronus forms come about. We do know that the form of a Patronus can change (Tonks's for one). It may be, as suggested later in Julie's post, that the subconscious determines the form. > Julie: > So either Snape's Patronus is something apparently innocuous > that may turn out to have a hidden meaning (say, his mother, > if she were to turn out to be Irma Pince, who's also been > spying in some way for Dumbledore all along)...or Snape's > Patronus is something actually innocuous (say, his mother > again, if she turns out to be dead or have little role) and > it will *change* in DH to reflect a new protector/guardian > (a bee or phoenix for Dumbledore, or this would be the time > for Nagini, if Snape is ESE and loyal to Voldemort). Goddlefrood: If there is any link at all then this suggestion would be a good one. It seems an eminently sensible and sustainable argument as to how a Patronus form might reflect an inner being. It would also further explain why JKR would not give any clue in the interview I referred to earlier as to why she could not disclose what either Snape's Patronus or Boggart. > Julie: > I can buy this boggart, since no one else but Snape has to > have ever seen it. Of course such a boggart rather suggests > a DDM!Snape, if he's so deeply regretful about the Potters' > deaths (as Dumbledore also stated). Goddlefrood: Thank you. It would be suggestive of a DDM Snape, but certainly not conclusive. I like my version of Severus as outlined throughout part 3 of this series and, as with us all, eagerly anticipate Deathly Hallows to see whether I am anywhere near being correct :) I can't say I'd be entirely disappointed if I were wrong about Snape's loyalties. I'll enjoy Deathly Hallows however he turns out. > Julie: > I can't envision Harry and Snape teaming up early in the > book either, though I hope they do so in the final push to > defeat Voldemort. Goddlefrood: I agree on this point, I do hope Snape is not working against Harry for reasons set out in part 4. > Julie: > Aren't you then hoping that Snape will be DDM? I do expect > Aberforth to be an ally for Harry, possibly a very powerful > one, no matter how Snape's character plays out. Goddlefrood: My comments were not meant to be interpreted as me favouring a DDM Snape. I do not. I favour a Snape who assists Harry for another reason, and not necessarily because he is DDM, I hope that's clear ;) > Goodlefrood: > > (ii) The smoky white matter that took the shape of a phoenix at Dumbledore's funeral I predict will be DD's last message to Snape, whom DD did trust, whether misguidedly or otherwise :) > Julie: > I haven't heard that theory before, but it is an interesting > one. I wonder what message would Dumbledore have sent? Goddlefrood: The reason this came to me was because that smoky Phoenix form must mean something. It is described in a very similar way to the first time we come across Patronuses as a communication tool, before we knew the Order used them, that is in GoF where a Patronus is sent to Hagrid for assistance after Krum is found in the woods. Read that sequence to see what I mean :) That led me to the thought that this may be DD's last message to either Snape or the Order in general. I did, btw, think DD was dead even before that was confirmed, but I'm not one to boast ;). There's a post somewhere in the archives to prove that. Goddlefrood From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Sun Apr 22 12:25:06 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:25:06 -0000 Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167838 >Nikkalmati: > >To bring this into compliance with the rules, I must wonder why >Nick (and the Bloody Baron and the Fat Friar ) haunt Hogwarts. Did >they die there like Myrtle? That seems unlikely. Did they return >there because they were students or teachers who liked the place? >Did they have no where else to go? Did they originally want to haunt someone who was at Hogwarts like Myrtle haunted , was it Olivia ?, the girl who laughed at her? Nikkalmati > > Nikkalmati Ann: Well, Moaning Myrtle mentions haunting Olive Hornby until she was forced to return to her toilet, so there's no need for ghosts to stay where they died. Nick presumably hasn't - can you imagine an execution in front of all the students? Perhaps they've all got tired of being exorcised from other places and are safe in Hogwarts, or they just like it there. I can't really see Nick haunting anyone, but maybe the Baron enjoys bullying Peeves? The Fat Friar presumably doesn't have anywhere else to go. Ann From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 22 14:21:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:21:39 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Wormtail (was Transitions, etc Will the Real...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167839 houyhnhnm: > > It just stikes me as odd that Peter would volunteer the > > information. How did Voldemort learn the nickname? > > Perhaps by the use of Legilimency? > > > > > > AmanitaMuscaria now - I think that's _exactly_ why Voldemort > addresses Peter as Wormtail - to make it clear that he considers > Peter a traitor. I would also assume that Voldemort Legilimences each person who comes > to him, Pippin: If Voldemort had such a great interest in Peter, wouldn't he have found out that Sirius was an Animagus some time during VW I? Yet he doesn't seem to have known. It all hangs together well with the idea that the original spy was not Peter but someone more gifted at occlumency who borrowed Peter's nickname for an alias. JKR seems to be dropping hints along that line by having Harry name himself first Neville Longbottom and then Ronil Wazlib. And then there's that notorious nobody, Mark Evans, another hint that names can be shared by people who have nothing else in common. Consider: Peter is only brave when he has protection. Sirius thinks Voldemort's protection made him brave. But a spy operates far from the protection of his master, that's what makes it so dangerous. Voldemort would not have appeared at Order HQ to rescue Peter if Peter gave himself away. He'd be on his own, at the mercy of people like Sirius and Lupin who might have killed him on the spot, even if Dumbledore and James would not. Peter would have every reason to be terrified, and he's not a clever liar when he's scared. How could he possibly have gotten away with it? My conclusion is that he couldn't have, not for the entire year that Sirius says the spy was active. Peter was never the spy, IMO. I agree with Amanita -- he only gave up the secret because he was captured and threatened. Naturally he would suppose that Black was the real spy since Black should have been the only one who knew that Peter was the SK and the only one who knew where he was hiding. But since Black wasn't really the secret keeper, that knowledge would be vulnerable to legilimency. And Lupin, whom Sirius suspected, does seem to have an uncanny power to read minds. Maybe Lupin isn't evil. Perhaps JKR would say that evil is too strong a word -- but Harry has gone in the mere space of a year from thinking that it would be murder to kill Voldemort to accepting it as an honor and a duty, without even realizing that his opinion has changed. Could Lupin's thinking have undergone that kind of shift? Pippin From petaannfox at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 22 11:38:35 2007 From: petaannfox at yahoo.com.au (Peta-Ann Fox) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:38:35 +1000 (EST) Subject: will they return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <979716.3761.qm@web84001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <652248.17854.qm@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167840 sweety12783 wrote: I think that Harry would return to Hogwarts but as a teacher... Remember, Harry was marked by Voldermont as an equal..so the curse that is on the DADA position would never harm Harry for he is LV equal. That is why Dumbledore looked triumphant when LV used Harry's blood to return...Dumbledore knew that by using Harry's blood, LV has given Harry the power to defeat him and that LV did not mark Harry as a equal until that moment when he used Harry's blood. The scar is just a scar resulting from the impact of the AK curse that was put on Harry. petaannfox: Hi how are you? What you wrote is an interesting theory, however I will have to disagree about the part where you believe that LV marked Harry as an equal when he used Harry's blood to take humanish form again. Why I disagree is that in the OoP (page 742) Harry And Dumbledore discuss the lost prophecy. Dumledore also introduces the fact that the other person could be Neville. Harry questioned if it could be Neville to fight LV but Dumbledore reminds Harry of the second part of the prophecy and quote: "You are forgetting the next part of the prophecy, the final identifying feature of the boy who could vanquish Voldemort... Voldemort himself would mark him his equal. And so he did, Harry. He chose you, not Neville. He gave you the scar that has proved both blessing and curse." Harry then argues that he might've got it wrong but Dumbledore reasurres him. The other reason why I disagree with your belief is that LV has got huge tickets on himself and therefore wouldn't take Harry's blood to be equal or mark Harry as equal. (he took it because the spell was blood from a foe, bone from his father - I cant remember the reason and flesh willingly given from servant - Wormtail's arm) The last reason why I disagree with this is that LV heard the first part of the prophecy. If LV knew the whole prophecy than LV would've left Harry alone or waited until it all pans out - but this is discovered in the OoP in the chapter "The Lost Prophecy". please write back your views : ) petaannfox From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 22 14:38:44 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:38:44 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167841 toonmili wrote: > "...it was I who discoverd your secret." Kvapost: Which actually indicates that LV is *possibly* aware of the fact that someone has already discovered his secret (whatever it is) but LV didn't know exactly *who* was it. To me it sounds like the stress is on "it was *I*" in this sentence. As if LV has been trying to find out *who* made that discovery but could not. But if LV's secret is out in the open **and** LV knows about it, it means that something has happened, some event or some kind of change in LV's life made him aware of that. Now, if 'the secret' RAB is talking about initially is not a Horcrux, then it means RAB has discovered not only one but two of LV's secrets? Hmmm... That's a lot of secrets for RAB... Kvapost From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 22 15:02:17 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:02:17 -0000 Subject: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167842 > Nikkalmati > > I think we also can consider that SS did not advise Black to stay > at GP to be safe. He told him to wait for DD so he could fill him > in on things. Then presumably SB could come with DD to save > Harry. SB unreasonably and recklessly ignored that order or advice > and came with the Order members, leaving DD to arrive at an empty > house and requiring that he take the time to question Kreacher, > thus, delaying DD's own arrival at the MOM. Dana: No other Order Member seemed to think someone needed to stay behind to inform DD either. They all seemed to agree to leave it up to Kreacher. It is interesting to blame Sirius for that, while there where other Order Members present as well. It wasn't just Sirius call. Just because they couldn't make Sirius stay behind, when his Godson was in danger, doesn't mean no one else could have made the choice to wait for DD. It seems that all Order Members thought it more important to go right away, do you consider them reckless or unreasonable too? All of them rushed out prepared to risk their life's. And accoording to many, Snape could not know, Sirius was at risk of dying, so then his request for Sirius to stay behind could not be related to keeping him safe either. JMHO Dana From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Apr 22 15:59:37 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:59:37 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167843 Tandra: > > Did anyone else notice this or is it just me? > > And didn't she also mention practicing magic once she > > got her letter and then books in the first book? zanooda: > Hermione did mention practicing spells before going > to school in SS/PS. I personally think that they don't > punish Muggleborn children for this, because they (the > children) don't know that it's forbidden, as they haven't > been to Hogwarts yet. After all, they did accidental > magic all their lives, not knowing what it was. > [...] > As for doing magic on the Hogwarts Express, it seems to > be allowed, at least we see it happen rather often (I > don't want to give examples and spoil your rereading for > you :-)). I think the students are considered at school > from the moment they get on the train. houyhnhnm: Hermione didn't speak of *practicing* magic when she first met Harry and Ron on the train. What she said was "I've learned all our course books by heart, of course. . . . I got a few extra books for background reading." She may have spoken of using magic outside of school somewhere else, though, and I don't remember it. Neither can I remember if use of magic on the train is formally proscibed or not, but I would think that the Hogwarts Express and Diagon Alley (as well as school corridors, where the use of magic is also "forbidden") are places where it is pretty safe to get off an illegal spell because there is so much magic going on it would be hard to pin it on any one person. HRH and friends, as well as Draco and his cronies, get off many hexes on the train and jinxing is always going on in the hallways at Hogwarts. In these places, unless you do magic right in front of an adult, you can feel fairly secure of getting away with it. Strict enforcement of the Statute for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery is pretty much impossible where you have so many young witches and wizards gathered together (along with adult wizards who are allowed to do magic). From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 22 16:58:45 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 22 Apr 2007 16:58:45 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/22/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1177261125.19.34387.m42@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167844 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 22, 2007 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 All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://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 jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 17:07:23 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:07:23 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167845 > bboyminn: > > I suspect if Harry had been more in favor with the > Ministry, they would not have thought too seriously > about his defending himself against Dementor. They > say he performed magic in from of a muggle, but the > muggle was Dudley and Dudley is already aware of the > magic world, so that did not represent a true breach > of Secrecy. Of course, Fudge is out to get Harry, so > there is no listening to reason with him. > JMW: Do not overlook that HP saved Big D's soul. Using magic to defend a muggle is an explicit exception to the Secrecy laws. HP was subjected to trial because nobody at the MoM would admit that HP & D were attacked by dementors; hence, this defense was ridiculed - until a witness testified to the presence of dementors. > bboyminn: > > Now at the Burrow, the twins are performing magic all > the time making their tricks for the joke shop. But > magic is happening all the time at the Weasley's > because it is an ALL MAGIC household. That makes it > very difficult to separate our normal magic from > underage magic. > > They leave it up to the parents to deal with, unless, > like I said, it become disastrously out of control... > I think the Ministry treats this as a minor problem > that is generally left to the parents to police and > punish. JW: It is explicitly explained elsewhere that the MoM can detect the use of magic, but can NOT determine the precise person responsible. It is indeed explicitly stated that the MoM relies on parents to control their kiddies. bboyminn: > > Notice that when Harry allegedly performed the Hover > Charm, which we know was actually performed by Dobby, > there were UNAWARE muggles present; the Dursley's house > guests. That is a much bigger deal, and must be dealt > with more severely than simple underage magic. JW: Not exactly - spontaneous, uncontrolled underage magic is generally not prosecuted. HP might have used this as a defense, if necessary. Note that HP is the only wiz in his part of town (the elf's presence is unknown by the MoM), so it is easy to assume HP performed the act. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 22 19:13:18 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:13:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was responsible for Sirius' death? References: Message-ID: <00be01c78512$4a23e380$3e6c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167846 Dana: > No other Order Member seemed to think someone needed to stay behind to > inform DD either. They all seemed to agree to leave it up to Kreacher. > It is interesting to blame Sirius for that, while there where other > Order Members present as well. It wasn't just Sirius call. Just because > they couldn't make Sirius stay behind, when his Godson was in danger, > doesn't mean no one else could have made the choice to wait for DD. It > seems that all Order Members thought it more important to go right > away, do you consider them reckless or unreasonable too? All of them > rushed out prepared to risk their life's. And accoording to many, Snape > could not know, Sirius was at risk of dying, so then his request for > Sirius to stay behind could not be related to keeping him safe either. > JMHO Magpie: I agree. Sirius is being kept in GP all year so that he won't be caught by the Ministry. It's not like Sirius is a child whose personal safety is most important. He's an Order member who would therefore be expected to risk his life as much as any other. Sirius takes an extra risk because there's always the danger that he'll be caught and put in jail again because his name hasn't been cleared. That's the reason Sirius is expected not to go along. Not because Sirius is somehow more in danger than any other Order member in a fight. If Snape told Sirius to stay behind, or if the Order did, it would be because it was understood Sirius didn't go out in public, not because any of them thought Sirius had to be kept out of a fight more than they had to be. The Order seems fine with Sirius coming along. Any one of them could have chosen to stay behind if Sirius wasn't if it was so important that DD be informed that way. But I don't think there's a real problem with Dumbledore hearing the truth that can be blamed on Sirius. I do continue to not understand how Snape is supposed to ever be holding off to give Lucius time to get Harry. Snape has no idea what time Harry left for the MoM, he doesn't necessarily even know how Harry is traveling and how long it will take him. So I don't see how he can be calculating for the relative short delay the fight at the MoM takes compared to the hours it would take for Harry to get to the MoM. If he had simply continued to be ignorant of Harry's surprising flight to the MoM, he could have just joined the Order in lamenting Harry's rash action with probably only Sirius accusing him of being responsible. -m From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 18:28:42 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:28:42 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Wormtail (was Transitions, etc Will the Real...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167847 > AmanitaMuscaria now - > I'm interested in how Peter became Voldemort's servant though - do > you think he sought Voldemort out after maybe one too many put-down, > or that he was befriended and recruited subtly, without knowing who > it was he was telling secrets to until it was too late? > Or do you think Voldemort just threatened him and he collapsed and > told all? > Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria JW: While we do not know how WT first became a DE/servant, in PoA WT tells Sirius that he gave the Potters hideout info to LV under extreme threat. To paraphrase: WT: You do not know what LV is capable of. What was I to do? Sirius: You were supposed to die, as we would have done for you. But you spied for LV for a year before you gave the Potters to LV. I fully expect this story to be fleshed out in the course of WT repaying his life debt to HP. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 22 19:23:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:23:19 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167848 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > Hermione didn't speak of *practicing* magic when she first > met Harry and Ron on the train. What she said was "I've > learned all our course books by heart, of course. . . . I > got a few extra books for background reading." She may > have spoken of using magic outside of school somewhere else, > though, and I don't remember it. Geoff: With respect, she did and at the beginning of the same conversation which you mentioned above..... '"Are you sure that's a real spell?" said the girl. "Well, it's not very good is it? I've tried a few simple spells just for practice and it's all worked for me. Nobody in my family's magic at all, it was ever such a surprise when I got my letter but I was ever so pleased, of course, I mean, it's the very best school of witchcraft there is, I've heard - I've learnt all out set books off by heart, of course, I just hope it will be enough - I'm Hermione Granger, by the way, who are you?"' (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-quarters" p.79 UK edition) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 20:23:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:23:16 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704191148r5a38bf6ave4ba8fda8065f8f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167849 Annemehr wrote: > > Nah. The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like a welding torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, and it did. That's murder. > Random832: > It's an animal, it doesn't have to have any kind of purpose. And we > don't know what was going through Riddle's mind, whether the intent to > use it to kill had formed prior to that moment > > > Carol responds: The Basilisk is essentially a killing machine. As it creeps through the pipes, it states its desire to kill: "Come . . . Come to me. . . . Let me rip you. . . ..Let me tear you. . . . Let me kill you" (CoS Am. ed. 120) and ". . . rip . . . tear . . . kill," ". . . soo hungry . . . for so long" and "kill. . . time to kill" (137). The Basilisk is, of course, an animal. It is extremely hungry. It has no conscience. For Salazar Slytherin and for Tom Riddle after him, the Basilisk is a deadly weapon. Killing is its sole purpose, or rather Salazar Slytherin's intended purpose in leaving it in Hogwarts in the first place, to kill Muggleborns. Professor Binns tells the students that "the Heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of Secrets and unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of those who were unworthy to study magic" (CoS Am. ed. 151). Tom Riddle, wishing to prove himself the Heir of Slytherin, spends "long years" searching for the CoS to prove that he's the Heir of Slytherin and continue his "noble work" (312). Having killed one "Mudblood," he fears that the school will be closed, so he creates the diary in the hope of someday "leading another" to finish this "noble work." (312). Diary!Tom uses Ginny to release the Basilisk to go after Muggleborns, all of whom would have died if they had looked it directly in the eye. It's only when Diary!Tom learns through Ginny of Harry's existence that "killing Muggleborns doesn't matter to me any more" (150). Both Tom Riddle, the student, and Diary!Tom use the Basilisk, which they control, as their weapon. (Ginny, too, is not controlled, but she isn't a deadly weapon.) Right before the Basilisk kills Moaning Myrtle, she hears a boy's voice speaking to it in an unknown language. My guess is that Tom heard Myrtle crying, knew who she was, and ordered the Basilisk to kill her. "Killing Muggleborns doesn't matter to me anymore" (312) indicates that it *did* matter at one time, and I see no reason why he would be speaking to the Basilisk other than to control it. He certainly isn't holding a conversation with it. But even if he didn't order it to kill Myrtle when she emerged from the stall, the mere fact that he was bringing a hungry, bloodthirsty monster into a school, intending to release it on the "unworthy" students, makes him guilty of murder, just as Draco would have been guilty of murder if Ron or Katie had died even though they weren't his intended victims. "It won't come until it is called," says Diary!Tom (308). The Basilisk roams the school only when he orders it to do so. The responsibility for the presence of a killing machine within Hogwarts belongs to Salazar Slytherin, but the responsibility for its release and for the death of one student and the Petrification of the others belongs to Tom Riddle and Diary!Tom. Ginny is at best an innocent victim, at worst an unwilling agent or accomplice, and of course has nothing to do with Myrtle's murder. The Basilisk is Tom's weapon, as effective as a wand. Carol, who thinks that Myrtle's murder was Tom's first and that he used it to make the diary, already the proof the he was the Heir of Slytherin, into a Horcrux From kiwi_sapiens at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 22 21:00:43 2007 From: kiwi_sapiens at yahoo.com.au (Chris Lawson) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's Message-ID: <915136.87027.qm@web63506.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167850 > > Annemehr: > > The Basilisk did not have an innocent purpose, like > > a welding torch does. Riddle summoned it to kill, > > and it did. > > Random832: > It's an animal, it doesn't have to have any kind of > purpose. Chris: Given that the creature speaks a language and that Harry hears it talking to itself about killing I don't know that I would agree that it didn't have any kind of purpose. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 22:37:24 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:37:24 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Wormtail (was Transitions, etc Will the Real...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167851 > JW: > While we do not know how WT first became a DE/servant, in PoA WT tells > Sirius that he gave the Potters hideout info to LV under extreme threat. > To paraphrase: > WT: You do not know what LV is capable of. What was I to do? > Sirius: You were supposed to die, as we would have done for you. But > you spied for LV for a year before you gave the Potters to LV. > zgirnius: It is not quite that simple. According to Sirius, Peter spied for Voldemort for about a year. > Sirius, PoA: > "DON'T LIE!" bellowed Black. "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY!" zgirnius: I could see Peter getting forced into spying by Voldemort. But if he was doing it against his will, why on earth did he agree to be James and Lily's Secret Keeper? And why did he never seek help, over the course of that year? Simple and immediate fear for his life does not explain it. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 23:05:47 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:05:47 -0000 Subject: Snape name mentioned in OOP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167852 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > zanooda: > > You probably mean the meeting that was going on when Harry and > > the Advance Guard arrived to 12 GP. > Alla: > Oh, but this is the same meeting that Zara quoted, no? I don't > know. Maybe I was thinking about it and the fact that there is a > short time difference in between in my mind made it possible that > it was not Snape. I mean, I agree with you - it is logical to > assume that it was Snape, but I keep hoping that somebody else > appeared in between as well. zanooda: I was not following that thread, sorry, so I don't know what you guys were talking about. I suppose "my" meeting is same as Zara's though, because it is the only one in the book :-). As for the possibility that "he" is not Snape, I just don't know. Theoretically it's possible, of course, but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. Besides, even if DD has some other spy among DEs, I doubt that this spy will just show up at GP. Snape comes there and gives reports because he is a double agent. His both "masters" know that he must interact with the other side and give the other side some information (or desinformation). DD's "other spy" would be too precious to show to all the Order members, that would be a terrible risk for him, IMO. He would contact DD and DD alone, and not give reports to everybody, including Mungungus :-). > Alla: > You know I so dislike that I am so less versed in OOP details than > other books for discussion purposes, but still won't reread the > book completely, only bits and pieces as needed sometimes. Heeeee. > Hate so many more things in that book than love. zanooda: Well, you'll know then whom to ask questions next time, because I love OotP and read it often :-). > Alla: > there is also Umbridge and Sirius' death and that ugly speech of DD zanooda: But there is also Luna, and DA, and F&G's fireworks... From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 22 23:08:19 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:08:19 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167853 zanooda: > > Hermione did mention practicing spells before going to school in SS/PS. > I personally think that they don't punish Muggleborn children for this, > because they (the children) don't know that it's forbidden, as they > haven't been to Hogwarts yet. Pippin: She needn't have been at home. I can see Hermione trying a few spells for practice in Ollivanders itself as she was shopping for her first wand, especially if she'd already purchased her books. But I think she could have done magic legally anywhere in Diagon Alley as a prospective first year. As term hadn't started yet, she wouldn't be subject to Hogwarts rules, and as it's not a Muggle area, she wouldn't be subject to the Reasonable Restriction either. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 22 23:13:28 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:13:28 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167854 --- "jmwcfo" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > ... They say he performed magic in front of a > > muggle, but the muggle was Dudley and Dudley is > > already aware of the magic world, so that did not > > represent a true breach of Secrecy. ... > > > > JMW: > Do not overlook that HP saved Big D's soul. Using > magic to defend a muggle is an explicit exception to > the Secrecy laws. HP was subjected to trial because > nobody at the MoM would admit that HP & D were > attacked by dementors; ... > > bboyminn: Of course, you are right, but my central points was that Dudley is Magic-Aware; he has knowledge of and experience with the magic world, consequently any magic performed in front of him IS NOT a breach of the Statute of Secrecy. The presents or absents of Dementors is irrelevant because no unaware muggles are involved and therefore no breach of Secrecy is involved. Reasonable they could have gotten Harry for a breach of the Restriction of Underage Wizardry, but in cases where no unaware muggles are involved and no damage control is required, that should have been nothing more than a minor offense. Still, the Ministry is clearly out to get Harry and are inflating the charges to outrageous extremes. It's hard to believe that people like Madame Bones of Magical Law Enforcement and others weren't outraged by the extent to which Fudge had exaggerated and inflated what Harry did. Perhaps, privately, and off the page, they were outraged, but likely we will never know. > > bboyminn: > > > > Now at the Burrow, the twins are performing magic all > > the time making their tricks for the joke shop. ... > > > > They leave it up to the parents to deal with, .. > > > JW: > It is explicitly explained elsewhere that the MoM can > detect the use of magic, but can NOT determine the precise > person responsible. It is indeed explicitly stated that > the MoM relies on parents to control their kiddies. > bboyminn: So, I was right then...good ;). > > bboyminn: > > > > Notice that when Harry allegedly performed the Hover > > Charm, which we know was actually performed by Dobby, > > there were UNAWARE muggles present; the Dursley's house > > guests. That is a much bigger deal, and must be dealt > > with more severely than simple underage magic. > > > JW: > Not exactly - spontaneous, uncontrolled underage magic is > generally not prosecuted. HP might have used this as a > defense, if necessary. ... > bboyminn: While you are right in a sense, relative to Dobby's Hover Charm, there was no accusation or implication of 'uncontrolled magic'. Harry receive a stern warning letter because the magic was performed in front of /unaware/ muggles. However, the circumstances were such that it did not require the Ministry to intervene to do damage control; no modify memories, etc.... Later when he blew up his Aunt Marge, the Ministry forgave him under the idea that, as Dumbledore points out, it is unreasonable to expect young people to be fully responsible for what they do under extreme emotional stress (paraphrased). Fudge seems to be operating under that same reasonable assumption, until it is no long convenient for him to do so. In this case, Ministry intervention was require; Marge was deflated and her memory was modified, but the Ministry accepted it as an unintended accident, which it was. In general, I'm not trying to contradict you, your points are valid; hopefully I'm just expanding on them a little. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 22 23:54:11 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:54:11 -0000 Subject: Neri/miniature/DDanimagus/torture/RoR/socialclass/connection/rattlesnake/more Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167855 Neri wrote in : << And I can't remember any discussion at all about how the Founders had managed to come up with a wonderfully silly name like "Hogwarts". >> And I posted *such* an elaborate story about how the mountain was named Hogmount, and the lake Hoglake, and the Forbidden Forest Hogwood and the place where the village Hogsmeade now stands was named Hogwald and the place where Hogwarts castle now stands was named Hogmeade, all after the monstrous Caledonian Boar who had lurked there in earlier times (possibly one of the monster boars hunted in The Tale of Culhwch and Olwen). And the Four Founders had never even visited the area before it was suggested to them (by Tavish Tartanwool, who should be considered the Fifth Founder but instead has been erased from history) as a good isolated site for their proposed school. In their unfamiliarity, they mixed up the names of Hogmeade and Hogwald. Godric said 'We'll name it Hogwald School, for its location' and Salazar complained: "You'll name it with your initials and Helga's, and just leave out me and Rowena" and the two men snarked at each other until Helga said: "Why don't we name it with all our initials? HoGwaRTS, like the herb, H, G, R, T, S" and Salazar started snarking about his initial being last, but Rowena told him: "If we called it Shogwart, people would think it was a brothel." And this summary doesn't even include the murder... Bart wrote in : << How about having an auror miniaturize himself, and then mail himself via owl to Sirius? >> Do we have any canon for there being a magic for miniaturizing a person? I remember a potion, Shrinking Solution, which Snape tested on Trevor the Toad, but it didn't so much shrink him as turn him into 'Trevor the Tadpole' -- we might call it a Fountain of Youth potion. There is an Engorgement Charm to make things larger, but I don't recall an opposite charm. And would the miniaturized person be able to resume normal size at the destination? I studied this in vain several years ago, when I wanted Pansy to mail herself to Draco in my fanfic. Deborah wrote in : << I am curious as to why so many want to attribute an animagus to Dumbledore. >> I think some people think that being a (registered) Animagus is a requirement to be hired as Transfiguration Professor at Hogwarts. Betsy Hp wrote in : << Like how when "good guys" get tortured it's a heart-wrenching and terrible thing, but when "bad guys" get tortured it's cartoonish and funny? >> When do readers see 'bad guys' being tortured? When they are Crucio'd by Voldemort, and that is supposed to show that he's as cruel to his followers as to his enemies. When Dumbledore told Harry how Kreacher had lied to him about Sirius not being home, DD said: "I ? persuaded him ? to tell me the full story". I took that as a reference to *off-screen* torture but another listie said it was more likely to be Veritaserum, faster and more reliable. Harry cut Draco up the front, but that was more like negligent homicide than like torture. Are you considering stuffing Montague into the Vanishing Cabinet as torture rather than as battery or attempted murder? Dana wrote in : <> Do we know whether it is POSSIBLE for anyone, even the Headmaster, even the House Elves, to lock the Room of Requirement? Goddlefrood wrote in : << that Snape is from a lower class background than many other Death Eaters >> Logic suggests that the wizarding upper class, so proud of their pure blood and their isolation from Muggles, would have a different snob accent and other different etiquette than the Muggle upper class. The wizarding middle, working, and lower classes would probably have less class differentiation than the Muggle middle, working, and lower classes, because of the constant influx of Muggle-borns diluting the accents and so on of the wizard-born members of those classes. And a Muggle-born's social class in the wizarding world is not controlled by his social class in the Muggle world -- I believe that Rowling was trying to make a point of that by putting Justin Finch-Fletchley into Hufflepuff and the Creevey boys, a milkman's sons, into Gryffindor. She showed Draco with the same accent as Justin because she didn't have enough pages to train the reader to recognize wizarding social class by its alien behaviors. Carol wrote in : << Alla mentioned Dumbledore's comment in GoF, "A connection I could have made without help," in relation to the Pensieve memory of Snape saying that his Dark Mark is growing darker and adding, "Karkaroff's, too." It does sound as if DD is downplaying the importance of Snape's revelation, and in front of Harry, too (which I, for one, didn't like at all), but the memory does show the reader that Snape is reporting to DD, and I don't think that DD could have known about the Dark Mark itself growing darker without Snape's telling him (he might have suspected it, but he couldn't have confirmed it). The connection he could have on his own relates to Karkaroff: if Snape's is growing darker, so is Karkaroff's. >> The new thought that DD put into the Pensieve was about Harry: "Harry ... saw his own face swimming around the surface of the bowl." Then it changed into Snape's face and the Pensieve memory mentioned above. The reason that Harry was so urgent to see Dumbledore was to tell him about his dream in which he saw Voldemort receive a letter and torture Wormtail. Dumbledore may have known that from Legilimency as soon as he saw Harry ("I wanted to talk to you, Professor," Harry said quickly, looking at Dumbledore, who gave him a swift, searching look"). Some people think Dumbledore knew about it when it happened due to some connection between DD and the insect that was buzzing in the window when Harry fell asleep. Even if DD didn't already know about the new dream, he knew about the previous dream. Therefore, I thought that the connection that Dumbledore could have made without the Pensieve was between DEs's Dark MarKs getting darker and Harry dreaming of Voldemort -- both due to Voldemort getting stronger. After all, one purpose of the Pensieve is find connections between *different* memories. Julie wrote in : << Then maybe it's more like a student tossing a rattlesnake into a dorm room. The snake doesn't have a nefarious purpose, it only acts on its instinct to survive. But if it strikes another student and kills said student, is the student who tossed the rattlesnake into the dorm room responsible for murder? Or can he just say "I tossed it in the room for, er...I tell you it was the snake that did it!" The student who tossed it into the room knew it was deadly. He knew what could--and likely would--happen. He's guilty. Julie (who does know rattlesnake bites don't usually kill but let's just say this one does) >> For the purpose of making a Horcrux, what matters is how the soul is torn. That doesn't have to correlate with legal guilt, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't correlate with how guilty the killer feels, as Tom Riddle didn't feel guilty about any of his murders. If the student who tossed the snake into the room just wanted to cause a panic, he should have known better, but he was stupid or drunk or (like the Marauders) somehow under the impression that everyone else was as safe from the werewolf as he happened to be. Or if he meant for someone he disliked to be bitten but to be cured in hospital wing with no lasting damage, is his soul just ripped or is a piece of it torn off completely? I suspect the former. zgirnius wrote in : << Quidditch brought them to one another's attention (as I would imagine class brought Lily and Snape to one another's) but that relationship was pursued in Hogsmeade and other non-class locations.>> It's possible they met in the Slug Club. It seems neither was worth collecting for bloodlines, but both were worth collecting for brains, and Lily for looks. << I just don't see evidence that if attraction occurs across house lines, people nonetheless stay away from one another. >> Among the cross-House romances in canon, We haven't seen a Gryffindor-Slytherin romance. The dislike between Gryffindor and Slytherin is so intense that I think Romeo's housemates would hate him for being a traitor and Juliet's housemates would hate her for being a traitor, and there is a LOT one can do against a person one hates who lives in the same dorm. I don't know long that dislike has been that intense. Also, regardless of House, a student whose friends were all pureblood-supremacists would be at least mocked by those friends for going out with a 'Mudblood'. Canon seems to be the kind of place where 'Yeah, she's a Mudblood, but she puts out' is not said (nor thought). << I guess I just don't see why the old wounds would be coming up in HBP. I could see Snape blaming Dumbledore as you suggest, but don't see what was bringing this to a head in HBP, >> I suppose if Severus thought that Dumbledore was mourning the death of Sirius, it could have stirred up his old jealousy. << unless you are suggesting the general stressfulness of the situation, which I would have to agree was generally stressful. >> This is a forbidden LOL reply. Goddlefrood wrote in : << (i)When Hagrid says "No one ever lived after Lord Voldemort decided to kill them", it is my prediction that Snape will be one possible exception to this. >> *HARRY* lived after Voldemort decided to kill him. AmanitaMuscaria wrote in : << I'm interested in how Peter became Voldemort's servant though - do you think he sought Voldemort out after maybe one too many put-down, or that he was befriended and recruited subtly, without knowing who it was he was telling secrets to until it was too late? Or do you think Voldemort just threatened him and he collapsed and told all? >> *I* think Peter was befriended and recruited subtly, without knowing to whom he was telling secrets until it was too late -- I'm amazed how *precisely* your words match my imagine of what happened, except you didn't specify that he was lured by a beautiful girl. The kid *was* Sorted into Gryffindor, he can't be cowardly in *every* respect. He became an Animagus and, as a little rat, he ran with a werewolf and a big dog, either of whom could have swallowed him in one bite. He couldn't have been as useless as Sirius bitterly accused him of. I figure, as a young man he didn't lack physical courage (begging on his knees for his life was after twelve years hiding as a rat); the thing he feared was James's disapproval. It's a piece of irony that he ended up murdering his hero to prevent said hero from finding out his misdeeds, when if any time he had confessed and said he wanted to get out of Lord Voldemort's service, James would have been eager for Dumbledore to give Peter a second chance. From terrianking at aol.com Mon Apr 23 00:03:41 2007 From: terrianking at aol.com (terrianking at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:03:41 EDT Subject: Hermione doing magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167856 zanooda: > > Hermione did mention practicing spells before going to school in SS/PS. > I personally think that they don't punish Muggleborn children for this, > because they (the children) don't know that it's forbidden, as they > haven't been to Hogwarts yet. Pippin: She needn't have been at home. I can see Hermione trying a few spells for practice in Ollivanders itself as she was shopping for her first wand, especially if she'd already purchased her books. But I think she could have done magic legally anywhere in Diagon Alley as a prospective first year. As term hadn't started yet, she wouldn't be subject to Hogwarts rules, and as it's not a Muggle area, she wouldn't be subject to the Reasonable Restriction either. Robert: You may have hit on a possible answer to the old question of how Muggle families are informed of their children's magical abilities. Maybe they get an invitation to Diagon Alley and are told the news there. If the Leaky Cauldron can't be seen by Muggles, the invitation might be like a secret keepers notice. The Muggle parents can see it only after being invited to enter. Inside Diagon Alley anything can happen. I know I would be inclined to stay for days if it took that long to come to grips with and understand the presence of the wizarding world and how my family would be affected from then on. The young Muggle borns would have time to be taught about magic, too, and have their abilities assessed. The Grangers were not afraid to enter Diagon Alley with their daughter. It was the behavior of the witches and wizards and other creatures and beings that seemed to make them uneasy. Perhaps it was after they were assured Hermione was fitting in they started to stay away? Well, it makes sense to me, Robert ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 23 00:04:11 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:04:11 -0000 Subject: What, Voldemort Kill Myrtle ? (Was Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704192038q9fecfe7s717f89e19e62eb23@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167857 > Random832: > "to rid Hogwarts of all Muggleborns" can be accomplished through > intimidation, which doesn't seem to be a crime under Wizarding law. > > > Julie: > > The student who tossed it into the room knew it was deadly. > > He knew what could--and likely would--happen. He's guilty. Random832: > Of negligence. (and, Riddle had, as far as i can tell, no idea there > was anyone in the bathroom) Pippin: The issue here seems to be the doctrine of 'implied malice' (lawyers on the list will no doubt correct me if I have this wrong). If Riddle was acting with a conscious disregard for life and with the knowledge that his actions might endanger someone, he might be guilty of murder even if he had no premeditated intent to kill. The Marauders might be guilty under the same doctrine if Lupin had killed someone during their excursions into Hogsmeade, or for the Prank itself. Pippin From juli17 at aol.com Mon Apr 23 00:33:02 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:33:02 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Wormtail (was Transitions, etc Will the Real...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167858 > > > JW: > > While we do not know how WT first became a DE/servant, in PoA WT > tells > > Sirius that he gave the Potters hideout info to LV under extreme > threat. > > To paraphrase: > > WT: You do not know what LV is capable of. What was I to do? > > Sirius: You were supposed to die, as we would have done for you. > But > > you spied for LV for a year before you gave the Potters to LV. > > > > zgirnius: > It is not quite that simple. According to Sirius, Peter spied for > Voldemort for about a year. > > > Sirius, PoA: > > "DON'T LIE!" bellowed Black. "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM > FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY!" > > zgirnius: > I could see Peter getting forced into spying by Voldemort. But if he > was doing it against his will, why on earth did he agree to be James > and Lily's Secret Keeper? And why did he never seek help, over the > course of that year? Simple and immediate fear for his life does not > explain it. Julie: Peter Pettigrew is the most difficult character in HP to understand, IMO. And I don't know if it's because JKR has just plugged him into the plot in whatever way she needed him to serve it best, or if there is an explanation for his apparent character inconsistencies. Peter's own argument is that he was too afraid of LV *not* to spy for him. But as you say, it doesn't make sense that he would agree to be the Potters' secret-keeper if it was only fear that motivated him. That request is between him, Sirius, and the Potters. He can refuse it on some grounds or other without LV ever knowing about it. So why doesn't he? Even more, why does he go straight to LV when he escapes the Shrieking Shack in POA? LV is still Vapor!mort, and without someone to help him regain a physical body he is not a major threat to anyone--especially not to Peter, who as Scabbers would know about LV's lack of success retrieving the Philosopher's Stone and Quirrel's ignonimous fate, thus can easily avoid the same fate. (Though it's not relevant to this post, just *where* did Vapor!mort go when Quirrel died anyway? Did he just float his way out of Hogwarts to Albania, or did he possess an owl or something?) Anyway, how can we reconcile Peter seeking out Vapor!mort and deliberately helping him regain his strength and physical body with a Peter who acts *only* out of fear? To me, the Peter in GOF is acting with deliberate malice toward the WW, having ignored the clear opportunity to disappear into a sewer somewhere as Scabbers and never be seen again. He WANTS LV to regain his power, whether because he's sick of hiding as a rat and can only be himself again with LV's protection, or he acted from the beginning out of something besides fear (perhaps he secretly loved Lily and hated James for winning her heart?). I don't know what Peter's motive was, but it had to be more than simple fear for his life. One of the biggest mysteries of the books has been *Snape's* motivations for his actions, both good and bad, and it's pretty certain that we will learn the truth about those motivations in DH. But Peter's motivations are as big a mystery, and I hope we do get some explanation, because we really need one if Peter isn't just going to remain this contradictory character who acts only to serve the plot. Julie From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 00:50:03 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:50:03 -0000 Subject: Neri/miniature/DDanimagus/torture/RoR/socialclass/connection/rattlesnake/more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167859 > Catlady: > Among the cross-House romances in canon, We haven't seen a > Gryffindor-Slytherin romance. The dislike between Gryffindor and > Slytherin is so intense that I think Romeo's housemates would hate him > for being a traitor and Juliet's housemates would hate her for being a > traitor, and there is a LOT one can do against a person one hates who > lives in the same dorm. I don't know long that dislike has been that > intense. > Also, regardless of House, a student whose friends were all > pureblood-supremacists would be at least mocked by those friends for > going out with a 'Mudblood'. zgirnius: Right, we don't know how long the dislike has been that way. My own view, though, is that Romeo *had* no friends in his house at the relevant period of time, his final three years at school. At the end of fifth year, he was attacked by popular Gryffindors in front of most of the fifth year class (those who had been taking OWLs and stuck around.) Noone stood up for him except Lily, which I would expect friends, or dormmates interested in upholding House honor, to do. (I borrow your names, as they amuse me, but I think it most likely that from Lily's side they were just friends, not necessarily even very close ones). > Catlady: > I suppose if Severus thought that Dumbledore was mourning the death of > Sirius, it could have stirred up his old jealousy. zgirnius: If Snape thought it, he saw something in Dumbledore I failed to pick up in my reading of HBP. And I am glad to have provided some small amusement! From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Apr 23 00:53:34 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:53:34 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167861 houyhnhnm: > > Hermione didn't speak of *practicing* magic when she first > > met Harry and Ron on the train. What she said was "I've > > learned all our course books by heart, of course. . . . I > > got a few extra books for background reading." She may > > have spoken of using magic outside of school somewhere else, > > though, and I don't remember it. Geoff: > With respect, she did and at the beginning of the same > conversation which you mentioned above..... > '"Are you sure that's a real spell?" said the girl. "Well, > it's not very good is it? I've tried a few simple spells > just for practice and it's all worked for me. Nobody in my > family's magic at all, it was ever such a surprise when I > got my letter but I was ever so pleased, of course, I mean, > it's the very best school of witchcraft there is,I've heard > - I've learnt all out set books off by heart, of course, I > just hope it will be enough - I'm Hermione Granger, by the > way, who are you?"'(PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and > Three-quarters" p.79 UK edition) houyhnhnm: My bad. I was reading without my glasses. As to why Hermione didn't get in trouble with the Ministry, I can only imagine that the simple spells she was able to do without having ever been to Hogwarts were indistinguishable from the spontaneous magic which would be expected and overlooked, as others have pointed out. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 01:19:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:19:51 -0000 Subject: Spies (was Re: Snape name mentioned in OOP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167862 > Alla wrote: > > > I am just thinking that Fudge's **spies** will mean in DH that > Snape was not the only spy in DE camp. va32h: > > You know, I have always thought the "big blond Death Eater" mentioned > so many times at the end of HBP was another spy. Alla: Right, what I am thinking is that if there is another spy, it is a known character, so if big blondie is a spy, it is a masked order member. Let me refer you to awesome post by Constance Vigilance called " Battle in Hogwarts" While I am not sure I buy Snape's part, I totally love the other possibilities :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137286 From phil at pcsgames.net Mon Apr 23 00:56:05 2007 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:56:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Neri/miniature/DDanimagus/torture/RoR/socialclass/connection/rattlesnake/more References: Message-ID: <02c501c78542$31e1dd10$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 167863 Catlady asked about a shrinking spell to mail a person by owl... Now Phil: From GOF: "Well ... when I went up to Madam Pomfrey to get them shrunk, she held up a mirror and told me to stop her when they were back to how they normally were," she said. "And I just ... let her carry on a bit." She smiled even more widely. "Mum and Dad won't be too pleased. I've been trying to persuade them to let me shrink them for ages, but they wanted me to carry on with my braces. You know, they're dentists, they just don't think teeth and magic should-- It does not say if the shrinking could happen on the whole body instead of just the teeth. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 23 01:43:11 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:43:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462C0F2F.8040403@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167864 puduhepa98 at aol.com wrote: > Bart > Also, the year of the Spanish Inquisition. > > Nikkalmati > > Bart, the Spanish Inquisition went on for over 400 years with various period > of activity and inactivity. IIRC, it started in 1492 and ended in 1968. Bart From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 02:49:22 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:49:22 -0000 Subject: Neri/miniature/DDanimagus/torture/RoR/socialclass/connection/rattlesnake/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Neri wrote: > << And I can't remember any discussion at all about how the Founders > had managed to come up with a wonderfully silly name like "Hogwarts". >> > Catlady wrote: > And I posted *such* an elaborate story about how the mountain was > named Hogmount Neri: I found your original post. Here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/6460 (isn't the new Yahoomort great? It was written seven years ago and it took me seven seconds to find it) >and the lake Hoglake Neri: As this is Scotland, shouldn't the lake be called Loch Hog? Neri From technomad at intergate.com Mon Apr 23 02:52:16 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:52:16 -0500 Subject: Durmstrang. Voldemort and the Scholomance Message-ID: <000f01c78552$681f9060$45560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 167866 I was rereading _Dracula,_ and it mentioned that Count Dracula, when alive, had attended something called the "Scholomance." Wikipedia says that it's a legendary school of dark magic, near Sibiu in Romania, attended by ten scholars at a time, and that when nine of them are released on the world, the Devil takes the tenth scholar as his due to serve as his adjutant. I wonder if JKR was thinking of this legendary school when she created Durmstrang? It is said to be situated on a lake, high in the mountains---and I don't know how cold Romania gets in the winter. Except for Durmstrang being said to be farther north, it does strike me as reminiscent of Viktor Krum's school. Or, if that theory doesn't appeal, could Voldemort have attended after leaving Hogwarts? It does sound like a Muggle distorted version of an advanced Dark Arts-only school that only lets in a few of the most dedicated Dark Artists at a time. And if he did attend---what happened to his schoolmates? From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Apr 23 02:58:40 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:58:40 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Wormtail (was Transitions, etc Will the Real...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167867 AmanitaMuscaria: > I'm interested in how Peter became Voldemort's servant > though - do you think he sought Voldemort out after maybe > one too many put-down, or that he was befriended and > recruited subtly, without knowing who it was he was > telling secrets to until it was too late? Or do you > think Voldemort just threatened him and he collapsed > and told all? houyhnhnm: If he sought Voldemort out, I think it would have been after one too many deaths of his confederates rather than one too many put-downs. But there may be a back story of which we are unaware. That would be interesting to find out in the last book. How did Peter become one of the Marauders in the first place? Sirius didn't seem to have a very high opinion of him if the Pensieve scene is anything to go by and James hardly seemed to be aware of him, other than to take his fawning for granted (Not that Peter seemed to mind very much). Were James and Sirius just being kind-hearted to a friendless dorm-mate when they first began to include him in their escapades or was there some kind of subtle blackmail involved. How did Peter come to be in the Order? It seems he continued to enjoy the patronage of James and Sirius after they left school. If he was threatened by Voldemort, was it because he was close to the Potters. If he turned traitor about a year before the Potters were killed, that would have been around the same time Harry was born and Voldemort fixed his attention on him the child of the prophecy. Then someone must have conveyed Peter's connection to the Potters to Voldemort; how else would someone so insignificant have come to his attention. That is a role I can more easily imagine for an ESE!Lupin than that he was Wormtail's impersonator. Even if Peter sought out Voldemort because he saw the Dark side winning and he was afraid for his own skin, there must have been some kind of intermediary. Surely no one appraoches the Dark Lord directly. As the betrayer of the Potters (without whom there would have been no Boy-Who-Lived), Peter's backstory has got to be important and we know nothing of it, not even if he grew up in the Wizarding World or was Muggle-born. I do hope we will find out more in Deathly Hallows. From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 02:51:45 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:51:45 -0000 Subject: Sirius a DE? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167868 Ok I am going through the books again (as I keep saying sorry) and I'm sure I'll come across it soon enough, but can someone clear something up for me? Was Sirius ever a DE? If he was I'm assuming it was as a spy for the Order, but my memory is fuzzy on all this. Can someone please help. Thx. Tandra From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 23 03:08:31 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:08:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Neri/miniature/DDanimagus/torture/RoR/socialclass/connection/rattlesnake/more In-Reply-To: <02c501c78542$31e1dd10$6600a8c0@phil> References: <02c501c78542$31e1dd10$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: <462C232F.9050606@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167869 Phil Vlasak wrote: > Catlady asked about a shrinking spell to mail a person by owl... I'm wondering how well the WW does with dentistry; several times wizards and witches are referred to as having missing teeth. Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Apr 23 03:17:44 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:17:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius a DE? References: Message-ID: <00a901c78555$f6a8a3f0$8866400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 167870 Tandra: > Ok I am going through the books again (as I keep saying sorry) and I'm > sure I'll come across it soon enough, but can someone clear something > up for me? Was Sirius ever a DE? If he was I'm assuming it was as a > spy for the Order, but my memory is fuzzy on all this. Can someone > please help. Thx. Magpie: Nope, Sirius was never a DE in any capacity. He was falsely accused of being one--or at least of being a secret spy of Voldemort's--but he never was. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 04:57:03 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:57:03 -0000 Subject: Sirius a DE? In-Reply-To: <00a901c78555$f6a8a3f0$8866400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167871 > > Tandra: > > Was Sirius ever a DE? > Magpie: > Nope, Sirius was never a DE in any capacity. He was falsely accused of being one--or at least of being a secret spy of Voldemort's--but he never was. Goddlefrood: I agree and as JKR herself might say to the original question: "How dare you!" TM :-) You may also read a few snippets in interviews, as well as the books, if they are indeed the same ones the rest of us have read ;-) This from Barnes & Noble chat transcript, 8th September 1999: "Hello! Will Sirius ever be proven innocent? Or have you not decided yet? Thank you very much!! JKR: I have decided, but if I answer it gives away something quite important in the plot, so I'd rather not...however, Sirius will be back in future books." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0999-barnesnoble-staff.htm He of course was back in GoF and OotP thereafter, and has been proven innocent in the eyes of the wider wizarding world, as witnessed in Chapter One of HBP. Fudge tells the PM of the earlier mistake of the Ministry and others regarding Sirius. JKR's actual opinion: "Do you like Sirius Black? I've had several letters asking this, which rather surprised me. The answer is, yes, I do like him, although I do not think he is wholly wonderful" >From the FAQ section of her site, available here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=61 So, Sirius was poorly treated, but happily for me I expect to see him in DH in some form :). Goddlefrood From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 06:51:50 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:51:50 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang. Voldemort and the Scholomance In-Reply-To: <000f01c78552$681f9060$45560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167872 --- "Eric Oppen" wrote: > > I was rereading _Dracula,_ and it mentioned that Count > Dracula, when alive, had attended something called the >"Scholomance." Wikipedia says that it's a legendary > school of dark magic, near Sibiu in Romania, attended > by ten scholars at a time, ... > > I wonder if JKR was thinking of this legendary school > when she created Durmstrang? ... > bboyminn: Note that after much research and consulting of maps, I have determined that Durmstrang is in the Kola Peninsula of Russia, right next to Finland. http://bluemoonmarket.homestead.com/files/murmansk/pg1.htm To see my other maps, go to the LINKS section in this group and look under "Speculative Geography', then look for location titles starting with 'Where in the World...'. >Eric Oppen: > > ..., could Voldemort have attended after leaving > Hogwarts? It does sound like a Muggle distorted > version of an advanced Dark Arts-only school that > only lets in a few of the most dedicated Dark Artists > at a time. And if he did attend---what happened to > his schoolmates? > bboyminn: Two points, first Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beauxbatons are the THREE LARGEST wizarding schools in Europe, it doesn't say they are the ONLY wizarding schools. I have always speculated that the wizarding schools broke from the tradition of Master/Apprentice wizard training. It was very innovative to gather all the magical children into one protected place rather than teach them in small groups, at the local castle of individual wizards. There is an element of risk in doing this since whole generations of wizards are gathered in one place and are therefore vulnerable to attack. But it offered the advantage of making sure all wizards were equally and correctly trained. I suspect that most Master Wizards willing to train Apprentices had to wander the country side hoping to stumble across of potential wizard they could invite into an apprenticeship. Not a very efficient method, and I suspect many potential wizards and witches went /unfound/. I suspect other wizards, especially in smaller more traditional countries, continued on with the small school Master/Apprentice training. Therefore there could very well be many smaller schools scattered around Europe for training wizards. So, yes, Voldemort might have gone to the small Dark Arts School in Romania. Steve/bboyminn From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 05:38:04 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:38:04 -0000 Subject: Wizard dentistry (was:Neri/miniature/DDanimagus/torture/RoR/socialclass/connection/rattlesnake/more) In-Reply-To: <462C232F.9050606@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167873 Bart: > I'm wondering how well the WW does with dentistry; several times > wizards and witches are referred to as having missing teeth. JW: Have you ever been to Great Britain? Wizard dentistry there cannot be any worse than muggle dentistry. I have often thought it was quite satirical for both of Hermione's parents to be muggle dentists. They may well be the only two in the entire country. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 09:40:18 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:40:18 -0000 Subject: Wizard dentistry (was:Neri/miniature/DDanimagus/torture/RoR/socialclass/connection/rattlesnake/more) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167874 > JW: > Have you ever been to Great Britain? Wizard dentistry there cannot be any worse than muggle dentistry. I have often thought it was quite satirical for both of Hermione's parents to be muggle dentists. They may well be the only two in the entire country. Goddlefrood: This is perhaps the oldest and tiredest joke in the book :|. I apprehend that the late George Burns was saying it in his cradle and that it had been handed down to him from time immemorial. As any fule know we all have wooden teeth :)), and consequently there is little need for dentists ;) From petaannfox at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 23 10:38:03 2007 From: petaannfox at yahoo.com.au (Peta-Ann Fox) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:38:03 +1000 (EST) Subject: Dumbeldore's Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <526557.43274.qm@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167875 > risashoes wrote: > In every book it states that Dumbledore was the Transfiguration > Professor....what if any significance do you think this has for > DH? This is something that has bothered me for all 6 books and I > have been waiting for some elaboration on this? Does anyone think > that it has any importance to the story? >From foxie84: I don't think that Dumbledore's past as a Transfiguration Professor will be a major signigicance in DH. I think that it is good to know Dumbledore's past and his strength (which of course is Transfiguration). I don't think that Dumbledore could help him as much as McGonagall could - who would've been taught by Dumbledore according to www.hp_lexicon.org in its time line of either LV or Dumbledore. I would also like to question your thought of this question - Would Dumbledore have left anything to Harry in his will? Considering Dumbledore's proudness of Harry and the fact that he is the only one to know of the prophecy. Foxie84 From risashoes at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 12:19:37 2007 From: risashoes at yahoo.com (risashoes) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:19:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past In-Reply-To: <526557.43274.qm@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167876 Foxie84: > I would also like to question your thought of this question - > Would Dumbledore have left anything to Harry in his will? > Considering Dumbledore's proudness of Harry and the fact that > he is the only one to know of the prophecy. HI FOXIE 84-- I do think that DD had a "formal will" (he prided himself, "well organized mind") in which he will leave things to Hagrid, MG, and this will bring his brother out in the open to be a mentor to Harry and IMO expose the Gryffindor family background. We know that DD created bottles of his memories and I think that he will leave some of those important memories to Harry, but they won't be known from the get-go. DD may leave Harry the key to a desk or a vault at Gringotts (my first thought on seeing the UK children's cover may be DD's family vault at Gringotts) and Harry will have to "discover them". We know from canon the memories in the Pensieve are actual memories not just representations of what the "storer" recalls, and I believe that DD left information that HP needs to finish his task and that DD was not ready to divulge. I also think that Petunia is safeguarding a written note or map for Harry "in case of DD's Death" and she will give this to him on his last return to 4 PD per DD's instructions. RISA From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Apr 23 15:32:29 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:32:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167877 Risa: > I do think that DD had a "formal will" (he prided himself, > "well organized mind") in which he will leave things to Hagrid, > MG, and this will bring his brother out in the open to be a > mentor to Harry and IMO expose the Gryffindor family background. Jen: A will strikes me as good way to bring together a few plot elements because, like you, I believe Dumbledore and Aberforth will prove to be the last of the Gryffindor line. I'd pictured Harry learning about the ancestry in a more dramatic fashion, but since JKR used a will to clear up a few plot points in HBP to good effect, she might go that route again as a jumping-off point for Harry's quest to Godric's Hollow. Harry learning who the barman is and that he's now the sole heir to the Godric's Hollow home (land?) would be pretty dramatic to Harry at any rate. Which reminds me, I've been wondering how Harry will find Godric's Hollow? The rules of Apparition don't make it clear how much you need to know about your destination to get there. Is it enough for Harry to think 'Godric's Hollow' and concentrate on the thought to make it to the right place? When he was Apparating to Hogsmeade the night of the cave, Harry knew exactly where he was going and could concentrate on the visual. Or at least that's what I pictured happening from the words, 'Harry concentrated harder than he had ever done upon his destination: Hogsmeade.' (chap. 27, p. 541, UK ed.) All the people who could take Harry to Godric's Hollow are dead or on the other side with the exception of Hagrid, and we don't know how he got to GH since he can't Apparate. I've assumed Dumbledore had a hand in getting him there and Hagrid might not remember exactly how he made it. It sounds like Lupin didn't know the hiding place since the Marauders suspected he was the spy at that point. I'm thinking now that Aberforth being connected to Godric's Hollow might have more uses than just historical information about Dumbledore and/or Godric Gryffindor. Of course, all this musing is for nothing if Harry only has to concentrate on the name 'Godric's Hollow' and he can apparate there by himself. Jen From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Apr 23 16:19:21 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:19:21 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167878 > va32h here: > I do agree that the secret is not the horcrux, and that people who > call themselves Death Eaters would not find a horcrux particularly > distressing. They'd probably want one for themselves, actually. Jen: There's evidence in the graveyard that LV's supporters know specifics about his quest for immortality: 'And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against moral death?' (GOF, chap. 33, p. 648, Am ed.) It's implied the DE's know what specific steps LV took or it might be worded more vaguely like, 'they who knew I took steps.' The problem is Dumbledore states in the 'Horcrux' chapter of HBP that the DE's did *not* know Voldemort was referring to Horcruxes when he mentioned going 'further than anybody' in his quest for immortality. va32h: > My feeling is that the secret is Voldemort's half-blood status. It > seems such a minor thing now, but I do think the original DEs were > motivated to join on the whole "ethnic cleansing" program, led by > Salazar Slytherin's last descendant who wished to carry on his noble > work. > Since I believe RAB is Regulus Black, and the Blacks were all about > the blood purity thing, I find it plausible that a young boy, utterly > convinced in the notion of blood purity, would be disgusted and > horrified to learn that he had pledged himself to the service of a > filthy half-blood. Jen: I'm torn here! You make a good case and it's clear in OOTP that Bella, one of his most zealous supporters, has no clue Voldemort is a half-blood and would likely be horrified to learn the truth. More horrified than learning about a Horcrux. Plus there's possible canon for Bella already knowing about the Horcruxes when she said he 'entrusted me with his most precious...' Horcruxes would likely be Voldemort's most precious possessions if that's the missing word. The con for DE's knowing specifically about the Horcruxes comes from Dumbledore's information about Voldemort and tyrants in general, how they actually fear the people they oppress and know one day there will be a person who rises up and strikes back. Voldemort giving up the information about his Horcruxes, no matter how arrogant he is, strikes me as counter to the assertion he actually feared those he oppressed (including his Death Eaters) and wouldn't give them information that could lead anyone to thwart him. In that respect, the Horcruxes--or in R.A.B.'s case one Horcrux--would be a huge secret to stumble across. Either way, I think the fact that Voldemort is a half-blood is bound to come out in DH. That would be a huge destabilizing thing for DEs to learn and I wonder if the information won't come from Lucius? He seems like a guy who always has a back door and after giving up some of his power when LV returned, combined with being left in Azkaban and Voldemort targeting Draco, I wouldn't wonder if he will finally reveal that he figured out Riddle's origins after the diary was left in his care. The fact that it came from a Muggle shop would the clue he built on to have something against the Dark Lord should LV ever return. Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 16:22:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:22:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167879 Jen wrote: > A will strikes me as good way to bring together a few plot elements because, like you, I believe Dumbledore and Aberforth will prove to be the last of the Gryffindor line. > Which reminds me, I've been wondering how Harry will find Godric's Hollow? The rules of Apparition don't make it clear how much you need to know about your destination to get there. Is it enough for Harry to think 'Godric's Hollow' and concentrate on the thought to make it to the right place? > > All the people who could take Harry to Godric's Hollow are dead or on the other side with the exception of Hagrid, and we don't know how he got to GH since he can't Apparate. I've assumed Dumbledore had a hand in getting him there and Hagrid might not remember exactly how he made it. It sounds like Lupin didn't know the hiding place since the Marauders suspected he was the spy at that point. I'm thinking now that Aberforth being connected to Godric's Hollow might have more uses than just historical information about Dumbledore and/or Godric Gryffindor. > > Of course, all this musing is for nothing if Harry only has to concentrate on the name 'Godric's Hollow' and he can apparate there by himself. Carol responds: I'm not sure about the rules of Apparition, but neither Narcissa in "Spinner's End" nor Dumbledore in "The Cave" Apparated to their exact destination. I think Harry would merely need to find the village of Godric's Hollow on a map and then wander around until he found the exact location of the ruins of the Potters' cottage. I'm not so sure, though, that the only living people who know the exact location, aside from Hagrid (who may be able to Apparate since he disappears from Platform 9 3/4 in SS/PS), are bad guys. The Secret is no longer in effect and the cottage itself was never hidden, only the location of the Potters. If the cottage belonged to Albus Dumbledore and he gave or lent it to the Potters as a hiding place, they could have been hiding there for months before the danger intensified to the point where DD thought they needed a Fidelius Charm. He could have visited them there himself to make the suggestion, and the moment he "forgot" where they were hiding, he would know that the charm was in place. Something similar may have happened to Lupin, who could have been informed by DD as a member of the Order that a Fidelius Charm was in place and that the Potters had chosen Black as their SK. But Lupin, too, even if he had visited the Potters at GH earlier, would no longer know the location thanks to the Fidelius Charm (if it works as I think it works). The only people who know where the Potters are hidden once the charm has been cast would be those who were told by the SK himself; surely that includes people who knew the hiding place before the charm was cast or there would be no point in casting it. The moment the spell was broken, both DD and Lupin would "remember" where the Potters had been hiding, but by then it would be too late to help them. If I'm right, then Lupin can help them find the ruins of the cottage, and I can see his wanting to go with them to pay his respects to the Potters. (Even ESE!Lupin might want to go with them, right, Pippin?) Carol, who agrees that the cottage and surrounding property at Godric's Hollow belonged to Albus Dumbledore and, though ruined, probably belong now to Aberforth as DD's heir and the last Heir of Gryffindor From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 16:20:44 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:20:44 -0000 Subject: Wizard dentistry / Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167880 > Bart wrote: > I'm wondering how well the WW does with dentistry; several times > wizards and witches are referred to as having missing teeth. zanooda: And why so many of them wear glasses? How many times in my childhood did I wish (after being called "four-eyes" a thousand times, naturally) that my poor eyesight would just cure itself by magic. Now I read a book about magic and wizards and guess what? They can't cure it at all :-)! >> Jen wrote: >> Which reminds me, I've been wondering how Harry will find >> Godric's Hollow? The rules of Apparition don't make it clear >> how much you need to know about your destination to get >> there. Is it enough for Harry to think 'Godric's Hollow' >> and concentrate on the thought to make it to the right place? >> When he was Apparating to Hogsmeade the night of the cave, >> Harry knew exactly where he was going and could concentrate >> on the visual. zanooda: OTOH, many wizards (including Bill, Charlie and Percy) Apparated to the site of QWC, and I doubt that they ever visited the place before. What about DD Apparating to this Budleigh Babberton(?) where Slughorn was hiding? Could DD know more than the name of the village? Slughorn seemed to choose places to stay at random, just by looking for vacant Muggle houses anywhere. From cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 17:14:31 2007 From: cassandralee1120 at yahoo.com (Cassandra Lee) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldermort has a secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <842818.67508.qm@web53808.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167881 > va32h here: > I do agree that the secret is not the horcrux, and that people who > call themselves Death Eaters would not find a horcrux particularly > distressing. They'd probably want one for themselves, actually. Jen: There's evidence in the graveyard that LV's supporters know specifics about his quest for immortality: 'And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against moral death?' (GOF, chap. 33, p. 648, Am ed.) It's implied the DE's know what specific steps LV took or it might be worded more vaguely like, 'they who knew I took steps.' The problem is Dumbledore states in the 'Horcrux' chapter of HBP that the DE's did *not* know Voldemort was referring to Horcruxes when he mentioned going 'further than anybody' in his quest for immortality. Cassandra: I do not recall exactly what happened in the graveyard, (and I do not have the book with me at the moment) but didn't LV say that the grave was that of his father's while he was giving his speech to the DE's? If so, wouldn't they know that 'Riddle' was not a wizarding family name? Especially since they are all so connected? I believe that LV's secret is that he is keeping his half blood geneology from the DE's, but I just can't imagine them being there in a muggle cementary and not putting the two and two together? Cassandra From va32h at comcast.net Mon Apr 23 19:51:52 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:51:52 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167882 Cassandra: > I do not recall exactly what happened in the graveyard, (and I do not have the book with me at the moment) but didn't LV say that the grave was that of his father's while he was giving his speech to the DE's? If so, wouldn't they know that 'Riddle' was not a wizarding family name? Especially since they are all so connected? I believe that LV's secret is that he is keeping his half blood geneology from the DE's, but I just can't imagine them being there in a muggle cementary and not putting the two and two together? va32h here: Voldemort does say, in reference to his regeneration potion "My father's bone, naturally, meant that we would have to come here, where he was buried." But that is the only reference he makes to his father in front of the DEs. One sentence, in the middle of a narrative that is probably moving along quickly, and spoken in front of an audience still shocked to be there in the first place. He doesn't say which grave is his father's, or give a name. Harry is tied to the Riddle headstone, and most likely his body is covering the name. According to Dumbledore "few knew" that LV had ever been Tom Riddle in the first place. I think that is something that is easy for readers to forget - because we are so used to LV being Tom. But Dumbledore said early on that it was a little known fact. LV had given a fairly lengthy speech about the family history to Harry - but the other DEs had not arrived yet. In fact, LV stops talking about his family history, because his "true family" arrives - the DEs. Wormtail *was* there for the full history of Tom Riddle, though. Assuming anyone in the DEs listens to him anymore, that info may or may not mean anything. Jen said: The con for DE's knowing specifically about the Horcruxes comes from Dumbledore's information about Voldemort and tyrants in general, how they actually fear the people they oppress and know one day there will be a person who rises up and strikes back. Voldemort giving up the information about his Horcruxes, no matter how arrogant he is, strikes me as counter to the assertion he actually feared those he oppressed (including his Death Eaters) and wouldn't give them information that could lead anyone to thwart him. In that respect, the Horcruxes--or in R.A.B.'s case one Horcrux--would be a huge secret to stumble across. va32h here: My thinking on this is that Voldemort told multiple DE's that they were entrusted with his one and only horcrux. That pits the DEs against each other - as they each think they are LV's most trusted, and thus makes them less likely to compare notes. If one horcrux were were destroyed, and Voldemort attacked, he would still be alive, but also know who the traitor was in his organization. So it also works as a test of loyalty. I am not entirely convinced that Lucius never knew the Diary was a horcrux. Dumbledore says that Snape says that Lucius didn't know. And Dumbledore thinks that Lucius would have treated the Diary with more care if he did know. But Lucius is a slick operator. His life, post Voldemort's defeat, is pretty darn good. He got off scot-free, of any criminal charges, and has the Minister of Magic in his back pocket. I think Lucius watched and waited, and after more than a decade of Voldemort not re-animating, decided to get rid of the Diary in hopes that it would be destroyed, and LV would never come back. In a stroke of good luck, Lucius finds he can get rid of the diary and discredit Arthur Weasley at the same time by planting the diary on Ginny. LV doesn't call Lucius his slippery friend for nothing. Now, how has this motive escaped Voldemort's superb legillimency skills? Well again - Snape says Voldemort is the most accomplished Legillimens of all time, and he says it to an audience of LV sycophants, so what else is he going to say? The only person we've seen LV use Legillimency on are Harry, and possibly Wormtail. Harry we know has zero Occlumency skills, and Wormtail is a snivelling coward so no surprise there. I think it is possible to fool LV because his very hubris makes him think no one would dare to try. (PS - I think Snape is the most accomplished Legillimens and Occlumens of all time) Jen here: > Either way, I think the fact that Voldemort is a half-blood is bound to come out in DH. That would be a huge destabilizing thing for DEs to learn and I wonder if the information won't come from Lucius? He seems like a guy who always has a back door and after giving up some of his power when LV returned, combined with being left in Azkaban and Voldemort targeting Draco, I wouldn't wonder if he will finally reveal that he figured out Riddle's origins after the diary was left in his care. The fact that it came from a Muggle shop would the clue he built on to have something against the Dark Lord should LV ever return. va32h here: Right - Lucius is a player. And with no Dementors in Azkaban, he won't be too depressed to figure a way out of his current jam. Maybe he will talk to the Ministry, who can instruct the Daily Prophet to publish an expose of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. A lot of Voldemort's power comes from his mystique. Maybe people wouldn't be afraid to say Voldemort, if they knew his real name was Tom Riddle. va32h, imagining Voldemort standing in the middle of Diagon Alley, surrounded by a crowd of witches and wizards, who point and chant "Little Tommy Riddle" until he bursts into tears. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Apr 23 21:15:29 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:15:29 -0000 Subject: Apparition & Secrets (was Re: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I'm not sure about the rules of Apparition, but neither Narcissa in > "Spinner's End" nor Dumbledore in "The Cave" Apparated to their exact destination. I think Harry would merely need to find the village of Godric's Hollow on a map and then wander around until he found the exact location of the ruins of the Potters' cottage. va32h here: I suspect Narcissa and Bella apparated in the woods to avoid being seen by any Muggles - the same way wizards apparated into the woods around the campground at the QWC instead of the campground itself. Dumbledore apparates outside Bubbleigh Babberton for the same reason, and as a courtesy to Slughorn (I doubt the Black sisters cared about courtesy at the time). Dumbledore apparates outside the cave, because the cave is only reached by climbing up a cliff face, and finding a hidden entrance. Although if anyone could apparate directly onto a cliff face, I am sure it would be Dumbledore. Anyway, my point is, I think that if Harry knew his parents' address (123 Golden Snitch Lane, for example) he could apparate directly to the house. But since he only knows Godric's Hollow, he can apparate there, and probably quickly find the house (surely someone in town remembers the location of a spontaneous explosion 16 years ago). Carol here: > I'm not so sure, though, that the only living people who know the > exact location, aside from Hagrid (who may be able to Apparate since > he disappears from Platform 9 3/4 in SS/PS), are bad guys. The Secret > is no longer in effect and the cottage itself was never hidden, only > the location of the Potters. If the cottage belonged to Albus > Dumbledore and he gave or lent it to the Potters as a hiding place, > they could have been hiding there for months before the danger > intensified to the point where DD thought they needed a Fidelius > Charm. He could have visited them there himself to make the > suggestion, and the moment he "forgot" where they were hiding, he > would know that the charm was in place. va32h here: Now I am truly confused, because I never thought that the Fidelius Charm made you forget something you knew, it just made you unable to tell anyone else. Snape certainly knows that 12 GP is the headquarters of the Order, he just can't tell anyone, and he remarks on the frustration of this to Bella in "Spinner's End". All the members of the Order know where there headquarters are - it wouldn't do them any good to have headquarters if they forgot where it was as soon as Dumbledore became secret keeper. They just can't tell any new members. My thinking has always been that Lupin, Sirius, Hagrid, and anyone else who might have visited the Potters knew where their house was, and could visit it, but they were just magically prevented from sharing that information with anyone else. We haven't seen what happens though, if a non-secret keeper tries to tell the secret. Do they lose their voice? Drop dead a la the Unbreakable Vow? va32h From toonmili at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 21:20:25 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:20:25 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167884 > Jen here: > Either way, I think the fact that Voldemort is a half-blood is > bound to come out in DH. va32h here: > Right - Lucius is a player. And with no Dementors in Azkaban, > he won't be too depressed to figure a way out of his current > jam. Maybe he will talk to the Ministry, who can instruct the > Daily Prophet to publish an expose of He-Who-Must-Not-Be- > Named. > A lot of Voldemort's power comes from his mystique. Maybe > people wouldn't be afraid to say Voldemort, if they knew his real > name was Tom Riddle. > va32h, imagining Voldemort standing in the middle of Diagon Alley, > surrounded by a crowd of witches and wizards, who point and > chant "Little Tommy Riddle" until he bursts into tears. toonmili: I don't think the secret is that he is a half-blood. I can't see RAB being so alarmed by that information that he would face death to help defeat him. This would mean that the DE will have a similar reaction to Snape being half-blood. And correct me if I'm wrong but Snape admitted that bit of infomation to Harry in front of Draco. But I do believe he is keeping the fact that he is half-blood from the Death Eaters. We know he's very smart and he has ways to get people to do what he wants them to. He's just using this pure-blood rampage as a means to collect followers... If that's what they care about, that's what he would say he cares about too. But Voldemort doesn't care about purity anymore, at least not as much as he use to when he was younger. He doesn't even think he is human, he thinks he is "so much more". He sees himself above everyone, that no one is his equal, not even pure-bloods. Again, I think the secret is really, really bad that no Death Eater knows about except the one that could be dead. toonmili From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 23 22:25:53 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:25:53 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167885 Jen: > Bella, one of his most zealous supporters, has no clue Voldemort is a half-blood and would likely be horrified to learn the truth. > Either way, I think the fact that Voldemort is a half-blood is bound to come out in DH. That would be a huge destabilizing thing for DEs to learn Kvapost: Yet DE's are perfectly able to deal with barely human LV these days, unrecognisable after all his transformations, as long as his magic is intact. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Apr 23 22:36:01 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:36:01 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "toonmili" wrote: > I don't think the secret is that he is a half-blood. I can't see RAB > being so alarmed by that information that he would face death to > help defeat him. This would mean that the DE will have a similar > reaction to Snape being half-blood. And correct me if I'm wrong but > Snape admitted that bit of infomation to Harry in front of Draco. > > But I do believe he is keeping the fact that he is half-blood from > the Death Eaters. We know he's very smart and he has ways to get > people to do what he wants them to. He's just using this pure-blood > rampage as a means to collect followers... If that's what they care > about, that's what he would say he cares about too. > > But Voldemort doesn't care about purity anymore, at least not as > much as he use to when he was younger. He doesn't even think he is > human, he thinks he is "so much more". He sees himself above > everyone, that no one is his equal, not even pure-bloods. > > Again, I think the secret is really, really bad that no Death Eater > knows about except the one that could be dead. va32h: Well we have to remember that Regulus would be just 18, and would have grown up steeped in prejudice. It would be like a child growing up in a virulently anti-Semetic household and finding out that his favorite teacher was Jewish. Youth and idealism go hand in hand (even if it is idealism for a repugnant cause). Stealing the horcrux and leaving a note full of bravado - those strike me as the sort of thing that an impetuous youth, with too much zest for his cause, would do. Given the way Regulus' family felt about anyone who associated with halfbloods or Muggles - what in Regulus' life experience would lead him to turn away from his parents' ideology? Well maybe a friendship with Snape. I have no idea if Snape ever tried to hide his halfblood status. It would be difficult given the marriage announcement in the Prophet. But I don't consider Snape shrieking hysterically at Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince to be evidence that Snape is not discreet about his heritage. At that point, Snape is overwrought and enraged, he has just killed DD, he is running for his life, and Harry is seriously ticking him off. Snape is full of adrenaline and anger and he's not thinking about who might be listening. Now, you do bring up an interesting point. I agree that Voldemort could not care less about blood purity and never did. He does think himself superior to everyone, and is probably laughing his head off privately at how he was able to dupe all these pureblood bigots into following him - a half blood. It's entirely possible that Voldemort hates purebloods even more than mudbloods - they represent all that he cannot be. I think the Gaunts and the Riddles would have utterly rejected young Tom, had they known of his existence and I'd wager Voldemort knows that too. Now I'm getting off track but my point was - Regulus could be either a terrible bigot and be appalled that Voldemort is really a half blood, or Regulus could have been enlightened by his friendship with half-blood Snape, but still appalled that Voldemort is lying about his blood status to acquire followers. Maybe Voldemort has a Charles Manson-esque plan to incite a war between pure-bloods and half-bloods and then show up to rule them all with an iron fist. That's essentially what he is doing now though. Unless none of the DEs have a place in LV's new world order, and that's the secret. va32h From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 23:20:19 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:20:19 -0000 Subject: Tortured bad guys/PurebloodAccent/Sal's Snake(was re:Neri/miniature/DDanimagu... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167887 > >>Betsy Hp wrote in > > : > > Like how when "good guys" get tortured it's a heart-wrenching and > > terrible thing, but when "bad guys" get tortured it's cartoonish > > and funny? > >>Catlady: > When do readers see 'bad guys' being tortured? > Betsy Hp: I was thinking specifically of Dudley's pig-tail in PS/SS, Dudley being choked in GoF, Draco being bounced in GoF, and of course the facial maiming of Marietta in OotP. Though I suppose you could also throw in the attack on young!Snape in GoF. The blowing up of Aunt Marge in PoA and Montague's time in the closet could *possibly* be described as torture. Though neither Harry nor the twins actually meant for their victims to suffer as they did, so I'm not sure I'd count them as such. (Though I'm sure both victims felt tortured at the time.) > >>Goddlefrood wrote in > > : > > that Snape is from a lower class background than many other Death > > Eaters > >>Catlady: > Logic suggests that the wizarding upper class, so proud of their > pure blood and their isolation from Muggles, would have a different > snob accent and other different etiquette than the Muggle upper > class. > > She showed Draco with the same accent as Justin because she didn't > have enough pages to train the reader to recognize wizarding social > class by its alien behaviors. Betsy Hp: One of my favorite fanfics has a moment when a Muggle character disbelieves Draco's statement that he was born and raised in a certain area of Britain (I can't recall where exactly, maybe Surrey?) because his accent is all wrong. The character described Draco's accent as sort of colonies like, maybe South African but not quite. And this is the sort of thing that while I totally understand JKR didn't have the time or space to do (so *many* different things to cover) I kind of wish could have been included. Though I do get that it would have made the sort of type-casting JKR's been having so much clever fun with rather difficult. And I've been enjoying the type- casting. So I suppose this is me wanting to both have and eat my cake. > >>Carol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167849 > > For Salazar Slytherin and for Tom Riddle after him, the Basilisk is > a deadly weapon. > Killing is its sole purpose, or rather Salazar Slytherin's intended > purpose in leaving it in Hogwarts in the first place, to kill > Muggleborns. > Betsy Hp: I've wondered if Tom "the world is the way I spin it!" Riddle was correct about Salazar being big on killing Muggleborns. He just strikes me as the sort of person to totally twist the meaning of anyone's statement to make it best suit him. So, I developed a theory (the best sort of theory; the kind with very little canon). I suspect that Salazar's biggest fear was a hoard of Muggles breaking into Hogwarts to spread riot and murder through its hallowed halls. When he was booted (or perhaps, chose to leave) he was afraid no one would be around to help protect the students. So he left a deadly barrier in an area he thought might be weakest without him there to guard it: the underground caverns. But he also made sure no innocent student (or staff member for that matter ) could just stumble across the beast. So he put it behind the best lock he could think of. One that only he or those of his blood (and therefore folks close to him, I'd imagine) could open. But then, I've long tended to see Salazar Slytherin as the Mary Magdelene of "Hogwarts: A History". Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 24 00:28:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:28:12 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius Charm again (Was: Apparition & Secrets) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167888 Carol earlier: > > I'm not sure about the rules of Apparition, but neither Narcissa in "Spinner's End" nor Dumbledore in "The Cave" Apparated to their > exact destination. > > va32h responded: > > I suspect Narcissa and Bella apparated in the woods to avoid being seen by any Muggles - the same way wizards apparated into the woods around the campground at the QWC instead of the campground itself. > Carol again: I don't remember any woods. Bella and Narcissa Apparate beside a nasty river, but I thought that it was in a "Muggle dunghill." I do remember a fox, which Bella kills, but no woods. Not that it matters, but my sense of the scene was that Narcissa didn't know the exact location of Snape's house, only the name of the town, which is, I think we agree, all that Harry would need to know as well. He would just need to find GH on a map, as I said before, and look around (or ask around). If GH is a village, the ruins of the Potters' cottage won't be hard to find. va32: > Anyway, my point is, I think that if Harry knew his parents' address > (123 Golden Snitch Lane, for example) he could apparate directly to > the house. But since he only knows Godric's Hollow, he can apparate > there, and probably quickly find the house (surely someone in town > remembers the location of a spontaneous explosion 16 years ago). Carol again: Well, yes. That was essentially my point as well, only I don't think he'd need the address. The name of the village, which he already knows, should be sufficient once he knows where it is. > Carol earlier: If the cottage belonged to Albus Dumbledore and he gave or lent it to the Potters as a hiding place, they could have been hiding there for months before the danger intensified to the point where DD thought they needed a Fidelius Charm. He could have visited them there himself to make the suggestion, and the moment he "forgot" where they were hiding, he would know that the charm was in place. > > va32h here: > > Now I am truly confused, because I never thought that the Fidelius > Charm made you forget something you knew, it just made you unable to > tell anyone else. Snape certainly knows that 12 GP is the > headquarters of the Order, he just can't tell anyone, and he remarks > on the frustration of this to Bella in "Spinner's End". All the > members of the Order know where there headquarters are - it wouldn't > do them any good to have headquarters if they forgot where it was as > soon as Dumbledore became secret keeper. They just can't tell any new members. > > My thinking has always been that Lupin, Sirius, Hagrid, and anyone > else who might have visited the Potters knew where their house was, > and could visit it, but they were just magically prevented from > sharing that information with anyone else. Carol: I don't think they would know the Secret (the Potters' location) once it had been hidden inside the Secret Keeper, even if they knew it before. And if they did, they still wouldn't be able to see the Potters at their home in GH. You're thinking of a person like Snape who has been told the Secret (in Snape's case, the location of the Order HQ) by the Secret Keeper. He knows the Secret but can't reveal it, just as the Potters could not have revealed their own hiding place, even under torture, if they had stepped outside it. But presumably once they stepped outside without an Invisibility Cloak, they would be seen. I'm talking about someone who knew the Potters' hiding place *before* the Secret was concealed but was not told the Secret *by the Secret Keeper* *after the Charm had been cast.* I think that person, for example, Lupin or DD, would no longer no what he knew before because that knowledge is now concealed inside the Secret Keeper. Unlike Sirius Black, who knew the Secret but couldn't reveal it, they wouldn't know the Secret because Wormtail hadn't told them. Their knowledge before the Fidelius Charm was cast would be voided by the Fidelius Charm, which requires the SK himself to tell the Secret in order for it to be known. Sorry if that's unclear, but that's how I understand the charm to work. IMO, DD's sudden awareness of the Potters' hiding place was his clue that the Potters were in grave danger or dead. And I think that Snape, who also did not know the Secret, sensed the vaporization of Voldemort when his Dark Mark rapidly faded. (Most likely, he felt terrible pain first and then watched it disappear, or nearly so.) Those two clues, together with the Prophecy, would tell DD that James and Lily were probably dead, Voldemort's body was destroyed (but he wasn't dead because he had at least one Horcrux), and Harry was alive and "marked" as the one who could defeat the Dark Lord. Carol, who realizes that others may understand the Fidelius Charm differently but can only make sense of it if it works as she's described From kiwi_sapiens at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 23 22:21:56 2007 From: kiwi_sapiens at yahoo.com.au (kiwi_sapiens) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:21:56 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167889 > houyhnhnm: > As to why Hermione didn't get in trouble with the Ministry, > I can only imagine that the simple spells she was able to > do without having ever been to Hogwarts were indistinguishable > from the spontaneous magic which would be expected and > overlooked, as others have pointed out. > kiwi_sapiens: And knowing Hermione as we do, one can't help but feel that she wouldn't want to do magic until she could do it 'properly' - ie having read books on the subject and with a wand. This suggests that her first crack at it would probably have been in Diagon Alley or the Leaky Cauldron. From toonmili at yahoo.com Mon Apr 23 23:23:05 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:23:05 -0000 Subject: Where did Lily and Petunia grow up? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167890 I don't know if it will be important in book seven but I was really thinking about it. Here's what I think. I think it could be near Spinner's End. Because JK seems to show us a place and give us information about the place then give us more information at another time. Privet Drive- Where Harry lives : Then we find out that there's a squib there as well. Little Hangleton: Where Voldemort's father lived : Then in the sixth book we find out all his other relatives live there as well. #12 Grimmauld Place: Where Sirius family lives: Then in Book seven we are most likely to find out that the locket is there or was there. Ottery St Catchpole is the village where Ron Lives : Then we learn that Luna Lovegood also lives there. So I was thinking since Spinners End is a muggle street and we have only seen it used once that we would see it again somehow. It could be that Lily and Petunia lived near there or on the same street for a while. toonmili From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Apr 24 02:24:41 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:24:41 -0000 Subject: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167891 kiwi_sapiens: > And knowing Hermione as we do, one can't help but feel > that she wouldn't want to do magic until she could do it > 'properly' - ie having read books on the subject and with > a wand. This suggests that her first crack at it would > probably have been in Diagon Alley or the Leaky Cauldron. houyhnhnm: Knowing Hermione as we do, it's a pretty good guess that she was out buying books and supplies the day she got her Hogwarts letter or as soon as the shops opened the next day. She could have practiced some more at home, but I am thinking that the Ministry's magic seismometers probably pick up so much activity during the week before school starts, from all the little firsties trying out their new wands, that they would only investigate a case that stood out. That's got me wondering how did Hermione and her parents find Diagon Alley the first time? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Apr 24 02:49:58 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:49:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167892 Carol: > The Secret is no longer in effect and the cottage itself was never > hidden, only the location of the Potters. If the cottage belonged > to Albus Dumbledore and he gave or lent it to the Potters as a > hiding place, they could have been hiding there for months before > the danger intensified to the point where DD thought they needed a > Fidelius Charm. He could have visited them there himself to make > the suggestion, and the moment he "forgot" where they were hiding, > he would know that the charm was in place. Jen: I thought they went into hiding at Godric's Hollow and cast the Fidelius at the same time from what Fudge said: 'He advised them to go into hiding. Well, of course, You-Know-Who wasn't an easy person to hide from. Dumbledore told them their best chance was the Fidelius Charm.' (POA, chap. 10, p. 205, Am ed.) Then later, 'barely a week after the Fidelius had been performed...' The exact timeline is vague, that's just how I pictured the events taking place: going into hiding at GH and casting the Fidelius were almost simultaneous. Carol: > If I'm right, then Lupin can help them find the ruins of the > cottage, and I can see his wanting to go with them to pay his > respects to the Potters. Jen: I hope this scenario takes place, for Lupin's sake and Harry's. Lupin has his own peace to make with the loss of all his friends, and a trek to GH would be the perfect time for Lupin to tell Harry more about his parents, specifically Lily. Harry sounds like he might be turning over a new leaf in DH, actively seeking out information from the past while pushing forward at the same time. I mean, it doesn't hurt that his growth coinncides with the last book and he can *finally* start asking questions. ;-) Jen From press at terminus2008.org Tue Apr 24 03:15:53 2007 From: press at terminus2008.org (Terminus) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Terminus: Harry Potter in Chicago August 7-11, 2008 Message-ID: <693150.64986.qm@web50507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167893 Dear Harry Potter for Grownups members, The bustling hub of downtown Chicago will be the setting for Terminus, an academic conference on Harry Potter, to be held August 7-11, 2008. The second presentation of Narrate Conferences, Inc., Terminus will bring adult scholars, students, and fans from around the globe to the historic Hilton Chicago Hotel to analyze and explore the complete Harry Potter series. The programming schedule will include a variety of offerings -- including formal lectures, participatory workshops, roundtable discussions, and explorations of craft -- that will give attendees the chance to expand their knowledge and understanding of the Harry Potter series. Especially important is the interdisciplinary study of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, with an emphasis on discourse and sharing scholarship between academics, students, professionals, writers, artists, and fans. Additionally, Terminus, one of the first major Harry Potter gatherings following the publication of the final book in the series, presents the perfect opportunity for analysis of the novels in their entirety. Terminus begins on Thursday, August 7, 2008, with the Arrival Dinner and opening of the Pan-Magical Games, which includes the Trade Winds Quidditch Tournament and Thoths Tournament of Knowledge. Other events include a wizarding talk show; Artists and Authors night, which will highlight creative fan pursuits; a bon voyage ball in honor of Harry himself; and the Departure Breakfast. Guests of Honor and keynote presentations will be announced at a later date. "Were very excited to hold Terminus in Chicago," noted lead event organizer Hallie Tibbetts. "Chicago is an ideal location for a conference to bring together enthusiasts from around the world, as it's a travel hub, and were very lucky to have the historic Hilton Chicago Hotel for a venue -- it's magical all in itself." Registration for the conference is now open, with an introductory price of $120 for the entire conference. Registrations include five days of educational and interactive programming; the events, including the Pan-Magical Games, a wizarding talk show, Artists and Authors Night, and the Bon Voyage Ball; the Arrival Dinner and Departure Breakfast; and a conference t-shirt. Registrants may also purchase tickets for the Quidditch and trivia tournaments and keynote presentations. The first 100 registrants will receive a special limited edition "Terminus: Arriving 2008" t-shirt as thanks for being an early supporter. Terminus is a presentation of Narrate Conferences, Inc., a 501(c)(3) charitable organization dedicated to creating dynamic, inventive events for adult scholars, students, educators, librarians, professionals and fans from around the world. For more information on Terminus, visit or contact . For more information on Narrate Conferences, including its past and future events, as well as its purpose and staff, please visit or contact . From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Tue Apr 24 03:24:08 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:24:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167894 Jen Reese: I thought they went into hiding at Godric's Hollow from what Fudge said: 'He advised them to go into hiding. Well, of course, You-Know-Who wasn't an easy person to hide from. Dumbledore told them their best chance was the Fidelius Charm.' (POA, chap. 10, p. 205, Am ed.) Then later, 'barely a week after the Fidelius had been performed...' Kvapost: In PS/SS (ch.4, p.45, Bloomsbury paperback) Hagrid tells Harry about events in GH for the first time, and he says, "All anyone knows is, he [LV] turned up in the village **where you was all living** . He came ter **yer house** . -took care of yer mum an' dad an' **yer house**, even ." The question is, was it **their** house then? And how, in that case, did the Fidelius Charm work. Kvapost From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 03:39:29 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:39:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Apparition & Secrets (was Re: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704232039t12b61479v5fcb33d3613f65f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167895 [...] = snipped > va32h here: > ... I never thought that the Fidelius > Charm made you forget something you knew, it just made you unable to > tell anyone else. Snape certainly knows that 12 GP is the > headquarters of the Order, ... All the > members of the Order know where there headquarters are ... Random832 I think the consensus is that it makes all who already knew forget it, and the secret keeper must tell them for them to know. Presumably, Dumbledore has told Snape, and all the other order members, where it is. --Random832 From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Apr 24 04:27:48 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:27:48 EDT Subject: Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167896 >Goodlefrood: >A further matter that has been of interest to me, and for which I have yet to see an explanation is how come Snape seemingly never figured out that Scabbers was Wormtail and that may bear further examination. Not by me here and now, but perhaps one day in the not too distant future I will look into it more closely again, unless someone wants to offer an explanation, which would be welcome. >Julie: >Others have said it, but it boils down to the fact that we have no evidence that Snape even knew the Maurauders were Animagi, let alone what animal forms they took, or what names they used (e.g. Wormtail for Peter). Thus there's no reason for Snape to even consider Scabbers to be anything other than what he appears. Nikkalmati This discussion made me wonder. How did Lucius Malfoy recognize Padfoot on the 9 3/4 Hogwarts train platform? Did he know the Marauders were Animagi? How? And how would he be able to recognize Sirius? Could Draco have told him? Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Apr 24 04:44:46 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:44:46 EDT Subject: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167897 > Nikkalmati > > Bart, the Spanish Inquisition went on for over 400 years with various period > of activity and inactivity. >Bart >IIRC, it started in 1492 and ended in 1968. Nikkalmati Oh dear. "On 27 September 1480, they [Ferdinand and Isabella] appointed the first inquisitors, who promptly installed themselves in Seville. The Holy Office was born; it was not to disappear until 1834." The Spanish Inquisition, by Joseph Perez (Yale University Press 2005) at 21. You'll have to do the math.:>) On topic. I don't think the year 1492 means anything in Potterverse. It just happened to be the exact number of years backwards from the date JKR was writing about the birthday party that she wanted. Certainly Nearly Headless Nick didn't sail with Columbus, and I doubt he met his fate in Spain. :>) Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Apr 24 06:00:17 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:00:17 EDT Subject: Lily the popular girl Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167898 This theory came to me while I was pondering the connection between Lily and Snape. I'm certain there *is* a connection between them, I'm just not convinced it has anything to do with romantic love. Then I began thinking about Lily's relationships with the other boys/men in her life, especially the Marauders. Let's start with what we know. 1. Lily hated James' bullying and arrogance in their fifth year, but was dating him by their seventh year and married him shortly after they finished school. 2. Lily was a "popular" girl, well-liked by everyone (per JKR). 3. Remus liked and admired Lily, but he had no romantic designs on her (again per JKR). 4. Severus and Lily were both gifted in Potions and attended the same Slytherin/Gryffindor classes in the same years. 5. Lily defended Severus in at least one incident in 5th year, until he called her a "mudblood" which seemed to startle her, as if it wasn't something she'd ever heard or would expect from him. Then she left him to the not-so-gentle mercies of James and Sirius. 6. Someone told Lily about Dementors, a male Petunia (who overheard the conversation) referred to as "that awful boy." 7. Someone besides LV and the Potters' was at Godric's Hollow (while this isn't confirmed fact, it is strongly hinted at by JKR's refusal to deny that someone else was there). 8. Peter Pettigrew betrayed the Potters' after having turned to LV and spying for him up to a year before the betrayal (per Sirius). 9. Peter claims he betrayed the Potters out of fear for his life, but many unanswered questions (why he agreed to be the Potters' Secret Keeper at all, why he pursued a vaporous Voldemort to Albania and then helped the Dark Lord regain his physical body) don't support a "fear only" motivation for Peter's actions. 10. Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live if she stepped aside and allowed him to kill her child. 11. Peter aka Wormtail retrieved Voldemort's wand from the rubble of Godric's Hollow (per JKR, though it isn't important to the plot since much like Ron's blue eyes, JKR assumed we already knew this). There are probably some more pertinent facts, but these are the ones I've recalled and which I used to formulate my theory. I'll start with the theory and then backtrack to my reasoning. My theory is that Peter was at Godric's Hollow that night. This seems partly confirmed by JKR saying it was Peter who retrieved LV's wand, though I may not be the only one who initially assumed this made Peter too "obvious" a choice. I now think that JKR probably let the wand bit slip without thinking about what it implied, and if she realized her mistake simply kept her mouth shut from then on (saying only "No comment" when asked if there was anyone else at Godric's Hollow). And Peter is the reason Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live. She would have been Peter's reward for betraying the Potters' whereabouts. But LV isn't the most patient person, and his willingness hinged on Lily taking the offer the first time. Peter was not valuable enough to LV to elicit anything but this token offer in honor of their "deal." (I do think Snape is more valuable to LV, and had Snape been the one wanting Lily to be saved, LV might have simply stupified her and turned her over to maintain Snape's cooperation and loyalty.) Peter's betrayal was aimed at James. He didn't betray the Potters only out of fear, but out of jealousy of James. Peter was always the hanger-on, tolerated as a sycophant and not particularly respected as his own person (we certainly know that was the case with Sirius). James was the Quidditch star, rich, smart, popular--in essence he had everything going for him. Sirius was a close second, and if he wasn't James he was more than satisfied to be that second, since much of his solid self-image came from his rebellion against his family. Remus, like Peter, was on the outside, but he was busy trying to cope with his "affliction" and if he wasn't completely part of the James-Sirius inner clique, he always knew that they had become Animagi *for* him. That told him they valued him. Peter never received any such regard, but even so he might have continued to accept his position if not for one final straw, one that would drive him to Voldemort. James, the golden boy who already had *everything* then got the one thing Peter wanted most of all-- Lily. Yep, it was Peter who loved Lily, not Snape. (No wonder JKR said she would answer "either" question when she was asked if Snape or Lupin loved Lily!) It was Peter who idolized her from afar, but who never had a chance with her, not with perfect James in the picture. It was Peter who figured if Voldemort got rid of James (and that spawn of his) then Peter could have Lily, and the two of them would go on to have the life and family James had denied them, just as James' shining presence during all their years at Hogwarts had denied Peter anything but the smallest notice or regard. He'd existed there much as Snape supposedly had, as someone's lapdog (that someone being James rather than Lucius). And what of Lily and Snape? I'm still convinced they had a connection. I don't believe JKR would have bothered with all the "Lily was a Potions genius" stuff if it wasn't to connect her to Snape. I mean, she had a wand suited to Charms, so why bother adding in the Potions stuff if it's no more than filler? I'm also convinced Snape was Petunia's "that awful boy", who informed Lily about the Dementors. Peter would have been "that pathetic boy" and James would have been "Potter" or "that horrid boyfriend of hers" (if Lily and James weren't yet married). I don't know what Remus would have been, maybe "that *poor* boy" with disdainful emphasis on his social status. Of course I could be wrong, but "awful" seems too allusive of Harry's view of Snape to be a coincidence. Right now the best I can guess is that Lily and Snape did work together in Potions, and that they developed a mutual respect for each other. This especially works when you look at Snape's lack of mention of her throughout the books. If she had "dumped" him for James, the easily-offended grudge-holding Snape would have certainly put part of the blame on her. He is one man who does NOT take rejection well, and James being chosen *over* him... that's a rejection with an added sting. But if Snape had no romantic feelings for her when Lily started dated James, it would be more likely for Snape to consider her romantic judgment separately as extremely suspect while still respecting her other abilities. Which could be enough for him to refrain from vilifying her as he does James. Or there could be more to it, and I think there is. Perhaps it's tied to young Snape's warning to Lily about the Dementors (if he is "that awful boy"). Perhaps Lily did something for Snape, helped him in some way during their schooltime together (but NOT by writing hints in the margin of his Potions textbook!--IMO ;-). Or helped him when he was trying to get away from Voldemort. Or they each knew a secret about the other. Or she helped get his baby son into hiding so he promised to keep *her* son safe if it was ever in his power to do so... Well, the last one is a stretch. It just illustrates that there is no definitive theory about Lily and Snape we can deduce from canon, because we don't have enough information. If there is something there--as I do believe--it is going to be one of those surprises we can only see makes sense when we look *back* at what's come before, not that we can guess beforehand (much like Fake!Moody). BTW, I know I'm not the first to wonder if it was Peter who loved Lily, nor that Peter might have acted out of jealously over James. I just started pulling it all together in my mind and decided to type it out ;-) Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 24 08:15:38 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:15:38 -0000 Subject: Off With Their Heads :) or The Headless Horseman Wannabe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167899 > Nikkalmati > Oh dear. > "On 27 September 1480, they [Ferdinand and Isabella] appointed the first inquisitors, who promptly installed themselves in Seville. The Holy Office was born; it was not to disappear until 1834." The Spanish Inquisition, by Joseph Perez (Yale University Press 2005) at 21. Goddlefrood: Oh dear indeed :). Mr. Perez may never himself have read E. H. Carr's "What is History?". An essential starting point for the serious historian ;). My previous injunction relative to this matter of 1492, which I admit to having started :), is having little effect, or so it seems. Mr. Carr's basic premise is that when reading history works it should always be borne in mind, as I do, that the author must necessarily be writing with regard to his or her own social and cultural parameters. IOW it is extraordinarily difficult to be objective. Mr. Perez, enough said, perhaps ;) Technically the Spanish Inquisition was established by the Papal Bull "Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus" in 1478, not 1480 as stated by Nikalmati from her source. Papal Bulls are, of course, always known by the introductory phrase ;). The original Papal Bull that established the Inquisition, as distinct from the Spanish Inquisition, that is "Ab Abolendam", was issued towards the end of the 13th Century. The King and Queen mentioned may have influenced this, but they certainly did not produce the Papal Bull, not being Popes themselves :). It did also remain extant until the early nineteenth century, so again, technically it is correct that the Spanish Inquisition lasted a little under 400 years. Having said that it effectively only *operated* as an instrument of the wider Catholic Church for about 30 or 40 years. It was, barring events in Loudun in the seventeenth century, the most brutal Inquisiton, but it did not really do a great deal from about the 1530s onward. This can all be found not only in many great works by some fine historians, amongst them no doubt Lord Norwich, but also in a work (one of his few non-fiction ones) by Rafael Sabatini called "Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition". I must say the record (as in LP) is now broken and I will play another :) > Nikalmati: > On topic. I don't think the year 1492 means anything in Potterverse. Goddlefrood: Also now on topic, Nearly Headless Nick did not suffer his near beheading then in said year ? (I know this is imputed in a bit I snipped ;)) There may be further significance in the year, but what it also does go to show is another example of JK not doing her sums properly. For Nick to have celebrated his five hundredth Death day party on 31st October 1992 he must have been nearly beheaded on or around 20th October 1492 (you do the maths ;)) due to the anomaly of the change over in the British Isles (barring one small community in Wales that retains the Julian Calendar to this day, and who would like a bet that JK does not also know this ;)) from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar. Well, none of you can say I didn't warn you about this ;). This changeover, of course, occurred in September 1752. Hallowe'en is of known significance, but the 21st October 1492 (and yes, I know it states the date exactly in the books) is probably of no consequence. What is of consequence is that Henry VII was on the throne of England at the time of Nick's nearly beheading, and his kingdom was a member of the Order of the Golden Fleece. A similarity that is plain to see :) At that time wizards and witches, acording to the boundaries set up in canon, still lived amongst Muggles. The Statute of Secrecy did not take effect for a further two hundred years. During HVIIR's reign the original Court of the Star Chamber, from which others were born, was set up, and I've referred previously to that body's similarity to the Wizengamot in canon. Two significant events occurred in Florence (Firenze) in 1492, but I'm not about to link that in further ;). The birth of one and the death of another Lorenzo de Medici, if interested. Why had Nick upset Henry VII or some other powerful leader and why did he choose to become a ghost, other than his professed fear of death should be of interest, it certainly interests me :). Once again it just really goes to show that JK does a little research and IMO likes her little links to matters in the Muggle world , as she herself has told us. Therefore, while certain things can be ignored the significance of dates, both years and specific days, should not be overlooked ;) Goddlefrood who leaves you to ponder on this and on the wisdom of further references to the Spanish Inquisition, which would not be expected ;) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Apr 24 09:01:26 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:01:26 -0000 Subject: Lord Voldemort's Defeat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167900 My wife came up with the best potential ending that I have heard yet. It may have been suggested previously, so my apologies if I'm stepping on anyones toes. It seems that HRH will see this through to the end together. Let us suppose then that Lord Voldemort has gained the upper hand and has our three heroes at his mercy. We are constantly told that LV underestimates the powerful magic that defeated him first time around. In fact, since he was reborn wih Harry's blood, it seems that LV regards himself immune from this particular magic (when it is associated with Harry). Would LV consider a 'poetic irony' in offering Harry a choice - his life or that of his friends? To test if Harry's 'love' is as great as his mother's. However, as DD put it, this is magic at its most impenetrable. In repeating the scenario at GH, would LV bring about his own destruction - again? All speculation of course, but as endings go, I really like it. Brothergib From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 24 09:01:15 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:01:15 -0000 Subject: The Mysterious Rat (Was Re: Lily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167901 > Julie: > This theory came to me while I was pondering the connection between Lily and Snape. I'm certain there *is* a connection between them, I'm just not convinced it has anything to do with romantic love. Goddlefrood: Heaven forfend, I certainly agree with you here and have expounded on just this matter in some of my recent posts :) > Julie: > My theory is that Peter was at Godric's Hollow that night. Goddlefrood: He is certainly a likely suspect, the duplicitous one having been ruled out by JKR. Sirius may not agree with you, but I'll give it credence ;) Peter is indeed an interesting character, and so far a little developed one. I have also stated elsewhere that he will and almost must have a larger part to play, if only because up to this point in canon there has been no real explanation as to why he was a Gryffindor when his actions would suggest a more Slytherin type profile, as I'm sure Phineas Nigellus would agree ;) My only thought that may further this matter a little is that Peter will be granted his moment of true Gryffindor splendour and bravery during DH in repaying his debt to Harry. It is certainly an intriguing theory that he may have had a crush on Lily that led to his persuasion of LV not to kill Lily. It is one I have seen before ;) The only problem with it, and I have given this some thought, is that LV does not understand love, or so we have been led to believe, and therefore, I must inquire, why would something he doesn't understand lead to his moment of compassion in a thought to spare Mrs. Potter ? As Hagrid may say "Sorry 'bout that". My little theory on why LV may have spared the former Ms. Evans is in the archives for those inclined towards such things ;) Thank you, however, Julie, for laying this before us. I love the theories and always appreciate those of others, no matter how crackpot my own may be thought of by some :) Goddlefrood From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 10:51:26 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:51:26 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Feedback Wanted re List Closure for DH Release Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167902 With DH arriving only three short months from now, the List Elves have been revisiting our decisions for prior book releases. We welcome listmember input on all aspects of how we can best serve the list in the first frantic days after July 21, but we particularly solicit comments how long the Main list (HPforGrownups) should be closed for elves and and listmembers alike to read the Deathly Hallows. (We expect that HPFGU-OTChatter will be open, but it will probably be a spoiler-free zone.) The Main list will be closed on Saturday, July 21. What we have not decided for certain is when the list will reopen. In 2003, the list was closed 45 hours, until 9 p.m. British Summer Time (BST) Sunday. This turned out to be inadequate for the elves to read and digest OOP before getting back to work. In 2005, the list was closed for 85 hours, until 1 p.m. BST Tuesday, a time that was selected with an eye to both giving the elves enough time to read the book and to choose a time when the maximum number of members in all time zones would be awake. We have polled the elves and determined that the earliest we could reopen would be Monday, July 23, around midday BST. This translates to early morning in the U.S. and roughly 10 PM Australian East Coast time. Before then there will be an insufficient number of elves available for duty. What we do not yet know is when you, the listmembers, will want the list open. When will you finish reading DH? Do you want the list to reopen at the earliest possible time, or do you want a little more time to contemplate? Is it important that the list reopen at a day and hour when you might be able to read and post? What day and hour would that be? Please let us know your thoughts over on our Feedback list, which can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ Do Not Reply To This Message on this list or you will be requested to iron your hands! The List Elves From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Apr 24 12:41:34 2007 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:41:34 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lord Voldemort's Defeat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <183072.30749.qm@web38307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167903 --- esmith222002 wrote: > Let us > suppose then that Lord Voldemort has gained the > upper hand and has our > three heroes at his mercy. We are constantly told > that LV > underestimates the powerful magic that defeated him > first time around. > In fact, since he was reborn wih Harry's blood, it > seems that LV > regards himself immune from this particular magic > (when it is > associated with Harry). Would LV consider a 'poetic > irony' in offering > Harry a choice - his life or that of his friends? To > test if > Harry's 'love' is as great as his mother's. However, > as DD put it, this > is magic at its most impenetrable. In repeating the > scenario at GH, > would LV bring about his own destruction - again? > Cassy: Giving Harry such a choice would be quite in LV's carachter, methinks, but I really don't see how it would bring LV's end. OK, Harry decides to sacrifies himself, LV kills him and what? Suddenly gets destroyed himself too with no apparant reason? Or the AK bounces off Harry and kills LV? Well, maybe LV kills Harry and then attempts to destroy Hermione/Ron/Ginny and spell bounces off them, but I don't think JRK would use one plot device twice. At least I hope she won't Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From random832 at gmail.com Tue Apr 24 12:56:06 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:56:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Off With Their Heads :) or The Headless Horseman Wannabe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704240556mef53168p7d02f7b4decc36d7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167904 > Goddlefrood: > > The King and Queen mentioned may > have influenced this, but they certainly did not produce the > Papal Bull, not being Popes themselves :). Random832: Except in discordianism. > Goddlefrood: > There may be further significance in the year, but what it also > does go to show is another example of JK not doing her sums > properly. For Nick to have celebrated his five hundredth Death > day party on 31st October 1992 he must have been nearly beheaded > on or around 20th October 1492 (you do the maths ;)) Random832: You have it rather backwards - the commonly-used 1992 date is derived chiefly from his five-hundredth deathday of having been beheaded in the explicitly-stated 1492. > Goddlefrood: > due to the > anomaly of the change over in the British Isles (barring one > small community in Wales that retains the Julian Calendar to this > day, and who would like a bet that JK does not also know this ;)) Random832: I'd like to hear more about this. > Goddlefrood: > from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar. Well, none of > you can say I didn't warn you about this ;). This changeover, of > course, occurred in September 1752. Random832: Not that it'd have made a difference for the purpose of comparing 1492 and 1992 if it was so early as 1582 (most roman catholic states) or so late as 1923 (greece). There's hardly an anomaly peculiar to britain here. Anyway, there's no particular reason to suppose that Sir Nicholas didn't have a "short" year sometime between 1582 and 1923, celebrating his deathday on the same calendar date between oldstyle and newstyle. Or perhaps the WW uses a still different calendar, one which would have to be only 364 days long in order for September 1st to fall on a monday each year. If you want examples of JKR Bad Maths, you need look no further than that. > Goddlefrood: > At that time wizards and witches, acording to the boundaries set > up in canon, still lived amongst Muggles. The Statute of Secrecy > did not take effect for a further two hundred years. Random832: Ah, but, you see, it's not actually in evidence that wizards did live openly among muggles. We certainly had copyright law in most countries before the Berne Convention was ever passed, and while the Geneva Convention currently in effect is from 1949 (as amended 1977, 2005), the first passed in 1864. Just because the international statute of secrecy per se passed in 1692 does not mean wizards were not largely separated from muggle society long before that. --Random832 From lfreeman at mbc.edu Tue Apr 24 13:33:44 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:33:44 -0400 Subject: Point inflation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167905 I've reread books 1-4 and most of 5 with my kids this year in anticipation of DH. One thing that has struck me is how much point values have inflated over the years. In Book 1, points were typically added and substracted in single digits for ordinary things; a major thing like disobeying orders and hunting a mountain troll, or successfully rescuing a classmate from the troll, was only worth +/- 10 points. Losing 50 points (albeit X 3, for the Norbert incident) was enough to make your whole house hate you. By book 5, we see Snape taking off 10 points for minor comments and "looking to take off a full 50 points before the end of class." Even Sprout and Hagrid routinely hand out 10 point rewards to Herminone for knowing the answers to fairly rountine questions. Of course, as points get inflated, the house competition itself becomes less important as the books progress. It's shown to be a fairly meaningless exercise in OOTP, with the Inquisitorial squad emptying the hourglasses of everyone but Slytherin, and it's overshadowed entirely by the deaths of Cedric and Dumbledore in GOF and HBP. Louise From va32h at comcast.net Tue Apr 24 14:31:27 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:31:27 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: Yep, it was Peter who loved Lily, not Snape. (No wonder JKR said she would answer "either" question when she was asked if Snape or Lupin loved Lily!) It was Peter who idolized her from afar, but who never had a chance with her, not with perfect James in the picture. It was Peter who figured if Voldemort got rid of James (and that spawn of his) then Peter could have Lily, and the two of them would go on to have the life and family James had denied them, just as James' shining presence during all their years at Hogwarts had denied Peter anything but the smallest notice or regard. He'd existed there much as Snape supposedly had, as someone's lapdog (that someone being James rather than Lucius). va32h: I really like this theory, because I think it bookends so well with the relationship of Harry and Ron. Ron went through his own period of jealousy toward Harry, anger that Harry's presence eclipsed his own - and I think we could work the other direction and wonder if Peter grew up poor, as Ron did, and was also jealous of James' wealth. Ron was able to put aside his jealousy, and find a way to shine in his own right, without putting down Harry to do so - and Harry is a better friend than his father was, seeing and understanding Ron's feelings, and wanting to ease them. It's all about moving forward, not making the mistakes of past generations. va32h From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Apr 24 14:33:13 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:33:13 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily the popular girl Message-ID: <23549953.1177425193105.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167907 Bart: Comments on a couple of your facts, first: Julie: >5. Lily defended Severus in at least one incident in 5th year, until he >called her a "mudblood" which seemed to startle her, as if it wasn't >something she'd ever heard or would expect from him. Then she left >him to the not-so-gentle mercies of James and Sirius. Bart: Note that Sirius mentioned that the Levicorpus spell was being used heavily back and forth; Snape had been flipped numerous times, but, at least by implication, James and/or Sirius (and possibly even Lupin) was/were flipped by Snape, as well. Which makes us wonder why was this Levicorpus different from all other Levicorpi. Most of us, one way or another, have guessed at the reaction to Lily. Given that this was theoretically Snape's Worst Memory, at the very least, we must assume that there was SOME sort of relationship between Snape and Lily which this episode put a major, and probably permanent, crimp in. Julie: >9. Peter claims he betrayed the Potters out of fear for his life, but >many unanswered questions (why he agreed to be the Potters' Secret >Keeper at all, why he pursued a vaporous Voldemort to Albania and >then helped the Dark Lord regain his physical body) don't support a "fear >only" motivation for Peter's actions. Bart: Peter's fear was not just for his life; he was a basically fearful person. He felt unable to protect himself, so he attached himself to the biggest bullies on the block (kind of like the origins of feudalism). After the Maurauders had mended their ways (was the Prank a catalyst?), Peter still knew they would protect him. However, a bigger bully appeared (Voldy), and Peter realized that he would be a prime target for an idirect attack. So, he went to Voldy and switched sides, figuring that he had less to fear from his old friends than he had from Lordy V. Voldy, knowing an asset when he saw one (whenever Peter walked by, everybody said, "Look! There goes the big asset!"), told Peter to pretend to still be friends with the Maurauders, and pass along useful info. This was actually fine by Peter, because no matter who won, he would be on the winning side. He agreed to be the Potters' Secret Keeper because it would make Voldemort see him as more valuable, and be less likely to kill him. Once he was exposed, what were his options? His ONLY hope was that Voldemort could gain a position to protect him, therefore, he went to Voldy. Voldy coming back to power was his only chance. Julie: >10. Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live if she stepped aside and >allowed him to kill her child. Bart: Anybody who believes that Voldy would have actualy let Lily live, raise their hand. What is both puzzling and possibly revealing is the question of why Voldemort made the offer in the first place. He certainly was/is a pyschopath, and shown to be VERY able at manipulating people. He SHOULD have known that Lily would not have accepted his offer, or even believed it to be genuine. So, why bother? Bart From matthew at mjwilson.demon.co.uk Tue Apr 24 17:50:37 2007 From: matthew at mjwilson.demon.co.uk (matt_le_wilson2002) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:50:37 -0000 Subject: Lord Voldemort's Defeat In-Reply-To: <183072.30749.qm@web38307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167911 > Cassy: > > Giving Harry such a choice would be quite in LV's > carachter, methinks, but I really don't see how it > would bring LV's end. OK, Harry decides to sacrifies > himself, LV kills him and what? Suddenly gets > destroyed himself too with no apparant reason? Or the > AK bounces off Harry and kills LV? Well, maybe LV > kills Harry and then attempts to destroy > Hermione/Ron/Ginny and spell bounces off them, but I > don't think JRK would use one plot device twice. At > least I hope she won't I've had a similar theory for a while. I think it could work: Voldemort casts an AK at Ron and/or Hermione, Harry throws himself in the way as a sacrifice. The combination of the power of love, and the fact that Harry is a horcrux, causes Harry's horcrux (the last remaining) to be destroyed, and the AK to rebound, finally killing LV. It doesn't quite fit with the prophecy ("one will die at the hand of, err, himself") but it has some good points. Matthew From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 24 19:49:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:49:26 -0000 Subject: Voldermort has a secret - A Different Aspect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167912 --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > va32h here: > > I do agree that the secret is not the horcrux, and > > that people who call themselves Death Eaters would > > not find a horcrux particularly distressing. They'd > > probably want one for themselves, actually. > > Jen: > There's evidence in the graveyard that LV's supporters > know specifics about his quest for immortality: 'And > then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I > would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, > long ago, to guard myself against moral death?' (GOF, > chap. 33, p. 648, Am ed.) It's implied the DE's know > what specific steps LV took or it might be worded more > vaguely like, 'they who knew I took steps.' ... bboyminn: I've always felt that one of the ways Voldemort recruits DE and continues to keep them around is with the promise of immortality. Any wise tyrannt knows you make bold promises to your followers, but you keep those prizes just out of reach. There is always one excuse or another for why the time is just not quite right to give out the prize. I suspect when Voldemort speaks of his quest for immortality, he mentions places, potions, and spells in general to make it sound like he has secret knowledge that any Death Eater would kill to get. So, Voldemort keeps stringing them along with tall and bold, but vague on the details, stories of his quest to defeat death. He may on occasion reveal a bit or a piece of what seems to be the Secret to certain just to keep them chomping at the bate; to keep them eagerly in his service. Each one believing that if he can just get in good enough and deep enough into Voldemort's graces, the secret will be revealed to them but not to the others. So, I think DE's have general knowledge of Voldemort quest, but if he is wise, he will not reveal the details. After all, if they know as much about defeating Death as Voldie does, then what do they need him for? Why not stage a coup and become the next Dark Lord themselves. That's the way it works in the real world. When there is no longer anything to be gained from the current leader, so one else jumps in with new promises to take his place. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Tue Apr 24 20:09:37 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:09:37 -0000 Subject: Off With Their Heads :) or The Headless Horseman Wannabe In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704240556mef53168p7d02f7b4decc36d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167913 > > Goddlefrood: > > due to the > > anomaly of the change over in the British Isles (barring one > > small community in Wales that retains the Julian Calendar to this > > day, and who would like a bet that JK does not also know this ;)) > > Random832: > I'd like to hear more about this. Ann: It's real, although I hadn't heard of it before now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/585898.stm is about it celebrating the Millennium twice. You do have to wonder how they manage to keep to the old calendar, though. Can they take "their" bank holidays off if they work for a business running on "our" time? What about the Inland Revenue? And postmarks? Do they receive letters before they've been sent? It must be magic. > Random832: > Ah, but, you see, it's not actually in evidence that wizards did > live openly among muggles. We certainly had copyright law in most > countries before the Berne Convention was ever passed, and while > the Geneva Convention currently in effect is from 1949 (as amended > 1977, 2005), the first passed in 1864. Just because the > international statute of secrecy per se passed in 1692 does not > mean wizards were not largely separated from muggle society long > before that. Ann: This is my opinion, too. 1692 is very late for British wizards to still be living openly as wizards; for one thing, it's after the Civil Wars, and Muggle history seems to be very similar to ours. I think the last important wizard to live openly in our history was Dr Dee, and things were definitely different by the end of the century. In my opinion the establishment of Hogwarts and the enrollment quill represent the first unification of British and Irish wizards (who are probably the same nation in the Wizarding World), and wizarding culture developed from there, drawing in young wizards as they were admitted to Hogwarts and snowballing; not that secrecy necessarily developed deliberately, or even perceptibly to most people. The combination of the Wars of the Roses and reports of early Mediaeval witch-hunts might have forced a formal Statute of Secrecy later overridden by the International S of S, but I think secrecy was already part of the culture by then. (Speaking of which, weren't the witch-trials in Salem held in 1692? Maybe they were the immediate cause of the I S of S.) From PenapartElf at aol.com Tue Apr 24 21:09:01 2007 From: PenapartElf at aol.com (penapart_elf) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:09:01 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Feedback Wanted re List Closure for DH Release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167914 Ahem. The List Elves: > Do Not Reply To This Message on this list or you will be requested to > iron your hands! If you are looking for posts #167909 and #167910, please be advised that they have been moved to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback Here's a handy portkey of a hyperlink: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/870 Join us and come on in - the water is fine. :) Penapart Elf From mkboland66 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 24 20:10:45 2007 From: mkboland66 at yahoo.com (mkboland66) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:10:45 -0000 Subject: Point inflation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freeman, Louise Margaret" wrote: > > I've reread books 1-4 and most of 5 with my kids this year in anticipation of DH. One thing that > has struck me is how much point values have inflated over the years. Of course, as points get inflated, the house competition itself becomes less important as the > books progress. It's shown to be a fairly meaningless exercise in OOTP, with the Inquisitorial > squad emptying the hourglasses of everyone but Slytherin, and it's overshadowed entirely by the > deaths of Cedric and Dumbledore in GOF and HBP. > > I wonder if the point 'inflation' isn't simply a point 'weighting' determined by the age and (supposed) maturity of the students and increasingly challenging coursework. For instance, a student receiving highest grades in basic chemistry is not equal in accomplishment to a student who receives the same grades for an advanced chemistry course. Since points are comprehensive across all ages in each house, the 'extra' points given - or taken - from older students may be a way of acknowledging these age and knowledge differences. Or maybe I'm just -really- overthinking the whole thing... Ah, well - thanks for letting me babble. MK From toonmili at yahoo.com Tue Apr 24 21:28:41 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:28:41 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: <23549953.1177425193105.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167916 > Julie: > 10. Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live if she stepped > aside and allowed him to kill her child. > Bart: > Anybody who believes that Voldy would have actualy let Lily live, > raise their hand. What is both puzzling and possibly revealing is > the question of why Voldemort made the offer in the first place. > He certainly was/is a pyschopath, and shown to be VERY able at > manipulating people. He SHOULD have known that Lily would not have > accepted his offer, or even believed it to be genuine. So, why > bother? Toonmili: People don't like the idea of Snape being in Love, well, it is much better than Peter being in love. At least Snape is a man, not a coward. Besides when Voldemort returned he said: "one has left me forever and he will be killed..." Everyone agrees he was talking about Snape. You'll notice he said that Snape has LEFT... meaning on his own accord...not because he was a coward...not because he had betrayed him. You'll also notice that Voldemort is quite certain that he has left forever (meaning never to return). But why is he so certain that Snape has left him forever? Maybe because he knows that he has done something that would make Snape leave him forever, i.e. killed Lily when Snape asked or begged him not too. He would want to to be in Snape's good graces because Snape is a very skilled wizard and the most gifted death eater, he would be a horrible loss. He wouldn't care about what Wormtail wanted. He probably would have killed wormtail if he even made such a request. Once Voldemort got the secret from Wormtail he was no longer useful, the order would have known he was a spy. He only entertains him now because he came and found him. But you will notice how quick he was to get rid of him as soon as his death eaters came back. He has him be Snape's assistant. No other Death Eaters have assistants. This shows that Snape is indeed the favorite. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 00:41:56 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:41:56 -0000 Subject: Some Random Links to Godric's Hollow and Dates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167917 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167904 > Random 832: > Except in Discordianism. Goddlefrood: Well, as this only arose in the 1950s, it could hardly be relative to the latter part of the 15th century ;), but thanks for the parody :) > Random832: > You have it rather backwards - the commonly-used 1992 date is > derived chiefly from his five-hundredth deathday of having been > beheaded in the explicitly-stated 1492. Goddlefrood: Oops, I suppose maths was never my strongest subject either, but the basic premise remains ;). It may just be a case of someone finally explaining why it is that I don't like Mondays, as Sir Bob might croon :) In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167913 > > > Goddlefrood of the recent past: > > > ... due to the anomaly of the change over in the British > > > Isles (barring one small community in Wales that retains > > > the Julian Calendar to this day, and who would like a bet > > > that JK does not also know this ;)) > > Random832: > > I'd like to hear more about this. > Ann: > It's real, although I hadn't heard of it before now. Goddlefrood of the present: Glad you enjoyed that little trivia snippet, I enjoy such things. The place is called The Gwaun Valley a hamlet known as Han Galan is there. Take a look at the below link and see if the picture may agree with an imaginary vision of Godric's Hollow (the village). It's certainly an isolated spot and would fit as being in the general vicintiy of wherever the imaginary Godric's Hollow is (due to Hagrid's flightpath over Birstol [coincidentally one of my former homes, but I never saw any flying motorcycles, irc ;)]). That link: http://www.pembrokeshiretv.com/content/templates/v6-article.asp? articleid=1235 The analyses of the ww prior to seclusion is interesting. I commend both respondents but with the rider that clearly there was *some* interaction, or there would have been no need for seclusion in the first place ;) 1692 is another interesting year, and as I stated earlier in my past, and now Ann concurs, the year of the Salem Witch Trials, another fun link. It was also the year of the Glencoe Massacre, a bloody event in the history of Scotland, and I inquire who'd like to bet that Hogwarts isn't proximate to Glencoe? It was a year of some unrest in Mexico also, perhaps imaginarily linked to witchcraft? It's always nice to look for links, as I said in my first. Btw, displays of knowledge that is obtained from Wikipedia often do not convince, while that site is a good jumping off point many other sources would conflict with it, a caveat that should be noted. I do use it every now and agin, though :) Goddlefrood with appreciation for responses, and also noting that JKR has stated her imaginary WW has many parallels with the RW, some of which should not be ignored ;) From random832 at gmail.com Wed Apr 25 00:43:30 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:43:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Off With Their Heads :) or The Headless Horseman Wannabe In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50704240556mef53168p7d02f7b4decc36d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704241743v7e5d2b39j8eb90ae40d0e31d7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167918 > Ann: > > This is my opinion, too. 1692 is very late for British wizards to > still be living openly as wizards; for one thing, it's after the > Civil Wars, and Muggle history seems to be very similar to ours. > [...] The > combination of the Wars of the Roses and reports of early Mediaeval > witch-hunts might have forced a formal Statute of Secrecy later > overridden by the International S of S, but I think secrecy was > already part of the culture by then. (Speaking of which, weren't the > witch-trials in Salem held in 1692? Maybe they were the immediate > cause of the I S of S.) I'm actually trying to put together a timeline - started it in trying to come up with a plausible reason why the minister of magic has a title like the cabinet members yet is not apparently answerable to parliament. I'm leaning towards them not being answerable to the monarch either ATM, possibly related to the civil war, or maybe the glorious revolution. In fact, the glorious revolution is _perfect_ - they could have for a time been answerable to the Jacobites, maybe one of them was born with magic at the right time frame, then that faded in a process paralleling the reduction of the powers of the british monarch. Only problem is that split in the succession was over catholicism, not likely to be conducive to relations with the WW. Or perhaps that's only what the muggle histories tell us. --Random832 From juli17 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 01:23:50 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:23:50 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: <23549953.1177425193105.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167919 > > Bart: > Comments on a couple of your facts, first: > > Julie: > >5. Lily defended Severus in at least one incident in 5th year, until he > >called her a "mudblood" which seemed to startle her, as if it wasn't > >something she'd ever heard or would expect from him. Then she left > >him to the not-so-gentle mercies of James and Sirius. > > Bart: > Note that Sirius mentioned that the Levicorpus spell was being used heavily back and forth; Snape had been flipped numerous times, but, at least by implication, James and/or Sirius (and possibly even Lupin) was/were flipped by Snape, as well. Which makes us wonder why was this Levicorpus different from all other Levicorpi. Most of us, one way or another, have guessed at the reaction to Lily. Given that this was theoretically Snape's Worst Memory, at the very least, we must assume that there was SOME sort of relationship between Snape and Lily which this episode put a major, and probably permanent, crimp in. Julie now: I'm not sure I actually buy that. It could be Snape's worst memory had more to do with the Marauders (the media we must not name's version seems to support this, but I won't say any more on that). We don't learn about Lily's Potions abilities until Harry's sixth year, and I think it will be because the critical relationship between Snape and Lily happened *after* the fifth year pensieve incident. I also suspect when Petunia referred to *that awful boy* she was referring to a teenager/young man, given the subject matter. It all leads me to think this was not the death knell of a "relationship" between two fifteen year olds. (And while the insult "Mudblood" is a grave one, given Lily's nonplussed reaction it wasn't typical of Snape, so I don't see why it couldn't be forgiven later if he sincerely regretted it.) Of course I could be wrong ;-) > > Julie: > >9. Peter claims he betrayed the Potters out of fear for his life, but > >many unanswered questions (why he agreed to be the Potters' Secret > >Keeper at all, why he pursued a vaporous Voldemort to Albania and > >then helped the Dark Lord regain his physical body) don't support a "fear > >only" motivation for Peter's actions. > > Bart: > Peter's fear was not just for his life; he was a basically fearful person. He felt unable to protect himself, so he attached himself to the biggest bullies on the block (kind of like the origins of feudalism). After the Maurauders had mended their ways (was the Prank a catalyst?), Peter still knew they would protect him. However, a bigger bully appeared (Voldy), and Peter realized that he would be a prime target for an idirect attack. So, he went to Voldy and switched sides, figuring that he had less to fear from his old friends than he had from Lordy V. Voldy, knowing an asset when he saw one (whenever Peter walked by, everybody said, "Look! There goes the big asset!"), told Peter to pretend to still be friends with the Maurauders, and pass along useful info. This was actually fine by Peter, because no matter who won, he would be on the winning side. He agreed to be the Potters' Secret Keeper because it would make Voldemort see him as more valuable, and be less likely to kill him. Julie now: I find it hard to believe Peter was so completely cowardly, given that there had to be *some* reason he was sorted into Gryffindor. And Peter still kept making these choices to ACTIVELY pursue his "cowardly" path--going to Voldemort (as far as we know) rather than being cornered by him, choosing to become the Secret Keeper rather than simply refusing the position, choosing to go after Vapor!Mort in Albania rather than disappearing permanently into some sewer, etc. I suppose it all makes Voldemort "less likely" to kill him at some point, but talk about out-cowarding the cowardly! Bart: > Once he was exposed, what were his options? His ONLY hope was that Voldemort could gain a position to protect him, therefore, he went to Voldy. Voldy coming back to power was his only chance. Julie now: Here I agree. Peter did have an option to disappear into a sewer as a rat, or find a Muggle household where he could feed off scraps. But I do think Peter might have tired of the rat life, and realized that he had an opportunity to live as himself again, IF he resurrected Voldemort. Though I have to wonder if he realized how painful that life would be, given the hunched and twisted wreck of a man he'd become by HBP (though this may be just the impetus that will inspire him to pay back his life debt to Harry even at the risk of his own continued existence). > Julie: > >10. Voldemort offered Lily the chance to live if she stepped aside and > >allowed him to kill her child. > > Bart: > Anybody who believes that Voldy would have actualy let Lily live, raise their hand. What is both puzzling and possibly revealing is the question of why Voldemort made the offer in the first place. He certainly was/is a pyschopath, and shown to be VERY able at manipulating people. He SHOULD have known that Lily would not have accepted his offer, or even believed it to be genuine. So, why bother? > Julie: ::raises her hand:: I don't think Voldemort cares either way, as long as he destroys the Prophecy child and never has to deal with her again. Giving her to Peter is no real skin off his nose (metaphorically speaking). Though it's clear he wasn't going to expend any effort beyond the single casual offer, what's it matter to him if he lets what he sees as a powerless and broken woman survive? As for whether he suspected Lily wouldn't accept his offer, that could be. Voldemort doesn't understand love, but he does know that other wizards value love. He no doubt considers them pathetic idiots, but he can recognize and manipulate the emotion. He just doesn't respect it at all, thus he underestimates its true power, as he underestimated Lily's sacrifice, and will probably underestimate it again in DH, allowing Harry to defeat him by using love in some manner. Julie From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 01:51:07 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:51:07 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167920 > Toonmili: People don't like the idea of Snape being in Love. Goddlefrood Yes indeed, but never underestimate Peter, he is a character that will have some development, in my divination :) > Toonmili: > Besides when Voldemort returned he said: "one has left me forever > and he will be killed..." Everyone agrees he was talking about > Snape. Goddlefrood: Do they, now? Not Igor Karkaroff then, who was killed. Snape may have been the one who would pay, perhaps :-? LV fears none, or had that not been noticed either, only Dumbledore. "The Only One he Ever Feared" ring a bell? From juli17 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 01:51:31 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:51:31 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167921 > > Toonmili: People don't like the idea of Snape being in Love, well, it is much better than Peter being in love. At least Snape is a man, not a coward. Julie: Well, all sorts of people fall in "love." The cowardly as well as the brave, the mean as well as the nice, the psychotic as well as the mentally stable. Peter may have considered himself in love with Lily, even if he doesn't express it in a way most of us would. (Look at all the nutso ex-boyfriends who kill their ex-girlfriends because they loved them "so much" and vice versa). Just to cloud the issue, let me also state that I believe Snape *did* love someone once. IMO, JKR implied as much in an interview, though there is debate over just which element of Snape she was discussing (redemptive pattern versus having loved someone). And I suspect Snape, as mean as he is, did love that person the "right" way (i.e., that person's safety AND happiness was more important than his own--whereas Peter couldn't give a rat's ass about Lily's happiness if he was a willing accomplice in her husband and son's murders--pun intended!) If the person Snape loved wasn't Lily, then perhaps it was Remus--okay, kidding (probably!). My best guess is it was someone he knew at Hogwarts-- maybe Florence, the girl being kissed by an unidentified boy (Severus Snape, anyone?). If she died--and/or their child--because of Snape's loyalty to Voldemort, that certainly would explain Snape's fervent "Fool's who wear their hearts on their sleeves" speech. (And, yes, that could still be about Lily, but I still say a rejected!Snape giving Lily the continued respect of *not* vilifying her existence to her despised son would be very out of character.) Toonmili: > Besides when Voldemort returned he said: "one has left me forever > and he will be killed..." Everyone agrees he was talking about > Snape. You'll notice he said that Snape has LEFT... meaning on his > own accord...not because he was a coward...not because he had > betrayed him. You'll also notice that Voldemort is quite certain > that he has left forever (meaning never to return). But why is he so certain that Snape has left him forever? Maybe because he knows that he has done something that would make Snape leave him forever, i.e. killed Lily when Snape asked or begged him not too. He would want to to be in Snape's good graces because Snape is a very skilled wizard and the most gifted death eater, he would be a horrible loss. He wouldn't care about what Wormtail wanted. He probably would have killed wormtail if he even made such a request. Once Voldemort got the secret from Wormtail he was no longer useful, the order would have known he was a spy. He only entertains him now because he came and found him. But you will notice how quick he was to get rid of him as soon as his death eaters came back. He has him be Snape's assistant. No other Death Eaters have assistants. This shows that Snape is indeed the favorite. Julie: If Voldemort believed Snape had left him forever because of killing Lily, why would he then take Snape back? (I'll answer my own question--because Snape is still useful.) By the same token, even if Voldemort doesn't respect Peter, the ratman also has his uses. Voldemort would be willing to keep Peter around as long as that usefulness remains. And again, back at GH it was really no skin off Voldemort's nose to let a defenseless girl (as he viewed Lily) survive, even to keep someone as pathetic as Peter loyal. Voldemort simply had nothing to lose in that bargain, at least in his mind. I do agree Snape is a favorite of Voldemort's because of his skills and power. Again, Voldemort keeps what he can use until it is of no further use. I sadly suspect Snape will face this moment in DH when Voldemort (who may or may not have suspected Snape's double-spying all along) decides Snape has outlived his usefulness. I can only hope Snape survives, perhaps because of Harry's help ;-) Julie From Vexingconfection at aol.com Tue Apr 24 23:51:33 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:51:33 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167922 > Toonmili: People don't like the idea of Snape being in Love, well, it is much better than Peter being in love. At least Snape is a man, not a coward. Vexingconfection: What if Lord Voldemort loved Lily or knew Lily was more powerful than he was? Lily didn't attack LD-only used magic to protect her son- perhaps even unknowingly. What if LV did love her but knew he had to kill Harry because Harry was actually his own son and the rumors are true- Harry really was targeted because he was to be the next powerful dark wizard?---yeah, I know-just a thought. When one wiards saves the life of another it creates a powerful bond- Wormtail saved LV-Harry saved Wormtail. James saved Snape. Snape saved Harry. Wormtail is with Snape because he is annoying and needs watching-he can't be killed because he saved LV. LV is probably aware that Wormtail has a debt to Harry. - that's as far and I can follow this one... From bgrugin at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 02:47:41 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:47:41 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "toonmili" wrote: > He(LV)only entertains him (Wormtail) now because he came and found him. But you will notice how quick he was to get rid of him as soon as his death eaters came back. He has him be Snape's assistant. No other Death Eaters have assistants. This shows that Snape is indeed the favorite. > MusicalBetsy here: I'm not sure I read this the same as you. I suspect that Wormtail is living with Snape because LV doesn't really trust Snape, so he has Wormtail spying on Snape for him. Of course, I could be totally wrong. Just my two cents From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 25 02:55:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:55:10 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167924 > Bart: > > Once he was exposed, what were his options? His ONLY hope was that > Voldemort could gain a position to protect him, therefore, he went to > Voldy. Voldy coming back to power was his only chance. > > Julie now: > Here I agree. Peter did have an option to disappear into a > sewer as a rat, or find a Muggle household where he could > feed off scraps. Pippin: Do we know that Peter can make himself unplottable? I don't think so. If not, it would explain why he was safe as a rat only as long as Sirius was in jail and everyone else thought he was dead. Otherwise, IMO, he could escape detection only while he was at Hogwarts, or under the protection and concealment of a more powerful wizard such as Voldemort, or Snape. It would also explain how Sirius could be sure he had escaped and not blown himself up. I don't think that Peter could have bargained for Lily's life. He doesn't have the power -- Voldemort could get whatever he wanted out of Peter with intimidation and threats. Voldemort bargains only with those, like the Gurg of the Giants, who have a powerbase of their own. If there was a bargain it was probably with someone with connections to one of the power groups Voldemort was wooing. The only one of the Marauders that would fit is Lupin. Pippin From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Apr 25 04:58:23 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:58:23 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167925 Julie: > ::raises her hand:: I don't think Voldemort cares either way, > as long as he destroys the Prophecy child and never has to > deal with her again. Giving her to Peter is no real skin off > his nose (metaphorically speaking). Though it's clear he > wasn't going to expend any effort beyond the single casual > offer, what's it matter to him if he lets what he sees as > a powerless and broken woman survive? > > As for whether he suspected Lily wouldn't accept his offer, > that could be. Voldemort doesn't understand love, but he does > know that other wizards value love. He no doubt considers > them pathetic idiots, but he can recognize and manipulate > the emotion. He just doesn't respect it at all, thus he > underestimates its true power, as he underestimated Lily's > sacrifice, and will probably underestimate it again in DH, > allowing Harry to defeat him by using love in some manner. Dana: Or maybe no one asked LV to let Lily live but LV was just not out there to kill Lily and she should just not make such a fuss and stand aside while he killed her son. I can't see how it would be an act of love to ask a murderous lunatic to let the mother/wife live, while he just killed her husband and is about to kill her son. What life would Lily have had if she had chosen her own life over that of Harry? Maybe LV thought it would be the best punishment for a mother, who gave birth to the only one who is said to be able to defeat him. Maybe he wanted her to suffer the way he himself suffered when his mother choose to die instead of living for her child. Or maybe he didn't figure mothers actually choose the life of their child over their own because his mother did not. Besides people knowing Lily would also know she would never ever step aside. To be honest what ever the reason, I do not believe that it had anything to do with someone asking LV but that it has everything to do with LV himself and his own relation with his mother. Snape specifically says in HBP that once LV has made up his mind then no one is able to change it and he is not stupid enough to try. It does not make sense that LV would do something out of request because it would show him weak if he did and new requests would be pouring in everyday. I do not believe he showed Lily mercy out of the goodness of his heart to please one of his death eaters, I believe he didn't show her mercy at all but figured she would step aside and let him do his thing because he never figured a mother would sacrifice herself for her child, his mother surely did not. I think it is also the reason he tells Harry, not to show him his mother sacrificed herself but that Harry was the cause of his mother's death. He just doesn't understand, it is the greatest act of love a mother could give her child. Just a thought. Dana From juli17 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 05:30:08 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:30:08 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167926 > > Pippin: > Do we know that Peter can make himself unplottable? I don't > think so. If not, it would explain why he was safe as a rat > only as long as Sirius was in jail and everyone else thought > he was dead. Otherwise, IMO, he could escape detection only > while he was at Hogwarts, or under the protection and > concealment of a more powerful wizard such as Voldemort, or > Snape. > > It would also explain how Sirius could be sure he had escaped > and not blown himself up. Julie: You may be right. It doesn't change the need for a motive beyond simple fear for Peter's original betrayal of the Potters, IMO, but Peter certainly could have helped LV get his body back to avoid being hunted for the rest of his life (as long as that might last). Pippin: > I don't think that Peter could have bargained for Lily's life. > He doesn't have the power -- Voldemort could get whatever > he wanted out of Peter with intimidation and threats. > Voldemort bargains only with those, like the Gurg of the > Giants, who have a powerbase of their own. If there was > a bargain it was probably with someone with connections > to one of the power groups Voldemort was wooing. The > only one of the Marauders that would fit is Lupin. > Julie: I'm still not convinced Peter had to have a powerbase to bargain with LV, especially if *he* initiated the bargaining. "I can give you the location of the Potters, but I want something in return. For you to spare Lily's life." Now I realize LV could just torture it out of Peter, but why bother to go to that trouble if Peter is willing to give the information freely, and all Peter wants in return is an inconsequential and at most moderately-talented (in comparison to himself) witch? This is predicated on my personal opinion that LV doesn't enjoy torture or murder in itself. It doesn't bother him either, but he uses torture and murder to get what he wants. It's a means to an end for him. He tortures for information, to send a message, to insure the loyalty of his DEs through fear. He kills to rid himself of enemies, rivals, and those who don't "belong" in his vision of a kingdom ruled by him. He's not at all unwilling to kill Lily (and he does when she continues to stand in his way), but equally he doesn't really care if she lives as long as she stays out of his way. As for Lupin, he could have some bargaining power if he has sway with the werewolves. We don't know that he really does, and while ESE!Lupin is an interesting concept, I still can't see JKR going there because 1. she likes Lupin too much, and 2. we already have Fenrir as the evil werewolf incarnation and why pile on more negativity to the deliberate metaphor for outcasts of society, and 3. Lupin is the only Marauder left who hasn't been done in by his own worst impluses. Does JKR really need pound this common failing into Harry's mind by completing the set? Julie, who really wants Lupin's best side to shine through in DH, because Harry deserves at least one of his mentor figures to truly come through for him--and survive. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 05:54:51 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:54:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily the popular girl Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167927 In a message dated 4/24/2007 10:37:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bartl at sprynet.com writes: Bart: Anybody who believes that Voldy would have actualy let Lily live, raise their hand. What is both puzzling and possibly revealing is the question of why Voldemort made the offer in the first place. He certainly was/is a pyschopath, and shown to be VERY able at manipulating people. He SHOULD have known that Lily would not have accepted his offer, or even believed it to be genuine. So, why bother? Sandy, waving her hand in the air: I believe Voldy would have let Lily live because JKR said he would have. Don't have time to look up the exact source of the quote, but I think it is on her website. None of us knows why he made the offer yet, but I believe we will find out in DH. As to the last part; Voldy should have known Lily wouldn't accept. I don't see that at all. The one thing Voldy fears above all else is Death. He has gone to great measures to prevent it from happening to him. With that mindset I can fully see him expecting someone to choose life over death, even at the expense of someone else's life. Furthermore, Voldy does not understand love at all, much less the love that a mother has for her child. Again, with that mindset, and only the example of Merope for a mother, I can believe he thought it perfectly natural for Lily to choose her life over Harry's. Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Wed Apr 25 03:59:48 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:59:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: Crookshank Message-ID: <199402.94571.qm@web94510.mail.in2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167928 Hi Listening all the creative ideas encourage me that I should also start thinking ( :p). Then it struck me ... "What if Crookshank is animagus....and who else than the most wanted RAB itself ! ! !" Nobody have seen or confirmed about RAB ( in case he is another Black) being murdered by Tom. It may be just like Pettigrew he also bidding his time. regs Aki From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 07:07:40 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:07:40 -0000 Subject: Crookshank In-Reply-To: <199402.94571.qm@web94510.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167929 > Aki: > > "What if Crookshank is animagus....and who else than the most wanted RAB itself ! ! !" JW: There have been several conjectures concerning Crookshanks being an animagus, and who he could actually be. I was sure of it myself - a year or two ago - as a result of Crookshanks' unusual behavior in PoA. I was even considering developing a list of possibilities... until I read a quote in which JKR denied this conjecture. Her explanation for the cat's extraordinary behavior is that he is half-kneazle. I took JKR at her word and tore up my list. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 25 08:42:18 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:42:18 -0000 Subject: My silly predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167930 These are my predictions for book 7, I make them for the joy it will give others when they are all proven to be completely wrong: 1) It will turn out that Snape is not quite as evil as I once thought him to be, but he will be much more evil than most Snape lovers think he is; long after the publication of the last book the debate over Snape's true character will still rage. 2) At some point in the book Harry will marry Ginny. Yes they are a bit young, but in these dangerous times it's now or never; and besides, we've got to have Harry Potter Junior. 3) Not exactly an original thought but RAB is Regulus Black. His middle name is "Aldebaran", it means "the follower". 4) Dumbledore knew he had inadvertently become a Horcrux, so he understood that he must die if there was any possibility in killing Voldemort, there was just no alternative. 5) Snape hates Harry not because he looks like James but because Harry is the reason Lilly is dead. 6)Dumbledore trusted Snape because he detected sincere grief from him when he heard the Potters were murdered, and because 16 years ago Snape made an unbreakable vow to protect the life of their only child. 7) There is room in the book for at most one bad guy to get redeemed, so if anybody is redeemed (and maybe nobody is) that spot will fall to Draco. 8)Percy will betray Harry to the Death Eaters and will meet justice for this foul deed by a member of his own family; as I said before we don't need another good Weasley, an evil Weasley is much more fun. 9)Neville will survive, marry Luna, and become the Herbology Professor at Hogwarts, and eventually Headmaster. 10) Ron and Hermione will also survive, and they will name their first boy "Harry". 11) Harry's Patronus will change from a stag to a phoenix, probably near the end of the book. 12) The last chapter before the epilogue will be called "The Next Great Adventure" or "The Man Who Died". 13) Harry Potter will die in one of the greatest death scenes in literature, and so plunge the world into mourning. The following is something I don't really predict, it probably won't be in the book but I think it would be sort of cool if it was: Harry kills Voldemort and survives, but we are only at the halfway point in the book. Now Harry goes after Snape, but this time he fails and Snape kills Harry Potter. Neville is the one who avenges Harry's death and kills Snape. Eggplant From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 10:19:11 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:19:11 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167931 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165345 > Pippin agreeing with Alla that betting Lupin is not evil is bold. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167924 > Pippin: > If there was a bargain it was probably with someone with connections to one of the power groups Voldemort was wooing. The only one of the Marauders that would fit is Lupin. Goddlefrood: A little preliminary thought. Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak. Messrs. Moony, Worntail, Padfoot and Prongs? Curious :-? I'm not about to get into that further, but it was a preliminary thought I had about the Marauders. This makes Lupin the nitwit. Oh, and I'll wager a few squid on Lupin not being evil ;) This part I will expound on now. I have glimpsed some pattern here ;), ESE!Lupin is a nice little theory, as with many others it is not entirely disprovable, but I'll give some thoughts :) A Curriculum Vitae of Lupin, some real, some reasonable extrapolation: (i) He was born and later bitten by a werewolf, thus becoming one himself. (ii) He attended Hogwarts with the other Marauders, who discovered him to be a werewolf and learned to be Animagi to keep him company. Dumbledore had ensured he could come and as part of the arrangement The Whomping Willow was planted and The Shrieking Shack organised. (iii) He was a member of the original Order of the Phoenix and may well have begun spying on the werewolves back then. He remains in the Order. (iv) In year 3 of Harry's time at Hogwarts he was, IMNSVHO, the best DADA professor seen so far. He left under a cloud having beeen outed as a werewolf to the student body. (v) He went back to spying on the werewolves. (vi) Tonks fell for him and consequently changed her Patronus (( )):** Not a lot of a contentious nature there ;) During the first rise of Voldemort (a relative of Voldermort ;)) he was suspected of being a spy for LV, probably with some prompting from the rat. What do we know of him, however, he rarely expresses his own opinion and is one of the more difficult characters to get to know. What I know is that JKR likes him a great deal, don't believe me, though, so here she is: "The first book will always have a special place in my heart, because it was the first book I ever published. However, I prefer the plot of CHAMBER OF SECRETS. And just to confuse the issue, I was looking forward to writing the third book from the start of the first because that's when Professor Lupin appears, and he is one of my favorite characters in all seven books." I see, Joanne, one of your favourite characters :-?. That from as long ago as 1999 in Barnes & Noble chat transcript, 8th September, 1999, found in full here (for those inclined): http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0999-barnesnoble-staff.htm I'm sorry I will cal you Ms. Rowling, of course :) And what's that you say Ms. Rowling, about his character, ah: "I was also playing with that when I created Professor Lupin having a contagious disease so people are frightened of him. I really liked him as a character but he also has his failing though he's a nice man and a wonderful teacher - in fact he's the one time I've written a teacher ... the kind of teacher I'd have loved to have had. McGonagall is a good teacher but scary at times. Lupin's failing is he likes to be liked. That's where he slips up - he's been disliked so often he's always pleased to have friends so cuts them an awful lot of slack." He likes to be liked, perhaps he would not be liked so much, Ms. Rowling, if he turns out evil, perhaps? That from J.K. Rowling at the Royal Albert Hall, 26th June 2003, available here: http://www.msn.co.uk/liveevents/harrypotter/transcript/Default.asp? Ath=f Perhaps, Ms. Rowling, if I might be so bold, you would care to tell us whether you lie in your interviews? Of course: "JKR: I've never, to my knowledge, lied when posed a question about the books. To my knowledge. You can imagine, I've now been asked hundreds of questions; it's perfectly possible at some point I misspoke or I gave a misleading answer unintentionally, or I may have answered truthfully at the time and then changed my mind in a subsequent book. That makes me cagey about answering some questions in too much detail because I have to have some leeway to get there and do it my way, but never on a major plot point. Lupin was very fond of Lily, we'll put it like that, but I wouldn't want anyone to run around thinking that he competed with James for her. She was a popular girl, and that is relevant. But I think you've seen that already. She was a bit of a catch." Not knowingly then, although perhaps there is the odd inconsistency ;). He was fond of Lily was he, didn't love her then?, Ah, I see you answered that one, thank you. The above from "The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three" 16th July 2005, in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm Perhaps it will turn out Ms. Rowling that Professor Lupin will have a twin, his name is suggestive of that, after all. "No, but this obviously sprang from the fact that Lupin's Christian name (Remus) comes from one of the mythical founders of Rome who had a twin called 'Romulus'. (They were raised by wolves, incidentally)." Well, a surprising revelation ;), available in the rumours section of JKR's site (all following links from said section) here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=9 Then is it a possibility that Peter Pettigrew will kill Remus, he does, after all, now have a silver hand for the job :O): "Nice idea, clearly predicated on the legend that only a silver bullet can kill a werewolf - but incorrect." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=38 But surely he will be back as the DADA Professor in Deathly Hallows, he was such a good educationalist: "Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a good press any time soon." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=42 Ok then, I have one sure fire theory, which is that James and Remus switched bodies and Harry will find joy in the inevitable reunion: "An ingenious theory, but no; James would never have saved himself and left his wife and son to die." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=60 The evidence is certainly thin that he's evil, but I never entirely discount such things. I could, if asked, debate this matter a little ;) One good thing, though, they found his namesake's cave burial site recently: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070126-rome- palatine.html Remus legendarily is associated with the Aventine Hill in Rome, one of Rome's seven hills :-?. Here's a little something of interest on that, with some picturesque views: http://www.maquettes-historiques.net/P18A.html Goddlefrood, alias Crookshanks for this evening, oh, sorry I couldn't be #-o: "Crookshanks is an Animagus No, he's not, but he's not pure cat either. If you buy Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (all royalties to Comic Relief, which means you're helping some of the poorest children around the world) you might just be able to work out what Crookshanks really is." From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 12:52:40 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:52:40 -0000 Subject: Part 4 - A Tale of Two Pretties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167932 > Goddlefrood: > > It is not a problem that excludes speculation :). That's why this > part of the thread is entitled the downright ridiculous part. It > is not known what form Severus's Patronus takes, but it's always > fun to speculate. This part is hardly supportable at all. If > anyone thinks otherwise then I would be interested to see them > try. > > Oh, and btw, the reference to a Phoenix was to a recent thread > where it was put forward that Snape's animagus form might be > Fawkes. That, IMO, is as unlikely as his Patronus form being > Nagini :) > Nikkalmati Wow. I didn't see the original post about Snape/Fawkes. I am not sure I am willing to go with this, but I love it. It certainly explains why Fawkes did not appear to save DD on the Tower! :>). It also means SS has been privey to all the conferences between DD and HP and that SS saved HP in COS and saved DD's life at the MOM by taking the AK for DD. I can't recall ever seeing thw two of them together. Was SS in the office when DD had the confrontation with the Aurors in OOP? I think not. If SS is Fawkes, what a twist for DH. Nikkalmati Nikkalmati From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Apr 25 14:59:38 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:59:38 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167933 > > Goddlefrood: > > Oh, and I'll wager a few squid on Lupin not being evil ;) > > This part I will expound on now. I have glimpsed some pattern > here ;), ESE!Lupin is a nice little theory, as with many others > it is not entirely disprovable, but I'll give some thoughts :) > > A Curriculum Vitae of Lupin, some real, some reasonable > extrapolation: > > (i) He was born and later bitten by a werewolf, thus becoming > one himself. > > (ii) He attended Hogwarts with the other Marauders, who > discovered him to be a werewolf and learned to be Animagi to > keep him company. Dumbledore had ensured he could come and as > part of the arrangement The Whomping Willow was planted and > The Shrieking Shack organised. > > (iii) He was a member of the original Order of the Phoenix and > may well have begun spying on the werewolves back then. He > remains in the Order. > > (iv) In year 3 of Harry's time at Hogwarts he was, IMNSVHO, the > best DADA professor seen so far. He left under a cloud having > beeen outed as a werewolf to the student body. > > (v) He went back to spying on the werewolves. > > (vi) Tonks fell for him and consequently changed her Patronus > (( )):** > > Not a lot of a contentious nature there ;) wynnleaf No, because you left out the parts of his betraying Dumbledore's trust on several long-term occasions, both as a student and an employee. And you left out his putting an whole school full of children's lives at risk for an entire school year, solely for his personal benefit of maintaining the goodwill of the headmaster. Goddlefrood > During the first rise of Voldemort (a relative of Voldermort ;)) > he was suspected of being a spy for LV, probably with some > prompting from the rat. wynnleaf Pure speculation. Zero canon that Pettigrew had anything to do with suspicions against Lupin. Certainly, Sirius didn't accuse Peter of any such planting of suspicions during his cataloging of Peter's wrongdoings. Goddlefrood: What I know is that JKR likes him a great deal, don't > believe me, though, so here she is: JKR quotes: > "...he is one of my favorite characters in "...I've written a teacher ... the kind of teacher > I'd have loved to have had." " Lupin's failing is he likes to be liked. That's > where he slips up - he's been disliked so often he's always > pleased to have friends so cuts them an awful lot of slack." wynnleaf Yes, a *great* deal of slack. As regards JKR lying.... Lupin can easily betray Dumbledore or the Order without JKR lying. Lupin has *already* betrayed Dumbledore, after all. JKR quote > "Lupin was very fond of Lily, we'll put it like that, but I > wouldn't want anyone to run around thinking that he competed > with James for her. She was a popular girl, and that is > relevant. But I think you've seen that already. She was a bit > of a catch." wynnleaf Not sure what this has to do with Lupin possibly betraying anyone -- with the exception that he probably wouldn't have wanted to see Lily dead. >JKR quote > "No, but this obviously sprang from the fact that Lupin's > Christian name (Remus) comes from one of the mythical founders > of Rome who had a twin called 'Romulus'. (They were raised by > wolves, incidentally)." wynnleaf What's this got to do with whether or not Lupin could betray anyone on the good side? After all, he's *already* betrayed Dumbledore's trust. If Sirius had not been innocent, Lupin could have betrayed Harry to his death -- solely for Lupin's own benefit, I might add. Is there some sort of reason why liking Lily, or being named "Remus" will prevent Lupin from doing that again? JKR quote > "Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage > to his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of > Fenrir Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a > good press any time soon." > wynnleaf There is a question about Lupin's "exposure as a werewolf," since the Ministry already knew he was a werewolf ["There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves," Fudge in GOF] and Lupin speaks in POA of having already had a hard time keeping a job due to his condition. Just how secret *was* his secret? Certainly, the kids didn't know it, nor probably many parents. But in OOTP, we learn that restrictions on werewolves were drafted (actually during the time-period of POA) that made it would make it hard for Lupin to get a job. Since these were ministry regulations, and Lupin was known by the ministry to be a werewolf, he would have been subject to these regulations regardless of any "outing" by Snape at the end of POA. > Goddlefrood: > The evidence is certainly thin that he's evil, but I never > entirely discount such things. I could, if asked, debate this > matter a little ;) wynnleaf Unfortunately for Lupin, JKR's quotes about Lupin really only confirm that he comes across as a nice guy, with a problem you can sympathize with, and he's a good teacher. Since JKR has also said that Snape was a "gift of a character," her saying that she likes Lupin "as a character" or that he's one of her favorite characters does not necessarily equate to "he's a wonderful person and you can trust him." It is no accident that JKR created a likable major character that is also one of the least knowable. Further, Lupin now has probably the most complete set of character and plot points to allow JKR to use him to believably betray Harry or the Order. 1. She has given him motive. As a werewolf, he sympathizes with the plight of his peers under ministry restriction. He claims them as his peers in HBP and we've seen his sympathy for other werewolves at St. Mungos. He may dislike Fenrir, but that doesn't mean he dislikes all werewolves and wouldn't work to help them. Voldemort offers them a lot. Would Lupin jeopardize the Order to maintain the goodwill of friends among the werewolves? Well, he *has* jeopardized a school of children and Harry's life in order to maintain the good will of Dumbledore. 2. She has given him opportunity. As a spy among Voldemort's werewolves, Lupin has access to the enemy, giving him an opportunity to betray the Order ? through evil intention or through weak decisions. 3. She has given him the character flaws that could make betrayal believable. His willingness to allow his friends far too much leeway (and we don't know who all he counts as friends). JKR showed us the depths to which this character flaw would take him when she had him jeopardize the lives of so many kids for an entire school year, solely for the personal benefit of maintaining the goodwill of the headmaster. 4. She has shown us that he's excellent at deception. For good or ill reasons, we've been given numerous examples of Lupin's ability to deceive. Throughout POA, he kept secrets even from Dumbledore, directly lied to Snape's face without apparently getting caught, and deceived Harry, not to mention the whole school. 5. She has given him a cloudy past. He is the only major character for whom she has not given *any* indication of how he spent the years between the Potter's deaths and his appearance in the series. With all other major characters we are given *some* sort of information ? they were retired (Slughorn and Moody), teaching at Hogwarts, working for the ministry, etc. But with Lupin ? nothing. Except that Lupin states that his condition has always made it hard to keep a job. (And if so, didn't employers already know about him, even before Snape outed him? The Ministry obviously knew.) Yet his bag on the Hogwarts Express had the peeling letters of *Professor* R. J. Lupin, and seems to indicate that he'd been a teacher in the past. If JKR once again has a character revealed as betraying Harry or the Order, we know that this time it won't be a new character. That means it will be someone that we already know. And it would make the most literary sense for JKR to have prepared the readers for that revelation ? oh, not obviously, but in setting the stage with already revealed motive, opportunity, character flaws, etc. And she's done that more thoroughly with Lupin than any other character. She's even shown us quite thoroughly that he *can* and *has* betrayed Dumbledore and Hogwarts through his actions in POA. Sure, he's oh-so-sorry, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again. After all, POA was not the first time Lupin had betrayed Dumbledore's trust. It was just the first time Dumbledore learned of it. This doesn't necessarily mean that Lupin would therefore be Evil!Lupin. I could also see Lupin as being Weak!Lupin (as Snape perhaps meant in his comment regarding Tonk's patronus) ? a person who would betray the Order and Harry while trying to protect another set of friends, perhaps among the werewolves. wynnleaf From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Apr 25 16:27:22 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:27:22 -0000 Subject: LV asking Lily to step aside & mothers (Re: Lily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167934 Dana: > To be honest what ever the reason, I do not believe that it had > anything to do with someone asking LV but that it has everything to > do with LV himself and his own relation with his mother. > I think it is also the reason he tells Harry, not to show him his > mother sacrificed herself but that Harry was the cause of his > mother's death. He just doesn't understand, it is the greatest act >of love a mother could give her child. Jen: I agree it could be related to Merope's choice. JKR spent some time on the event and the consequence in HBP, having Riddle reach the conclusion that his mother couldn't have been magical if she died and then finding out she *was* magical (which also relates very much to his quest for immortality). Harry and Dumbledore discussed what happened to Merope and Harry even brought up the comparison with Lily. Plus there are so many mother characters who play a pivotal role at crucial moments--Lily of course, Narcissa with the UV, Petunia taking Harry in, Barty Crouch Jr's mom taking his place at Azkaban--it's a recurring plotline (theme? A mother's love? Or in Petunia's case, Lily's love). Perhaps Merope's choice played out in Riddle's choices and that's the last of it. I used to think there was an elaborate plot going on with Voldemort asking Lily to step aside, but more and more I'm seeing how JKR's pivotal moments often have to do with history, relationships and emotions more than the actions involved. Or the explanation is more meaningful than what occurs is what I'm trying to say. LV may be exempt from this given how little humanity is left. I wasn't satisfied with JKR's answer in that MN/TLC chat when she was asked the question about Lily stepping aside and diverted her answer to James. It didn't answer the question asked in my opinion, or if it did, the answer was more clear to JKR! I think there's a little more yet to why LV asked Lily to step aside. ************************************************************ Here's the quote once again, for reference(2005 MN/TLC interview): ES: This is one of my burning questions since the third book - why did Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he actually have let her live? JKR: Mmhm. ES: Why? 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 - ************************************************************** Jen From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 15:28:14 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:28:14 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167935 Dana: Maybe LV thought it would be the best punishment for a mother, who gave birth to the only one who is said to be able to defeat him. Maybe he wanted her to suffer the way he himself suffered when his mother choose to die instead of living for her child. Or maybe he didn't figure mothers actually choose the life of their child over their own because his mother did not. Montavilla47: I just have to ask this, because I've run into this on other forums and it kind of bugs me. I know that Harry gets angry that Merope didn't do more to keep herself healthy and that Dumbledore then makes a comparison, saying the Merope didn't have Lily's courage. But can we really say that Merope didn't choose her child's life over her own? If there really is any choice about dying in childbirth. Montavilla47 From toonmili at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 16:01:01 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:01:01 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Toonmili: People don't like the idea of Snape being in Love. > > Goddlefrood > > Yes indeed, but never underestimate Peter, he is a character that > will have some development, in my divination :) > > > Toonmili: > > > Besides when Voldemort returned he said: "one has left me forever > > and he will be killed..." Everyone agrees he was talking about > > Snape. > > Goddlefrood: > > Do they, now? Not Igor Karkaroff then, who was killed. Snape may > have been the one who would pay, perhaps :-? > > LV fears none, or had that not been noticed either, only > Dumbledore. "The Only One he Ever Feared" ring a bell? > Toonmili: Thank you for this yummy question. This is what Voldemort said in GOF: "And here we have six missing Death Eaters...three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service." Snape was not too cowardly to return: Karkaroff was the one who was really freaking out. Karkaroff was the one who was afraid to go to Azkaban. Karkaroff is the coward. The one who returned is: Barty Crouch Jr. So that leaves Snape as the one he believes has left him forver. Besides Snape confirms this in HBP: Chapter 2, Snape says: "The Dark Lord's initial displeasure at my lateness vanished entirely, I assure you, when I explained that I remained faithful, although Dumbledore thought I was his man. Yes, the Dark Lord thought that I had left him forever, but he was wrong." So there you have it, proof that Snape is the one he believes have have left him forever and not Karkaroff. I also don't think that Voldemort fears Snape. He knows he is more powerful than Snape but at the same time, it wouldn't do much good to have Snape working for the Order while he has people with lesser abilities on his side. He's always trying to have the advantage. From shmantzel at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 15:54:42 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Good, the Not so Good and the Downright Ridiculous Snape In-Reply-To: <462C0F2F.8040403@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <884251.64529.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167937 puduhepa98 at aol.com wrote: > Bart > Also, the year of the Spanish Inquisition. > > Nikkalmati > > Bart, the Spanish Inquisition went on for over 400 years with various period > of activity and inactivity. IIRC, it started in 1492 and ended in 1968. Bart Dantzel: I hate to use Wikipedia, but it can't be too far off: The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy. It was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabel II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition . --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Wed Apr 25 16:51:42 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:51:42 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167938 > Montavilla47: > I just have to ask this, because I've run into this on other forums and it kind of bugs me. I know that Harry gets angry that Merope didn't do more to keep herself healthy and that Dumbledore then makes a > comparison, saying the Merope didn't have Lily's courage. > > But can we really say that Merope didn't choose her child's life over her own? If there really is any choice about dying in childbirth. > va32h: Harry expresses his surprise in response to Dumbledore's statement that Merope didn't even lift her wand to save her own life - which suggests to me that witch could use magic to protect her health or at least Dumbledore thought that Merope could have. va32h From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Apr 25 16:56:25 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:56:25 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167939 Dana: > Or maybe he didn't figure mothers actually choose > the life of their child over their own because his > mother did not.[...] To be honest what ever the > reason, I do not believe that it had anything to > do with someone asking LV but that it has everything to > do with LV himself and his own relation with his mother. houyhnhnm: I agree. People are rotten and, especially, mothers are rotten. I think the need to prove that is the second most important driving force for LV after fear of death. I suspect he planned to kill her anyway after he'd reviled her for being a rotten selfish mother. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Apr 25 17:51:55 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:51:55 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167940 > wynnleaf > This doesn't necessarily mean that Lupin would therefore be > Evil!Lupin. I could also see Lupin as being Weak!Lupin (as Snape > perhaps meant in his comment regarding Tonk's patronus) ? a person who > would betray the Order and Harry while trying to protect another set > of friends, perhaps among the werewolves. wynnleaf I thought I'd add some more to my last post. While Pippin could (if desired) add a great deal to the Evil!Lupin theories, there are also some really excellent literary aspects toward having Lupin betray the Order or Harry in DH. If Lupin turns out to betray the Order, *and* if Snape turns out to have been loyal, look what a perfect set of echoes, parallels, juxtapositions, etc. would have been set up: 1. Harry trusts Lupin, who proves untrustworthy. Harry distrusts Snape, who proves trustworthy. 2. Harry likes Lupin, who is nice, but betrays Harry. Harry hates Snape, who is very unpleasant, but is loyal. 3. Both are from the Marauder era. Both characters have their stories rooted in the same past. Both characters *may* connect to what JKR has called the "whole story" (I presume she means the story on which Harry's story is built) which all of her 10-15 copies of the first chapter of PS/SS could reveal. 4. Lupin and Snape are closely connected over many years through the animosity in school between Snape and the Marauders, the werewolf prank, and whatever regrets they may have over the Potter's deaths. Slight possibility they may have had some care for Lily in common. 5. Both are spies. One spy is thought a traitor, but in fact is loyal. One spy is thought loyal, but betrays the Order. 6. Both are professors (or have been). The nice teacher, the one who is pleasant and a great teacher, is nevertheless untrustworthy and will risk his student's lives for his own benefit. The mean,insulting, and ugly teacher is nevertheless trustworthy and will risk his life for the benefit of (among others) his students. 7. One man is willing to place many lives at risk for the sake of keeping the goodwill of others. The other man is willing to lose the goodwill of all in order to risk his own life to help them. 8. One man does what is "easy" and makes decisions to keep people happy with him. The other does what is hard and makes decisions that do not benefit him much at all. 9. The Gryffindor turns out to be untrustworthy. The Slytherin turns out to be trustworthy. 10. Harry's applecart is overturned for the final time, in such a strong way that he must finally put aside his preconceptions. This would be a strong enough turn of events that readers would also have to see many of the preconceptions overturned. Hey, it may not happen. I could be *totally* off. But *if* JKR decided to have Lupin betray the Order (even if in moments of weakness rather than pure evil), and *if* Snape turns out to be loyal, then these parallels, echoes, and juxtapositions will be there. And they can make excellent literature. wynnleaf From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Wed Apr 25 18:11:31 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:11:31 -0000 Subject: Off With Their Heads :) or The Headless Horseman Wannabe In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704241743v7e5d2b39j8eb90ae40d0e31d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167941 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167904 > Goddlefrood: > > The analyses of the ww prior to seclusion is interesting. I > commend both respondents but with the rider that clearly there > was *some* interaction, or there would have been no need for > seclusion in the first place ;) Ann: Yes, I should have made myself plainer. Until the establishment of Hogwarts, I expect British wizards were all "out", as it were. Lord only knows what this did to the Harry Potter world's Battle of Maldon, but I'd say a gradual seclusion was between the late ninth century and went on... well, I'm not quite sure - 1500, maybe? Before Hogwarts and the Quill I expect it was difficult to find young wizards and training them was a major part of any active wizard's job. This explains why Hogwarts was started, of course: the Founders got tired of blistered feet and thought, "If we build it, they'll come." I think Hogwarts was a focal point for wizarding culture as well as a school, and the fact that wizards now had a more efficient system to teach magic led to them being able to spend their time doing other things, such as inventing spells and hiding Basilisks in the plumbing. That would explain why it was a castle and why it's so large - other rooms were used for other things. (Tangentially, I think Hogwarts holds pupils who aren't studying at the school. The Ministry needs to train people for specific jobs, such as Aurors, and why not do it in a big, remote castle with lots of free space?) > Goddlefrood: > > who'd like to bet that Hogwarts isn't proximate to Glencoe? Ann: Me. I've always thought Hogwarts was in the Highlands proper, north of the Great Glen... I think that's just a coincidence, though. For one thing, the Glen Coe massacre was so late my theory wouldn't work if it affected wizards! --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > I'm actually trying to put together a timeline - started it in trying > to come up with a plausible reason why the minister of magic has a > title like the cabinet members yet is not apparently answerable to > parliament. I'm leaning towards them not being answerable to the > monarch either ATM, possibly related to the civil war, or maybe the > glorious revolution. > > In fact, the glorious revolution is _perfect_ - they could have for > a time been answerable to the Jacobites, maybe one of them was born > with magic at the right time frame, then that faded in a process > paralleling the reduction of the powers of the british monarch. Ann: Well, if my cultural capital!Hogwarts holds, there'd be plenty of wizards in Scotland, so maybe the Stewarts were related? Also, Queen Anne was (I think) the last monarch to invoke the Royal Prerogative, so Muggles' and wizards' ceasing to care about the royal of the day would dovetail nicely. Seriously, though, after seclusion (as Goddlefrood called it) it would be difficult to maintain ties to the King, never mind Parliament later on. Never mind the fact that post-Seclusion Muggles wouldn't believe in magic anyway, or that I think Seclusion was long before the Civil Wars. I don't attach much significance to the Minister's title beyond his having a predecessor who admired Walpole or something, and perhaps he has other titles (such as Steward of the Wizengamot and Duke of Magic). From a meta standpoint, of course, it's obvious. Anyway, Muggle cabinet ministers aren't accountable to Parliament any more :), so why should Fudge? From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Apr 25 20:37:57 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:37:57 -0000 Subject: Lily the popular girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167942 Montavilla47: > But can we really say that Merope didn't choose her child's life over her own? If there really is any choice about dying in childbirth. Dana: Merope didn't die because she just got an incurable illness; she died because she gave up on life when Tom Riddle Sr rejected her. She died of a broken heart, not wanting to take care of her self. And therefore she did not choose to live for her child. If she had placed the live of her child over her own. then she would have learned to life what that broken heart because being there for her son would be more important then dwell on things that could never be. By the way she did not die in childbirth, she died later after she made her wishes know. She wanted him to have his father's great looks and his name. JKR did not write Merope as a critical ill woman in the sense of disease but made the distinction she did not want to life and pretty much chose death, instead of facing life and the responsibility of having a son to take care of. Lily made a choice that her son's life was more important then her own. She knew if she did nothing LV would kill Harry and she did the only thing she could possibly think off that could protect her son. If LV had given her the choice for both of Harry and her to live, then she would have taken it, even if she had to live with the grief of losing James. She would have been there for Harry. That is why her death protected Harry not because she was willing to leave him but because she was willing to die for him, even if she did not have too. Dana From ronswalk at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 19:18:22 2007 From: ronswalk at yahoo.com (ronswalk) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:18:22 -0000 Subject: LV could be kissed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167943 LV could be kissed by a Dementor or he could take a leap after Sirus through the veil - with a push from HP. ronswalk From mueckelein at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 21:38:02 2007 From: mueckelein at yahoo.com (mueckelein) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:38:02 -0000 Subject: Crookshank In-Reply-To: <199402.94571.qm@web94510.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Akash aki wrote: > Listening all the creative ideas encourage me that I should also > start thinking ( :p). > Then it struck me ... > "What if Crookshank is animagus....and who else than the most wanted > RAB itself ! ! !" > > Nobody have seen or confirmed about RAB ( in case he is another > Black) being murdered by Tom. It may be just like Pettigrew he also > bidding his time. muecklein: > Hi, according to JKR Crookshank is a halfkneazle, whatever that is, > and he is definitely not an animagus. RAB is most certainly Regulus > Black, who was killed around Harry?s birthday. Since in other > languages Regulus Black has a different name and the letters RAB are > changed so that the letters match Sirius?brother?s name again, I > would say it definitely is Regulus Black. muecklein From mueckelein at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 21:59:31 2007 From: mueckelein at yahoo.com (mueckelein) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:59:31 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167945 Paul: > Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side (James's mother's > sister) - did you ever notice that Moaning Myrtle has the EXACT same > pair & shape of glasses as James and Harry Potter and no one else > who we have met in the Wizarding World has those style of glasses? mueckelein: James was a pureblood, Myrtle was muggleborn or she would not have been attacked by the basilisk...So Myrtle definately not related to James. From rlace2003 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 22:57:51 2007 From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:57:51 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167946 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mueckelein" wrote: > > Paul: > > Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side (James's mother's > > sister) - did you ever notice that Moaning Myrtle has the EXACT same > > pair & shape of glasses as James and Harry Potter and no one else > > who we have met in the Wizarding World has those style of glasses? > > > mueckelein: > James was a pureblood, Myrtle was muggleborn or she would not have > been attacked by the basilisk...So Myrtle definately not related to James. > Ryan: Being pureblood offers no protection from the basilisk's stare. Also, judging by the wording used to describe Myrtle's death, it seems likely that Myrtle was killed simply because she spotted the basilisk and might've identified Tom if she got away. Remember, Myrtle was killed in the bathroom with the hidden entrance to the Chamber of Secrets. She probably just happened to be in there when Tom and the basilisk were coming or going. Ryan, who hopes that Myrtle and Harry are not related. Otherwise, the GoF scene in the prefect's bathroom was really icky. From k.coble at comcast.net Wed Apr 25 22:26:53 2007 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:26:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167947 I've always thought that the glasses were simply NHS basic specs, like the ones John Lennon wore. From my understanding, that was one of the signs of a misfit kid in Britain, that they wore the NHS specs. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Apr 25 23:34:59 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:34:59 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167948 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble wrote: > > I've always thought that the glasses were simply NHS basic specs, > like the ones John Lennon wore. > > From my understanding, that was one of the signs of a misfit kid in > Britain, that they wore the NHS specs. > va32h: This makes the mos sense to me. You know the Dursleys wouldn't spend an extra penny on Harry's glasses. That he has to hold them together with scotch tape shows that the Dursleys can't even be bothered to arrange another free pair. Also, and I may be mistaken, but the glasses are both merely described as "round" - yes? Just because glasses are round does not mean they are identical. They do look alike in the films, but that isn't canon. va32h From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 25 23:39:51 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:39:51 -0000 Subject: A Little Bit on 1692 and Hogwarts Location Speculation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167949 > Ann: > Until the establishment of Hogwarts, I expect British wizards were all "out", as it were. Lord only knows what this did to the Harry Potter world's Battle of Maldon, but I'd say a gradual seclusion was between the late ninth century and went on... well, I'm not quite sure - 1500, maybe? Goddlefrood: Odd, a battle that took place in Essex having an effect on the wizarding world?. Both the Vikings and the anglo-saxons had a strong wizarding folklore. That Grindelwald was defeated in 1945 and that JKR has acknowledged that this is not merely a coincidence does not mean that every Muggle battle or war has an influence on the wide wizarding world. Is your suggestion that there was some friction that led to the establishment of Hogwarts? If anyone is interested here are some pictures from a website devoted to the battle referred above: http://www.battleofmaldon.org.uk/ That would conflict with the impression that is gleaned from the Sorting Hat's exposition on the founding. Having said that it does not seem particularly relevant why Hogwarts came about and what it may have been. I am familiar with (your?) theory that it was at one time the HQ for everything in the Wizarding World, that is the MoM, a Hospital and all other wizarding geopolitical necessities. It is, though, interesting to speculate on, but for the purposes of divination of what may happen in DH, my view, which I have expressed a few times, is that the relevance of the founders and Hogwarts as it is today (being split) will be for a resolution of not only the current disunity within the houses, but also the older schism between Salazar Slytherin and descendents and the other founders and their descendents. Where could Hogwarts be? This is of interest, but not really for the outcome of the series. Many have waded in on this matter previously. I offer a vision of Glencoe that could easily fit with its being the location of Hogwarts. Take a look: http://www.rampantscotland.com/features/glencoe.htm Another lovely spot, even if it is not where Hogwarts actually is :-). The Massacre there took place in 1692, which for clarity, but which I have also posted on before, was the year of the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy. Oh, and here's a map of the location of Glencoe (left click for the big picture :)): http://www.glencoe-nts.org.uk/Glencoe-Map-g.asp Note the remains of a church on an island in the lake ;) Another minor point would be that Hogwarts was not built during the great castle building era (not inclined to give any further information on that, I'm afraid ;) Additionally it could be in the Grampians, here's a random link: http://www.aberdeentoday.co.uk/information/travel-tips/maps.htm Another mystical place, and it agrees with an assessment I made in another forum of the location of Hogwarts, which was that it would be on the Eastern side of Scotland (the Highlands are more in the West and to the North), due to the use of the east coast mainline to get there from Platform 9 3/4 of King's Cross, without changing at Edinburgh (that's E-din-brr-a). Of course, Matthew Hopkirk would also disagree with the assessment of wizards and especially witches being in hiding before the Secrecy Statute (he was the Witchfinder General :)), but found few and was himself later accused of being loopy, if not a wizard himself ;) > Ann: > I've always thought Hogwarts was in the Highlands proper, north of the Great Glen... I think that's just a coincidence, though. For one thing, the Glen Coe massacre was so late my theory wouldn't work if it affected wizards! Goddlefrood: Perhaps the above may assist you in your theory, which, btw I would be interested to see :) One other small matter that occurred in 1692 was the death of Thaddeus Thurkell (1632 - 1692) (refer famous wizards cards). From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Thu Apr 26 00:06:13 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:06:13 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167950 I've been thinking about magic and it's literary uses in Katherine Paterson's very popular Bridge to Terabithia (with special reference to the wonderful, recent movie version), Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth (an original work of cinematic art), and the Harry Potter universe. Terabithia is a place wholly imaginary - we are never told otherwise, we never suspect otherwise, there is no boundary, and hence, nothing can cross over from the magical world to the real world. Except that, well, here's something the movie showed clearly - art, imagination, discovery (especially as represented by Da Vinci) is forever THE essential element of anything that makes life better, that transforms things, that expands us. A parachute - a Da Vinci design! - lets people fall great distances without hurting themselves - we see this at the museum, while, in another part of the world, Leslie dies in a fall. The same theme is stronger in the very central act of building the bridge - it will prevent further rope tragedies, it symbolizes Jess's compromise with his father the hardware store employee by an act that is at the same time a claiming of his friend's talent, and it represents the bridge between the ideal and the practise. This sense of the literary operation of magic is very practical ? and indeed, the book was written for a very specific, practical purpose ? to help her son deal with the death of his friend. Such a wonderful motif and such a wonderful movie ? and in it's telling lies a potent truth about magic in all its literary guises ? it is fundamentally useful, even necessary, although some, those outside the charmed circle, the muggles, as it were, won't get it. Terabithia is entirely play, between two friends, a partnership of outsiders against what is unfair in the world. They know, however, that what they find unfair is something that others often experience even more deeply - Janice Avery is an older kid, a bully, whose father hits her, and when police are called and the abuse becomes public, she is humiliated and scared - perhaps close to despairing. In Rowling, the DA is a group of kids who tackle unfairness in an entirely more organized, more practical and political manner. The Dark Master in Terabithia is, I suggest, despair. It is art and imagination that helps us live, but the essential core is compassion, is love, without which, the greatest art becomes just a drawing, and the deepest meanings in life are inaccessible to it. Leslie's chat with Janice is the kind of gesture that is . The sad part is that, whatever Jess does for Leslie is lost when she dies, but we suspect he knows. The movie is entirely a non sexual love story, by the way, and when it's time to grieve, it's overwhelming. Does despair exist in Rowling, and if so, where, to what degree? I say the idea of despair is very problematic in Rowling ? no good character has ever come close to it. There is terrible, shaking fear, yes, Molly at the boggart, there is sadness, when Cedric or Sirius dies, there is pain, Harry in the atrium. Sirius in Azkaban ? he could not despair, or if he did, it is well shielded from us. Luna has nothing of it ? we are given no hint of anything close to it underneath that persona, nor do we find it in Neville. In no character on the good side has there been a hint of despair. On the evil side, it appears only in one case, in Merope, after Tom leaves her. If it is mitigated by the sense the woman had to get help, in her pregnancy, it is nonetheless apparent and, we have it in writing, fatal. If Merope is the most despairing character in the books, she is also the most powerless figure in the books. Here I think Rowling is in agreement with Paterson (and Tolkien!) ? despair is the darkest master. Pan's Labyrinth posits a much greater subversion of reality by the operation of imagination - here it isn't two individual's creating a world of the mind together, and it isn't some other part of the world artificially separate, peopled with humans just like us, but with extra tools, but a girl who lives within a tradition of fairy tales become real, on one hand, and a cruel, war torn world on the other. The imagery in this movie is too complex to go into detail here, but let's take three examples from the narrative that indicate the way magic operates as a literary device. Only one thing in the movie completely and utterly depends on the faun and the magic world for it's existence in the world of 1944 Spain - a mandrake root given to Ofelia to put under her pregnant mother's bed in a bowl of milk, and to give two drops of blood to every morning, to make her well. This the faun gives her as an aside - the three tasks are his main concern. But for Ofelia, the root is key. We saw the milk in a bowl earlier, and the doctor prescribed two drops of opium to help Ofelia's mother sleep - so the ritual has indicators - but what of the mandrake root? The narrative says the faun gave Ofelia a magic root - you have to contradict this narrative to defeat the suggestion of magic it holds - in other words, you must actively refuse the film maker's words. When the evil Captain finds the root, and when the mother tosses it into the fire, bringing on her horrifying, deadly labor, we are to understand that in the world of 1944 Spain, and even if it works, magic is anathema. (You cannot but think of persecution against witches during the mandrake scene.) The ungrateful world spurning the efficacy of magic is a potent theme in fairytales, and it is certainly a theme in Rowling. The mandrake, says the faun, is a plant that dreamed of being human. Rowling's uses of fairy tales is powerfully circumscribed by practical concerns - there are references to healing draughts and potions and so forth, all very sensible and practical. And if something is need, a truth potion, Rowling will invent it - any good wizard would, we think. Not only does magic remove the banal in Rowling, it supplies new, inventive methods for knowing the world. The second example from Pan's involves a piece of chalk (a tool of the most innocent, transient art). Ofelia, discovered to be a maquis sympathizer, in her way, is locked in her room, preventing her from performing the last task. The faun appears and gives her a piece of chalk. We do not see her leave the room with the chalk, we see her in the Captain's room with the chalk, and later we see outline she drew in her room with the chalk. We do not see the door being locked, we do not see her going through the chalk door. The narrative does not say Ofelia's door is locked, Ofelia says it is. This is, I guess, the second level of assent - do we accept Ofelia's statement about that particular reality, as valid? We don't have to invent something like a witch among the staff who gave Ofelia the mandrake root in order to deny Ofelia's claim that the door was locked, or to decide she drew the door but actually went out the normal, unlocked door. In any case, we are to understand that this kind of art is the most powerful - equivalent to the incantations in Rowling - words are literally power. When Ofelia's mom tells her to call the Captain father, we understand that for Ofelia, to say the word would be a deep betrayal of her own power. Copperfield biting Murdstone's hand is exactly the same kind of saving stubborness. Copperfield would have been worth nothing if he hadn't done it. Ofelia would have been defeated at the start if she'd called him father. And Harry would have lost if he'd given in to Umbridge in his detentions. The movie is full of magic elements of the third rank - one's seen only by Ofelia and the magical creatures, but by no one else, and that relate solely to the magic narrative, even when, and especially when, the actions of Ofelia in the magical narrative collide with Spain 1944. The faun says bring your brother, and Ofelia does so. A previous monster in the film, who references Goya's Saturn chowing down on his kids, the holocaust, and church propaganda about satanic rituals, is nothing compared to the horror that follows Ofelia into the labyrinth. Do we believe the faun? Did she have to bring the boy? We are left to ponder this with Ofelia herself, but we don't have time, in fact. The faun seems to be suggesting something evil at the end - a kind of ritualistic sacrifice. How to respond to this suggestion is, of course, the final test itself. Will you fall prey to idealism, to rituals, to orders, to past hurts, to self-interest? del Toro at the end says - magic just is, your decisions, your choices, bear the same consequences, without regard to whether they involve magic or not. In this last task, above all else, del Toro is in entire agreement with Rowling ? their thematic handling of the ethical parameters of magic and its uses is identical. Rowling's magic shares a little in common with both these works. While most ritualistic when it's most evil, more often then not, it is pedestrian, or quotidian - an easier way to cook, a rapid transit system, a matter of convenience, a common sense. Terabithia sees magic as a form of imaginary play wherein real world obstacles can be tested, can be overcome symbolically - an exercise for the REAL work of making the world better. It is accepted as such by people. Pan's Labyrith sees magic as a lived literary tradition, a tool for educating people on how to make the right choices, but a reality with it's own sense as well. There are things that cannot be talked about BUT in the form of fairy tales, or, presumably, any highly metaphoric language ? like psychoanalysis, say. It is, however, carefully separated off by society, it is given only so much space, and not a bit more. In Rowling, the magical world is a part of ours artificially separated off. Magic in Rowling inheres in people in a Calvanistic way - one is born with it (written in the book). This is somewhat like the special personal characteristics of Jess and Leslie in Terabithia. They have separated themselves, they are stigmatized. In Pan's Labyrinth, the princess Moanna (Ofelia) is lost in our world from her own underground kingdom, to which her soul seeks return. She is marked by birth. What is the function of this separating off of certain people in Rowling? We know Rowling doesn't believe in magic, and she always comes across exceeding pragmatic in her interviews. No surprise magic is a used very pragmatically indeed in Rowling's Harry Potter books ? it eliminates the need to, cook, clean, and do all sorts of household, garden, work-a-day chores. The magic device in Rowling, at this level, removes, to some extent, the banal from existence ? allowing witches and wizards more time to focus on important things. If domestic life in the witchwizard world looks suspiciously suburban, something for which Rowling has been called reactionary, perhaps that is part of the sugary delivery mechanism for her other thesis, which is far more radical. Magic presents circumstances equivalent to real world circumstances in Rowling, so that Rowling can present, with some degree of safety from reactionism, a leftist, probably anarchist message. More thoughts in a bit. dan From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 00:25:04 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:25:04 -0000 Subject: The Coward and Deserter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167951 > > > Toonmili: > > > Besides when Voldemort returned he said: "one has left me forever and he will be killed..." Everyone agrees he was talking about Snape. :-? > > Goddlefrood: > > Do they, now? > Toonmili: > Thank you for this yummy question. Goddlefrood: Here to observe and interject, a pleasure iow :) > Toonmili: > This is what Voldemort said in GOF: > > "And here we have six missing Death Eaters...three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course... and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service." Goddlefrood: Really, you surprise me ;) I said before and I'll say it again, Karkaroff WAS killed after a year or so on the run (or maybe he's alive, I have seen that one before and commented on it ;) In Spinner's End in HBP Snape tells Bella that he returned later than the graveyard scene. LV was making assumptions in his loyalty, IMO, LV believed Snape was a coward, and possibly repeated that to Severus during their little tete-a-tete when Snape proferred his explanation for not answering the Dark Mark call. It would also be interesting if this were true and explain somewhat Snape's reaction to being called a coward by Harry during the Flight of the Prince, n'est ce pas? The duplicitous one is far more likely to be the coward referred by LV than is Karkaroff IMNSVHO ;) > Toonmili: > Karkaroff was the one who was afraid to go to Azkaban. Goddlefrood: Ah, but Igor WAS in Azkaban and made the equivalent of a bargain with the MoM to give evidence against other DEs in exhchange for either a reduction in his sentence or an immediate release. Karkaroff is the coward. > Toonmili: > Barty Crouch Jr. Goddlefrood: Agreed relative to Barty Jnr :) > Toonmili: > Besides Snape confirms this in HBP: > Chapter 2, Snape says: > "The Dark Lord's initial displeasure at my lateness vanished entirely, I assure you, when I explained that I remained faithful, although Dumbledore thought I was his man. Yes, the Dark Lord thought that I had left him forever, but he was wrong." Goddlefrood: Confirmation of what I say above, IMO, Snape was the coward, but Karkaroff was the deserter to be killed. Rubeus: "Sorry 'bout that" > Toonmili: > So there you have it, proof that Snape is the one he believes to have left him forever and not Karkaroff. Goddlefrood: If that's proof then I'll retire tomorrow ;) Glad you agree that LV does not fear Snape though, kind regards. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 26 02:02:05 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:02:05 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167952 Dan: > We know Rowling doesn't believe in magic, and she always comes > across exceeding pragmatic in her interviews. No surprise magic is > a used very pragmatically indeed in Rowling's Harry Potter books ? > it eliminates the need to, cook, clean, and do all sorts of > household, garden, work-a-day chores. The magic device in Rowling, > at this level, removes, to some extent, the banal from existence ? > allowing witches and wizards more time to focus on important > things. If domestic life in the witchwizard world looks > suspiciously suburban, something for which Rowling has been called > reactionary, perhaps that is part of the sugary delivery mechanism > for her other thesis, which is far more radical. Magic presents > circumstances equivalent to real world circumstances in Rowling, > so that Rowling can present, with some degree of safety from > reactionism, a leftist, probably anarchist message. SSSusan: Oh, man! I was, I *believe,* pretty much with you for the majority of the post, Dan (well, as much as one who hasn't yet seen Pan's Labyrinth can get this). I was doing fine, even, here in the final paragraph. But then I got lost with the very last sentence. Could you help me out? Could you explain this final point a little more? Siriusly Snapey Susan From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Thu Apr 26 03:16:45 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:16:45 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167953 dan: > > Magic presents circumstances equivalent to real world circumstances in Rowling, so that Rowling can present, with some degree of safety from reactionism, a leftist, probably anarchist message. SSSusan: > Could you explain this final point a little more? dan: Let me add something unfinished from my essay in response to you. If magic is practical in Rowling, magic folk are not - they are subject to the same foibles as muggles - Arthur's plugs are as silly in the magic world as in the muggle one - politicians are just as corrupt, and motived by self-interest. The importance of maintaining the appearance of peace, law and order is more important than any tangible, albeit hidden threat. Newspapers mislead, or outright lie. Government interfers directly in the affairs of education, if they deem it necessary. Abuse occurs where self-satisfied administrators are blind to it. In fact, these foibles re affirm on every page that Rowling is talking about THIS world, the one we live in, and not some separate artificial magical one. We are not muggles - muggledom is a state of ignorance we have left by picking up the books - our world is best described by Rowling's magical one - we are magic - we have tools that can be and are used for good or evil - the chrome of magic is what allows Rowling to create situations where ethical dramas can be played out. The special circumstance is that the raw emotional honesty of youth can be brought to light because the youth in the magical world have powerful tools for making themselves heard, and their idealism, their learning, is essential in learning to use the machinery of magic. Yes, machinery - and I'm not the first to identify Rowling's magic as a machinery. Can you, however, imagine having items in our real world schools that kill with a couple words spoken properly? In Rowling, kids have power, kids are the saviours of the world, the real ethical leaders, with assistance from sympathetic elders, like Dumbledore. It reminds me a little of the anarchist youth pre 9/11 in Seattle and Goteburg and so forth. But these kids are wiser and have more tools. Yet they are struggling with the same stupid leadership in political terms. We cannot talk about it the same way, without the chrome of magic. Rowling's genius is that she can. dan From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 09:45:07 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:45:07 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167954 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167931 > Goddlefrood: > The evidence is certainly thin that he's evil, but I never entirely discount such things. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167933 > wynnleaf > You left out the parts of his betraying Dumbledore's trust on several long-term occasions, both as a student and an employee. Goddlefrood: Ok, the teacher part, possibly, but as a student? You must mean that he did not immediately tell Dumbledore about his three only friends being Animagi by their fifth year. Not that odd, IMO, as schoolchildren, and whether they are wizards with powers or not, the Marauders were schoolchildren, who are usually encouraged, in a situation such as at Hogwarts (being as it is comparable with a Muggle boarding school), particulalrly in the British Isles, are encouraged not to tell tales. Marietta did so, in a different context, but it is suggestive to me that the parallel between Muggle children in a similar setting and wizard and witch children at Hogwarts is being drawn. One never, but never sneaks, and heaven help you if you do. Remus does not come across as the most outgoing personality, and while he may have had some popularity as a Marauder, he almost certainly would have lost that had he told tales on his friends. As a teacher I do see where he was betraying Dumbledore's trust by not telling him of Sirius's Animagus form at the outset. Those who have closely read my own theories and interjections could divine that my view of Dumbledore is as less than the perfect mentor. I do think he is more of a manipulator, and would not be at all surprised if he knew of Sirius;s Animagus form. He's certainly not overly surprised when he supposedly finds out in PoA, is he? That's my story anyway ;) > wynnleaf > Pure speculation. Zero canon that Pettigrew had anything to do with suspicions against Lupin. Certainly, Sirius didn't accuse Peter of any such planting of suspicions during his cataloging of Peter's wrongdoings Goddlefrood: Well, thanks for the reiteration there ;). It would be quite probable, despite the lack of canon support, that Peter was the one stirring up suspicions between Sirius and James and Lupin. Lupin was the only Marauder not to be involved in any way with the Secret Keeper switch, and Sirius is very quick to proffer apologies for his own suspicions. Who would be left to muddy the waters, only Peter, as far as I'm concerned, although an alternate viewpoint would be interesting to see expounded on :) Many theories have fallen on less problems than lack of canon support. It's not so easy to predict what's going to happen in the series, as many have singularly failed to before ;). I don't even sometimes believe my own theories, but enjoy writing them out and presenting them anyway. Of course the other difficulty I have with Lupin as evil, or inadvertently bad at least, is that I see little value in it for the progress of the series. There will be quite enough problems for Harry to face without one more he was not expecting. This is why Remus is vastly different from Snape. If Snape turns out to be helping Harry, as I think he may (but have said more than enough on this in a prior thread for several lifetimes ;)), then that would be a bonus. If any other character turns out to be a hindrance, apart from Severus, who may also prove one, we would have to have an extremely good explanation as to why. The Death Eaters need resolution, as do the giants, the inferi, the werewolves (this is the only situation I could envisage Lupin being less than loyal, that is if he's with the werewolves) and other of LV's cronies and the Ministry of Magic, who with its usual bumbling ways may also cause some problems, if only of a bureaucratic nature) Why add to these? Is it not enough for Harry to deal with, without Lupin or McGonagall or Hagrid, or some other unexpected character turning out evil too? Additionally one of the Marauders must have some input into Harry's quest as the others have either died, or turned to LV's side (unless, as I once speculated, Peter is the ultimate double agent ;)). It would not be a satisfying conclusion for Remus to be a bad lot, not to this reader anyway. > wynnleaf > Since JKR has also said that Snape was a "gift of a character," her saying that she likes Lupin "as a character" or that he's one of her favorite characters does not necessarily equate to "he's a wonderful person and you can trust him." Goddlefrood: Well, see the initial caveat I extracted from my first. I do not write off the possibility, I just say, and I repeat this time ;) that I see no value in Remus turning out to be anything other than a help. He is flawed, iow, but he's not that flawed. I do appreciate the balance of the arguments put forward in both your first and second post, quite simply I wouldn't like to buy it. That the groundwork has been done for such a plot twist is not something I would deny. It is still all rather thin and vague though. Harry will indubitably suffer during Deathly Hallows, of that I have no doubt, I could see part of this being Lupin's death but not due to any betrayal. Further on your second post many of the same criteria applied to Remus could equally be applied to others. Let's try as a random example, Peter. 1. Both he and Snape are Death Eaters who have been thought of as traitors by one side or another during the course of LV's rise, fall and rise. 2. They too were at Hogwarts at the same time. 3. As has been suggested in another thread it can not be excluded that Peter had something for Lily along with Snape (I favour neither view, but put this in anyway) 4. Both Peter and Severus are now hated by the Order's side and are two of the most wanted wizards. 5. They are also acccomplished liars and twisters of infomation, as demonstrated in particular by Peter in the shack and by Severus in Spinner's End. 6. Never underestimate Peter, he is a powerful wizard who can perform some extraordinary magic when called upon. That is one reason I have for Sirius's laughter in my mind. Snape has been underestimated by at least one of the two other top wizards in canon. 7. Sirius underestimated Peter's talents and more or less writes off Severus's. 8. Er. 9. That's it. 10. For now ;) Goddlefrood From lydiafrench at gmail.com Thu Apr 26 13:46:17 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (Lydia French) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:46:17 -0000 Subject: What is Harry's Secret Weapon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167955 "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies. " We know this means the power of Love but what does THAT mean? Not just the protection his mother's loving sacrifice provided but the power to FEEL love is definitely one explaination. It was his feelings of Love for Sirius that forced LV out of Harry in OOP. However, as we saw in GoF, in a one-on-one duel, Love is not a weapon Harry can wield on his own. So, the question is, in what way is Love, this "power the Dark Lord knows not" going to end up helping Harry in his battle with Lord Voldemort? Love, firefly From gregtaylor02 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 14:46:18 2007 From: gregtaylor02 at yahoo.com (gregtaylor02) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:46:18 -0000 Subject: What is Harry's Secret Weapon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167956 In general terms, the power (love) that Voldemort knows not means that when he attempted to kill Harry with the killing curse, Voldemort wouldn't know that Harry would be protected by a blanket of his mother's love. This is the reason he must return to #4 Privet Drive each year (summer). The love of his mother's blood protects him if he returns there and can call it home, for the same blood is found in Aunt Petunia. In the future it is unclear what power love will play but small things throughout the books have shown that Harry's ability to love has been in part why he is Gryffindor and not Slytherin, why he is not tempted by the dark arts in the extent Tom Riddle was. Harry's ability to love is the reason he Voldemort also was unable to stay inside Harry in the scene by the fountain with a fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort. Voldemort tried to enter Harry's body and told Dumbledore to kill them both, but he could not stay in there because Harry's ability to feel love was too intense for Voldemort. As I said it is unclear what role it will (if any) beyond these events love will play in Harry's adventure. gregtaylor02 From toonmili at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 15:17:28 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:17:28 -0000 Subject: The Coward and Deserter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167957 > Goddlefrood: > > Really, you surprise me ;) > > I said before and I'll say it again, Karkaroff WAS killed after > a year or so on the run (or maybe he's alive, I have seen that > one before and commented on it ;) > > In Spinner's End in HBP Snape tells Bella that he returned > later than the graveyard scene. LV was making assumptions in > his loyalty, IMO, LV believed Snape was a coward, and possibly > repeated that to Severus during their little tete-a-tete when > Snape proferred his explanation for not answering the Dark Mark > call. Toonmili: Wait, do you think Snape is evil? If so, then I don't think you will ever see reason until book seven comes out. But allow to try. Like I said before, at this point Voldemort hasn't had a face to face conversation with either Snape nor Karkaroff. But remember when he was sharing a body with Professor Quirell he knew of Snape's actions. He knew Snape saved Harry while he was on the broom. He knew Snape was in Dumledore's Pocket. He will also have evidence from Wormtial about Snape's actions in the Shack, how he wanted to kill Sirius because he believed Sirius to be the secret keeper. At this point Voldemort knows that Snape told Dumbledore that he told him the prophacy. "To arrongant to believe he might be worng in Black." From the quote we see that Snape knew Black was the secret keeper all along and he was even against the idea.( I know black wasn't the secret keeper but that's what everyone including Dumbledore thought) So Voldemort knows that Snape has regrets about the night he killed the Potters. This will prompt Voldemort to say: I believe he has left me forever. Because Voldemort like the rest of us, has a difficult time reading Snape's actions. At times it seems he is working for Dumbledore and at times it seems he is working for Voldemort. But from the evidence he had, Voldemort thought it seemes most likly that he was working for Dumbledore. However when Snape returns and tells Voldemort the whole story. It is only then he decides that he is working for him. Hence the reason why Snape is alive today. It would make no sense for Snape to be the coward. Simply because Snape is not a coward. When Dumbledore asked him to go back to spy. He didn't want to but he did. The reason why Snape reacted that way to being called a coward by Harry was because at that moment Snape was being very brave and risking his life, so that he would ultimately save Harry's in the end. Now it does make sense for him to call Karkroff a coward as he was indeed one. He was the one who tried to run away and he sold out his other death easters as well. Voldemort knew this. When he said he believed he had left him forever, it sounded like he was in regret about that one. Why or Why would Voldemort want a traitor back in his fold. > > Toonmili: > > Chapter 2, Snape says: > > > "The Dark Lord's initial displeasure at my lateness vanished > entirely, I assure you, when I explained that I remained faithful, > although Dumbledore thought I was his man. Yes, the Dark Lord > thought that I had left him forever, but he was wrong." > > Goddlefrood: > > Confirmation of what I say above, IMO, Snape was the coward, but > Karkaroff was the deserter to be killed. Toonmili: How is that confirmation that Snape is a coward? Did you not read Snape telling the sisters that the Dark Lord thought he had left him forever? Sounds like he spoke to him and that what Voldemort said...he's repeating his words. >> Goddlefrood: > > If that's proof then I'll retire tomorrow ;) Toonmili: I guess you're out of a Job then. Cause it is proof. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Apr 26 16:36:01 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:36:01 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167958 wynnleaf: > Hey, it may not happen. I could be *totally* off. But *if* JKR > decided to have Lupin betray the Order (even if in moments of > weakness rather than pure evil), and *if* Snape turns out to be > loyal, then these parallels, echoes, and juxtapositions will be > there. And they can make excellent literature. Ceridwen: You could also add Snape's references to Lupin as a werewolf for the scenario you suggest. Having the nasty-but-good guy repeatedly giving a clue about the nice-but-bad guy would fit in nicely. And since Snape is a double spy, he could have information about a traitor!Lupin that would not bear repeating outright, but, given a DDM!Snape, might bear repeating until it bores into the subconscious. Ceridwen. From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 16:58:43 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:58:43 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167959 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tbernhard2000" wrote: > > dan: > > > Magic presents circumstances equivalent to real world > circumstances in Rowling, so that Rowling can present, with some > degree of safety from reactionism, a leftist, probably anarchist > message. > > SSSusan: > > Could you explain this final point a little more? > > dan: > > Let me add something unfinished from my essay in response to you. > > If magic is practical in Rowling, magic folk are not - they are > subject to the same foibles as muggles-Arthur's plugs are as silly > in the magic world as in the muggle one - politicians are just as > corrupt, and motived by self-interest.The importance of maintaining > the appearance of peace, law and order is more important than any > tangible, albeit hidden threat. Newspapers mislead or outright lie. > Government interfers directly in the affairs of education, if they > deem it necessary. Abuse occurs where self-satisfied administrators > are blind to it. In fact, these foibles reaffirm on every page that > Rowling is talking about THIS world, the one we live in, and not a > separate artificial magical one. We are not muggles-muggledom is a > state of ignorance we have left by picking up the books - our world > is best described by Rowling's magical one - we are magic - we have > tools that can be and are used for good or evil-the chrome of magic > is what allows Rowling to create situations where ethical dramas > can be played out. The special circumstance is that the raw > emotional honesty of youth can be brought to light because the > youth in the magical world have powerful tools for making > themselves heard, and their idealism, their learning, is essential > in learning to use the machinery of magic. Yes, machinery - and I'm > not the first to identify Rowling's magic as a machinery. > > Can you, however, imagine having items in our real world schools > that kill with a couple words spoken properly? In Rowling, kids > have power, kids are the saviours of the world, the real ethical > leaders, with assistance from sympathetic elders, like Dumbledore. > It reminds me a little of the anarchist youth pre 9/11 in Seattle > and Goteburg and so forth. But these kids are wiser and have more > tools. Yet they are struggling with the same stupid leadership in > political terms. > > We cannot talk about it the same way, without the chrome of magic. > Rowling's genius is that she can. > > dan > Interesting thoughts. I don't think it is unusual for literary works to take the view that children know best and adults are idiots. This has been discussed in this list before. This doesn't translate to anarchism for me, however. I agree when you say that Rowling's view of magic is Calvinistic, that is, predetermined. In fact, she posits a sort of "natural" authoritarian hierarchy, growing out of inborn magical power. Then there are those pesky matters of destiny and magical constraint. Anarchy for me involves not only self-determination, but the conscious choice of alternate arrangements to answer the questions posed by arbitrary and forceful authority. The D.A., a voluntary organization closed to some, was alternate only in its illegality and willingness to act against expectation, but it was still set up with one unquestioned leader and power was not distributed throughout the organization, nor was dissent tolerated. Perhaps Harry will grow to reject his/our world's lines of authority, but I realistically do not see that happening. I do not see his group opposing the Ministry directly. Unless utter catastrophe happens, the Wizarding World will continue as it has, with a haplessly coercive government and perhaps a few more conscious adjustments towards equity for non-Wizarding magical creatures. I honestly see Rowling's message as being more reactionary than anarchist in its setting up of extra-state militias seemingly answerable to no-one but a strong leader like Dumbledore or Harry. I cannot feel confident that Rowling would champion the loose federations formed by leftist anarchists who protested the WTO in Seattle. And, unfortunately, I can imagine kids with tools that destroy in an instant, like guns and even words on the Internet, who do not use such tools wisely. There are all kinds of kids and situations. Even Rowling's kids make disastrous mistakes, whatever their intention. lealess From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 17:10:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:10:35 -0000 Subject: The Coward and Deserter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167960 Toonmili wrote: > > > > > Besides when Voldemort returned he said: "one has left me forever and he will be killed..." Everyone agrees he was talking about Snape. :-? > Goddlefrood responded: > > > Do they, now? Carol responds: Well, not everyone, obviously. But many people (including me) believe with good reason that Karkaroff, who has fled in fear of retaliation by his fellow DEs, is the coward and that Snape, who has saved Harry's life and thwarted Quirrell, is the one Voldemort believes has left him forever. JKR herself refused to answer the question directly, but she said that many fan sites had it right: "HarriFreak: Who is the 'one that never will return' deatheater? "JK Rowling replies: You have to work it out, but a lot of fansites have got it right." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm As there are hundreds if not thousands of Snape sites and few if any Igor Karkaroff fansites, and no Snape site that I'm aware of considers Snape to be a coward, it seems likely that the one Voldemort believes to have left him forever is Snape. But that's before Snape's return on DD's orders at the end of GoF. Clearly, Voldemort holds a different view in HBP. The mere fact that Snape is still alive in books 5 and 6 suggests that Snape convinced Voldemort otherwise on his return. The only evidence I can think of to support your view is that Karkaroff is killed (as you mention in a snipped portion of your post) and Snape isn't. However, we don't know that Karkaroff was killed by LV himself. More likely, he was killed by angry Death Eaters avenging the colleagues that Karkaroff betrayed. As for Snape, Voldemort says, "One, who *I believe* has left me forever...he will be killed, of course." But once LV ceases to believe that Snape has left him forever (or realizes that Snape is more useful alive than dead), he decides not to kill him. (It's possible, of course, that he will do so in DH, but I hope not.) Goddlefrood: > In Spinner's End in HBP Snape tells Bella that he returned later than the graveyard scene. LV was making assumptions in his loyalty, IMO, LV believed Snape was a coward, and possibly repeated that to Severus during their little tete-a-tete when Snape proferred his explanation for not answering the Dark Mark call. Carol: Where is your evidence for the assumption that LV was a coward? All we have is Snape's own words, "the Dark Lord thought that I had left him forever" (supplied by Toonmili upthread), which are virtually identical to Voldemort's words in the graveyard (also supplied by Toonmili): > Goddlefrood: > It would also be interesting if this were true and explain somewhat Snape's reaction to being called a coward by Harry during the Flight of the Prince, n'est ce pas? Carol responds: Snape's reaction to being called a coward has nothing to do with what Voldemort thinks of him. Voldie has Snape'e actions in SS/PS as evidence of his disloyalty, not of cowardice, and Snape has to find explanations for those actions that Voldie will accept. > Goddlefrood: > The duplicitous one is far more likely to be the coward referred > by LV than is Karkaroff IMNSVHO ;) Carol: I can't think of a single scene in books one through four (the only ones that can be considered in determining LV's view of Snape as of the graveyard scene) that would make LV think that Snape was a coward. Karkaroff, OTOH, testified against his fellow DEs to secure his own release from Azkaban and has good reason to fear retaliation. Crouch!Moody is at Hogwarts watching them both and may well be reporting on their behavior to LV, but even if he isn't, LV has heard for himself Snape talking to Quirrell in a threatening tone about where his loyalties lie and he knows that Snape cast the countercurse to save Harry from Quirrell's broom jinx. We readers know that Karkaroff is a coward and Snape isn't: "Flee, then! Flee!" Snape says to Karkaroff. "I will remain at Hogwarts." (Quoted from memory from GoF) Is Voldemort so bad a judge of character that he would not know which man opposed him on principle and which had fled in fear? It's only his own view of himself as the world's greatest Legilimens, along with Snape's superb Occlumency, that enables Snape to lie to him later without detection. But he's not lying about cowardice. He's lying about his reasons for saving Harry, thwarting Quirrell, and not showing up in the graveyard, some of which he has prepared in advance: "If you are ready, if you are prepared." I am." His cover stories provide plausible explanations for his disloyalty, not for cowardice of any kind. Goddlefrood: > > Ah, but Igor WAS in Azkaban and made the equivalent of a bargain > with the MoM to give evidence against other DEs in exhchange for > either a reduction in his sentence or an immediate release. > Karkaroff is the coward. Carol: Exactly. Karkaroff is the coward. It seems that you're arguing against yourself here. > Goddlefrood: > > Confirmation of what I say above, IMO, Snape was the coward, but Karkaroff was the deserter to be killed. Carol responds: Actually, you say above that Karkaroff was the coward. And, in fact, all of his behavior throughout the books shows him to be a coward. He keeps showing Snape his Dark Mark, fearful of what will happen when LV returns. And when the Dark Mark burns at the end of the Third Task, he flees in terror. Snape, true to his word, remains with Dumbledore and helps to "out" the DE in disguise, Barty Crouch, Jr. He reveals his Dark Mark to Fudge and then faces Voldemort on DD's instructions, hardly the actions of a coward. (True, Voldie doesn't know this is happening, but surely he has some idea of the general character traits of these two men and knows which one is more likely to flee in terror and which would stay away for other reasons.) Toonmili: > > > So there you have it, proof that Snape is the one he believes to have left him forever and not Karkaroff. > > Goddlefrood: > > If that's proof then I'll retire tomorrow ;) Carol: Snape's words in "Spinner's End" aren't proof, of course, but they're pretty solid *evidence.* My reaction on reading that portion of the chapter was that JKR had purposely placed the words "the Dark Lord thought that I had left him forever" in Snape's mouth to parallel LV's words in GoF, "one who I believe has left me forever." The similarity can't be accidental, and yet Snape wasn't present at the graveyard scene and Harry didn't repeat those specific words when he told his story to DD in front of Snape. Snape has to have heard the words from Voldemort himself. Carol, who thinks that Voldie was right in the first place when he labeled Karkaroff a coward and Snape as the one who had left him forever and that he'll live to regret not killing Snape From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 26 17:18:11 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:18:11 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167961 > In: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167933 > > > wynnleaf > > You left out the parts of his betraying Dumbledore's trust > on several long-term occasions, both as a student and an > employee. > > Goddlefrood: > > Ok, the teacher part, possibly, but as a student? You must mean > that he did not immediately tell Dumbledore about his three > only friends being Animagi by their fifth year. Pippin: I can't speak for Wynnleaf, but Lupin speaks for himself: "Soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the school grounds and the village by night." "And there were near misses, many of them." "I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust, of course...he had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other Headmaster would have done so, and he had no idea that I was breaking the rules he had set down for my own and others' safety." -PoA ch 18 In the following sentence Lupin goes on to speak about leading his friends to become Animagi, whatever that means. But here he is talking about rules that Dumbledore had made specifically so that it would be safe for a werewolf to attend Hogwarts. Lupin doesn't enumerate them, but surely he was bidden to remain in the Shrieking Shack during his transformations and not try to escape it. Lupin would not have had to rat out his friends-- he only had to tell them that he didn't want them to let him out of the Shrieking Shack any more. But, as he says he always managed to forget his guilty feelings when it came time to plan the next adventure. It's that going into the village that stops me thinking Dumbledore might've known all about it. I can't see where it would be in Puppetmaster!Dumbledore's interest to allow that. We also have canon that adult Lupin did not tell Dumbledore about the Marauders Map, a tool that could have been used to spot Sirius invading the grounds. > Goddlefrood: > > Well, thanks for the reiteration there ;). It would be quite > probable, despite the lack of canon support, that Peter was the > one stirring up suspicions between Sirius and James and Lupin. > Lupin was the only Marauder not to be involved in any way with > the Secret Keeper switch, and Sirius is very quick to proffer > apologies for his own suspicions. > > Who would be left to muddy the waters, only Peter, as far as I'm > concerned, although an alternate viewpoint would be interesting > to see expounded on :) Pippin: I'm assuming Lupin, in a year of spying, couldn't help but cast suspicion on himself. There is some canon that he had become estranged from the others. He did not attend Harry's christening, there don't seem to be pictures of him with Harry's parents, he is not sitting near the other Marauders in Moody's photograph and most of all, Sirius did not confront him with his suspicions and give him a chance to explain himself. I suspect Lupin, or those working with him, cast some suspicion on Sirius before GH, but if Peter took the secret keeper job in all innocence as I believe, then he would naturally think that Sirius had set him up. I'd like to think his sobbing, "Lily and James, Sirius! How could you?" was sincere. Fudge says that Sirius was tired of his double agent role and preparing to announce his support for Lord Voldemort openly. He doesn't say what this conclusion is based on. It could be that there was some communication, ostensibly from Sirius, sent to the Daily Prophet and timed to coincide with the Godric's Hollow attack. That is speculative, but seems to have more canon support than the idea that Peter was sowing suspicion against Sirius before GH. If he was, would Sirius and James have wanted him to be the Secret Keeper? Goodlefrood: > > Of course the other difficulty I have with Lupin as evil, or > inadvertently bad at least, is that I see little value in it for > the progress of the series. There will be quite enough problems > for Harry to face without one more he was not expecting. This is > why Remus is vastly different from Snape. If Snape turns out to > be helping Harry, as I think he may (but have said more than > enough on this in a prior thread for several lifetimes ;)), then > that would be a bonus. If any other character turns out to be a > hindrance, apart from Severus, who may also prove one, we would > have to have an extremely good explanation as to why. Pippin: As Sydney and others have pointed out, if Snape is evil then his story has peaked too soon, and if he's good, the story has villain trouble. Voldemort's psychopathic inability to love makes him more monster than villain. It's Voldemort's followers, says Fudge, that make him really dangerous. JKR said, speaking of Snape, that he was more culpable because he had known love. That can apply to any of Voldemort's followers who aren't psychopaths. In a way, they, not Voldemort, are the villains of the story. But Harry still thinks that only cruel and malicious people would follow Voldie, and IMO he needs to be shaken out of that. Lupin is not cruel and malicious himself, but we have seen him be party to the cruelty and malice of others, in the pensieve scene and in arranging for Snape to be publicly humiliated in PoA. And that was under the protections of Hogwarts and the remote but nonetheless potent supervision of Dumbledore. What he's like away from those constraints, who can say? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 17:24:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:24:03 -0000 Subject: The Coward and Deserter (correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167962 Carol earlier: > Where is your evidence for the assumption that LV was a coward? All we > have is Snape's own words, "the Dark Lord thought that I had left him > forever" (supplied by Toonmili upthread), which are virtually > identical to Voldemort's words in the graveyard (also supplied by > Toonmili): Carol again: Aargh! Obviously, I meant "Where is your evidence for the assumption that LV *thought that Snape* was a coward? All we have is Snape's own words, "the Dark Lord thought that I had left him forever" (supplied by Toonmili upthread), which are virtually identical to Voldemort's words in the graveyard (also supplied by Toonmili): "one who I believe has left me forever." Carol, sorry to waste a post but not wanting to put words in Goddlefrood's mouth! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Apr 26 17:29:14 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:29:14 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167963 dan: > > If magic is practical in Rowling, magic folk are not - they are > > subject to the same foibles as muggles-Arthur's plugs are as > > silly in the magic world as in the muggle one - politicians are > > just as corrupt, and motived by self-interest. The importance of > > maintaining the appearance of peace, law and order is more > > important than any tangible, albeit hidden threat. Newspapers > > mislead or outright lie. Government interfers directly in the > > affairs of education, if they deem it necessary. Abuse occurs > > where self-satisfied administrators are blind to it. In fact, > > these foibles reaffirm on every page that Rowling is talking > > about THIS world, the one we live in, and not a separate > > artificial magical one. We are not muggles-muggledom is a > > state of ignorance we have left by picking up the books - our > > world is best described by Rowling's magical one - we are magic - > > we have tools that can be and are used for good or evil-the > > chrome of magic is what allows Rowling to create situations where > > ethical dramas can be played out. The special circumstance is > > that the raw emotional honesty of youth can be brought to light > > because the youth in the magical world have powerful tools for > > making themselves heard, and their idealism, their learning, is > > essential in learning to use the machinery of magic. > > > > Can you, however, imagine having items in our real world schools > > that kill with a couple words spoken properly? In Rowling, kids > > have power, kids are the saviours of the world, the real ethical > > leaders, with assistance from sympathetic elders, like > > Dumbledore. Lealess: > I don't think it is unusual for literary works to take the view > that children know best and adults are idiots. This doesn't > translate to anarchism for me, however. Anarchy for me > involves not only self-determination, but the conscious choice of > alternate arrangements to answer the questions posed by arbitrary > and forceful authority. The D.A., a voluntary organization closed > to some, was alternate only in its illegality and willingness to > act against expectation, but it was still set up with one > unquestioned leader and power was not distributed throughout the > organization, nor was dissent tolerated. SSSusan: [Man, that was hard to snip & still keep the major points. Sorry, folks, that I couldn't seem to cut more.] Dan, I want to thank you for taking the time to further explain that final remark from your initial post about the circumstances in the HPs and their relationship to a message of anarchy. Your new comments really did help me to see where you were going. I can agree with you that JKR really *is* talking about our world and that we, by picking up the books, have left 'mugglehood' and ignorance of that lack of separation behind. I also can see that in doing so, JKR is able to show us this in a way which would be less 'accepted' if she were to have presented it all without magic, without the appearance of a separate world. OTOH, I think Lealess has a point in that this doesn't quite feel like *anarchy.* It's JKR's social commentary, that's for sure, and she clearly wants to make points about the failings of authority, leadership, media in our world. But is she showing *anarchy* as the method by which youth are confronting this? I'd again welcome further thoughts from you or others on that point. Siriusly Snapey Susan From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Thu Apr 26 17:42:06 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:42:06 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Pot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167964 lealess wrote: > I honestly see Rowling's message as being more reactionary than > anarchist in its setting up of extra-state militias seemingly > answerable to no-one but a strong leader like Dumbledore or Harry. dan: It was set up as an educational organization dedicated to knowledge the ministry didn't want the kids to have access to, didn't want them to be exposed to - it acted in an anarchist manner when it become obvious that the state was, in its ignorance and promulgation of ignorance, endangering the safety of all. Ignorance, Rowling posits, is above all else the most disenfranchising thing - knowledge and truth - nothing good will come of pretense. Your label of militia is wrong, I think, but this relates to your later point about guns. Wands are required in the witchwizard school - weapons are banned in real world schools. That is a big difference, and Rowling understands this difference. Magic, with the wand as its representation, is an extention of the person and their intention - it is the perfect idealist tool, in a sense, and makes words into deeds. This object allows Rowling to talk about ethical decisions made in that world, with the wand as agent, without sending up commie gun control flags, for example. But that IS a ruse. lealess: > ...unfortunately, I can imagine kids with tools that destroy in an > instant, like guns and even words on the Internet, who do not use > such tools wisely.... Even Rowling's kids make disastrous mistakes, > whatever their intention. But I made no claim that anyone in the witchwizard world, or our world, doesn't make mistakes. What Rowling does is put into kids hands powerful tools, that are weapons, communication device, bandages and so forth all at once. In her world, then, they become a tool for Rowling to amplify her thesis about choices. The point is, in the real world, kids don't have such an object - they can choose to bring tools, for good or ill, to school, but we sure as heck don't require it. In Rowling's witchwizard world, it IS required to have such a tool. Rowling's world, again I say, creates the possibility that the raw emotional honesty of youth can be given clear expression, and will be influential there, for the evil or good of the world. That's what the DA did at the ministry, in spite of the repression of the state - they sent out a warning that the sympathetic adults, like Dumbledore and Arthur and such, were incapable of sending, for whatever reason, be it fear of the consequences, their job positions, or what have you. Rowling clearly hates complacency. dan dan From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Apr 26 17:50:38 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:50:38 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Peter the Rat Message-ID: <27756046.1177609838239.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167965 (and yes, I admit, this is yet another time I'm using a nickname because I can't be bothered to look up how to spell Pettigrew or however it's spelled). The question has come up of Peter as coward vs. the Sorting Hat's choice to place him with the lions. I don't know if JKR will ever answer that one, and, in another group, I might consider writing a fanfic about it, but here, I'm just going to give a hypothesis, working backwards from what we know and going into conjecture of how it COULD have happened (which may or may not be how it did). One of the themes of the HP novels is determinism vs. free choice, with the apparent moral of, "If you don't exercise your ability to choose, someone else will do the choosing for you." The Sorting Hat wanted to put Harry with the snakeys, but he chose the lions, and the Hat honored his choice. But at age 11 (or was it 10? I'm beginning to feel like Alec Baldwin), many children have not yet fully formed their personalities. Just as the child who tortures little animals can, if given the right kind of attention, can develop empathy, a child, given the wrong kind of attention, can lose positive characteristics. Peter Pettigrew might have started out as well-suited for Gryffindor. For all we know, when James, Sirius, Peter and Remus first became friends, they considered each other to be equals. But, Peter fell behind, and the other three were not noted for their own empathy. Yes, they were good, and they were brave, but there is virtually no evidence in the canon that, with the exception of the adult Lupin, they were NICE (in the sense of acting in empathy for the feelings of others). So, rather than having patience with Peter, or accepting his shortcomings, they took the attitude, "We'll help you out, but you're damned lucky to have us as friends." After a time, Peter believed it; although he was quite competent as a wizard (becoming an animagus is, supposedly, not an easy feat, especially for inexperienced wizards), he was made to feel inferior by his fellows (look at how, by contrast, the support of Neville by his peers, Minnie the Cat, Sprout, Flitty, etc. manages to counterbalance to a great degree the continual putdowns by Snape and his own family). Therefore, Peter had it drummed into him continually that he was nothing, and would get nowhere if it weren't for his talented and powerful friends. If my reading is accurate, is it any wonder that he formed one hell of an inferiority complex? That, by the time he became an animagus, he ended up as a rat? That this one-time Gryffindor is now a snivelling coward? Bart From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 18:33:51 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:33:51 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Pot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tbernhard2000" > > lealess wrote: > I honestly see Rowling's message as being more reactionary than > anarchist in its setting up of extra-state militias seemingly > answerable to no-one but a strong leader like Dumbledore or Harry. > >dan: > >It was set up as an educational organization dedicated to knowledge >the ministry didn't want the kids to have access to, didn't want them >to be exposed to - it acted in an anarchist manner when it become >obvious that the state was, in its ignorance and promulgation of >Ignorance, endangering the safety of all. I agree with you about the first part, but not the second. Where did the group specifically express an anarchist intent? They took direct action, it is true, but anyone can do that, for any reason. Was their *intent* to specifically oppose state authority, or were they there just to learn DADA methods? Did they seek to empower everyone, or only those who were not Slytherins? >Ignorance, Rowling posits, >is above all else the most disenfranchising thing - knowledge and >truth - nothing good will come of pretense ... Magic, with the wand >as its representation, is an extention of the person and >their intention - it is the perfect >idealist tool, in a sense, and makes words into deeds. This object >allows Rowling to talk about ethical decisions made in that world, >with the wand as agent, without sending up commie gun control flags, >for example. But that IS a ruse. I agree with you about ignorance being disenfranchising. But truth and nothing good coming out of pretense? These are books full of pretense and lies. There are all the Polyjuiced individuals, and the spies, for one. Then there are the lies told by Dumbledore and Harry and Hermione and whoever needs to lie situationally. What is the value of truth, then? It is something than can be bent by anyone towards whatever ends seem important. I agree that truth is an issue in the books, but some truths are more equal than others (rephrasing Orwell). The wand is a tool, but so is the word. The word is at least equally powerful in Rowling's world. If wandless magic exists, the word may be more powerful. The word is quite powerful in our world, and is the perfect idealist tool. It is also available to anyone, as is direct action. Deeds can be based on whatever political theory or ethical system you choose. So, what other factors cause you to think Rowling advocates anarchy? How do you define anarchy? I provided some of my definitions. I would be interested to know what yours are. >Rowling's world, again I say, creates the possibility that the raw >emotional honesty of youth can be given clear expression, and will be >influential there, for the evil or good of the world. That's what the >DA did at the ministry, in spite of the repression of the state-they >sent out a warning that the sympathetic adults, like Dumbledore and >Arthur and such, were incapable of sending, for whatever reason, be >it fear of the consequences, their job positions, or what have you. The message they sent was that they would follow Harry into battle and risk their lives following him. Is that anarchy in action? If they sent a warning about the repression of the state, which I doubt, who heard it? In any event, the next year, our heroes were mostly all engaged in teenaged dramas, not smashing the state or setting up an alternative to it. And what about the Order? They went to the Ministry, too, on their own volition, supposedly. Dumbledore and Arthur are capable of acting out of emotional honesty or whatever. They are capable of choosing to oppose the official line, and they do. lealess From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 18:52:58 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:52:58 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167967 Pippin: > Lupin is not cruel and malicious himself, but we have seen him > be party to the cruelty and malice of others, in the pensieve scene and > in arranging for Snape to be publicly humiliated in PoA. And that > was under the protections of Hogwarts and the remote but nonetheless > potent supervision of Dumbledore. What he's like away from those > constraints, who can say? Alla: I am sorry, but **I** saw nothing of Lupin's arranging for Snape to be publicly humiliated in PoA. I saw Lupin trying his best to restore Neville's self confidence after **Snape** publicly humiliated him. So, I am afraid this just does not look to me as example of Lupin's cruelty, at all. But that is of course just my opinion. Alla, for whom the strongest point in favor of Lupin never being evil or Voldemort servant always will be JKR's remark that she would want Lupin to teach her daughter. From utenasan at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 19:27:14 2007 From: utenasan at yahoo.com (utenasan) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:27:14 -0000 Subject: Peter the Rat In-Reply-To: <27756046.1177609838239.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > (and yes, I admit, this is yet another time I'm using a nickname because I can't be bothered to look up how to spell Pettigrew or however it's spelled). > > The question has come up of Peter as coward vs. the Sorting Hat's > choice to place him with the lions. Peter may not be as cowardly as we might first assume. Sure, his animagus form is a rat and he's one of Voldemort's lackeys. Also, as a teen, he appears to have been a tag along with a bad case of hero worship for one of his friends. However, lets look at some of the things that he's done. He cut off his own hand. 'Nuff said. I couldn't do that and I know I'm not alone on that one. He went to find Voldemort. Voldemort himself said that many of his followers, out of fear, had refused to do so. You could argue that Peter had little choice, at the end of POA, but to go back to Voldemort, however I beg to differ. He could simply have run off to hide again. He could have continued to us his animagus form or disguised himself in a different way. He went back to Voldemort, admitedly for protection and power, however he took a huge risk as well. Voldemort wasn't happy with the way his followers had dropped him like a bad habit and we know what Voldemort is capable of doing when he's not happy with someone. Now I can't count the above as acts of "courage", however they do show him as possessing some "strength". It's really too bad that he uses what little strength he has to do bad. Another point for Peter's good side is that he didn't go rushing back to his old life as a DE when he found out that Voldemort was still alive. This occured in PS/SS. Peter didn't go back until he needed Voldemort again. We can imagine his master not liking that. Also, at the beginning of GOF, he dares to argue with Voldemort and try to convince him to use "some other wizard" instead of Harry. We usually assume that this was due to his life debt to Harry, however what if it's also because he genuinely feels bad for what he did to James and Lily. I think the ability to feel remorse counts as a positive character trait. One last bit, also dealing with Harry. Peter left Harry alone. Of course, he had no reason to hurt Harry while Voldemort was still "dead" or at least too weak to be of any help to him. Still, it shows that Peter at least needs a certain amount of motivation to do bad. More motivation that say Lucius Malfoy who gave Ginny Riddle's diary out of sheer spite for the Weasleys and muggleborns. Remember, Lucius didn't know in COS that Voldemort was still alive. Yolanda From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Apr 26 20:37:56 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:37:56 -0000 Subject: Peter the Rat In-Reply-To: <27756046.1177609838239.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167969 Bart: > One of the themes of the HP novels is determinism vs. free choice, with the apparent moral of, "If you don't exercise your ability to choose, someone else will do the choosing for you." The Sorting Hat wanted to put Harry with the snakeys, but he chose the lions, and the Hat honored his choice. Magpie: Just have to point out, that Hat did *not* want to put Harry in Slytherin. The Hat never said that. It simply responded to Harry's "Not Slytherin!" by saying that he would do well there. I wouldn't be surprised if it would have said the same thing if Harry had sat down and said, "Not Hufflepuff!" Harry could have done well in Slytherin--that doesn't make him a Slytherin who forced himself into Gryffindor and is making himself into one. Harry does have Slytherin moments, but he's never seemed a poor fit for Gryffindor to me (especially not back in first year)! That said, along with the fact that Peter could certainly have picked up bad habits in Gryffindor as well as out of it (Sirius' accusation about Peter looking for the biggest bully is ironic once you know James really was the biggest bully on the playground), it's always made sense to me that characters who seem to struggle most with their house trait are nevertheless in that house, because I assume it's more about something central to what they value. Neville is timid, but that just makes him more brave when he's brave, and it also shows that he's got issues concerning courage that form the basis for his personality more so than a kid who's maybe easily frightened but thinks he's being smart about that. I've also always thought of Lockhart as a Gryffindor for much the same reason. He aspires to be courageous even if he lies to fit the image. -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Apr 26 22:13:06 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:13:06 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167970 > > > > > wynnleaf > > > You left out the parts of his betraying Dumbledore's trust > > on several long-term occasions, both as a student and an > > employee. > > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Ok, the teacher part, possibly, but as a student? You must mean > > that he did not immediately tell Dumbledore about his three > > only friends being Animagi by their fifth year. > > Pippin: > Lupin would not have had to rat out his friends-- he > only had to tell them that he didn't want them to let him > out of the Shrieking Shack any more. But, as he says > he always managed to forget his guilty feelings when it > came time to plan the next adventure. wynnleaf Exactly! Lupin not tattling on his friends pales to insignificance when compared to his willingness to -- for years -- make a mockery of Dumbledore's giving him a chance to be a student at Hogwarts and yet keep Hogwarts and the surrounding population safe from a werewolf. I'm always amazed that readers overlook so much about Lupin when we are given two very clear examples of Lupin's willingness to put his own personal benefit -- for the more trivial desire to keep his friend's goodwill -- above the lives of children and townspeople. If this was a one-time occurance it would be one thing, but in both cases -- Lupin's jeopardizing the safety of the community in order to keep the goodwill of his Marauder friends, as well as his jeopardizing the lives of his students in order to keep Dumbledore's goodwill -- Lupin consciously makes these decisions over and over again. He repeatedly and knowingly jeopardized the lives of the community for literally *years.* And he repeatedly withheld information and jeopardized the safety of his students for an entire school year. This isn't just a "mistake." This, imo, is indicative of huge character flaws. > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Well, thanks for the reiteration there ;). It would be quite > > probable, despite the lack of canon support, that Peter was the > > one stirring up suspicions between Sirius and James and Lupin. > > Lupin was the only Marauder not to be involved in any way with > > the Secret Keeper switch, and Sirius is very quick to proffer > > apologies for his own suspicions. wynnleaf Considering that Sirius had spent many years reviewing the fact that he alone knew that Pettigrew was the traitor, and therefore had lots and lots of time to pick apart every possible treacherous thing Pettigrew did, I feel sure he would have thrown that accusation down at Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack. Sirius *does* mention that he and James suspected Lupin. But even though he was cataloging Peter's crimes, he never said anything that even hints that he considered one of Peter's crimes to be spreading discord or suspicions among the friends. That, imo, is fairly decent evidence that Peter did not spread any such suspicions. Goodlefrood: > > Who would be left to muddy the waters, only Peter, as far as I'm > > concerned, although an alternate viewpoint would be interesting > > to see expounded on :) wynnleaf Who would be left? How about Lupin? The idea that Peter *did* spread such suspicions rests in circular reasoning: Lupin did nothing that appeared suspicious, therefore if Sirius and James suspected him someone else must have planted suspicions, and because someone else must have planted the suspicions, Lupin did nothing suspicious. > >> Goodlefrood: > > > > Of course the other difficulty I have with Lupin as evil, or > > inadvertently bad at least, is that I see little value in it for > > the progress of the series. There will be quite enough problems > > for Harry to face without one more he was not expecting. wynnleaf Unfortunately (for book 7) this also assumes that the reader will be presented with no more problems than we are already aware of. Fortunately, I expect JKR to surprise her readers as per usual. Goodlefrood: This is > > why Remus is vastly different from Snape. If Snape turns out to > > be helping Harry, as I think he may (but have said more than > > enough on this in a prior thread for several lifetimes ;)), then > > that would be a bonus. If any other character turns out to be a > > hindrance, apart from Severus, who may also prove one, we would > > have to have an extremely good explanation as to why. wynnleaf As I've pointed out, JKR always does have a surprise traitor, or at least betrayer. And in order to make it a surprise, yet also make sense, JKR generally sprinkles enough ahead of time that it all makes sense once she reveals who the surprise betrayer actually is. If she decided to make Lupin that betrayer, she's already given him motive, opportunity, the weakness of character, and the past history of breaking Dumbledore's trust and being excellent at deception for it to be believable. As regards the parallels and juxtapositions that work so well between a loyal Snape and a betraying Lupin, you would not get nearly so excellent a set of literary parallels and juxtapositions with Peter. The primary reason is that the parallels and juxtapositions are most important is how they affect *Harry* - the protagonist. Making someone Harry trusts and considers a friend betray him can be used to develop Harry as a character, especially when that is balanced with learning that someone he dislikes and considers an enemy is actually loyal. But in addition, there has to be a surprise element both for Harry and the reader. We've known Peter was a traitor for several books. And whichever way Snape ends up it's no longer a surprise. We all want the definite answer about Snape, but it's no surprise that his loyalties are in question. For JKR to pull a surprise (and please remember, JKR definitely wants to surprise her readers in Book 7), her betrayor (or traitor) has to be someone Harry doesn't suspect, nor do most readers suspect. I'm sure it gets harder and harder to surprise her most die-hard fans, who dream up what they hope is every possible theory. But she *did* surprise people with Snape as the HBP, because she had managed to have almost all of her readers convinced that he was a pure- blood. Peter as traitor is old, old news. Snape as a character whose loyalties are in question is old news. And Harry must be surprised as well. The protagonist has to grow and Harry's not going to grow being told once again that Peter is a traitor. That, after all, is the whole point -- developing the protagonist. Yes, learning that Snape is loyal will help change the protagonist. That's a growing experience. But JKR has always had someone betray Harry or the Order, and it's got to surprise him and overturn some beliefs for it to help him grow as a character. wynnleaf, who uses the expression "betrayer" instead of "traitor" because it can encompass choices that are simply weak, rather than out-and-out evil treacherous intent. From robert_talamini at hotmail.com Thu Apr 26 18:33:07 2007 From: robert_talamini at hotmail.com (bob) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:33:07 -0000 Subject: Peter the Rat In-Reply-To: <27756046.1177609838239.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167971 Bart: > If my reading is accurate, is it any wonder that he formed one hell > of an inferiority complex? That, by the time he became an animagus, > he ended up as a rat? That this one-time Gryffindor is now a > snivelling coward? bob: If you remember in POA, when they are all in the Shrieking Shack, he was told he always surrounded himself with powerful wizards. Even though he's a sniveling coward, he's always wanted to be around wizards who could protect him. In HBP he's protected by Snape from the OOTP, and perhaps even from Voldemort by doing menial tasks for Snape. bob From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Thu Apr 26 22:50:08 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:50:08 -0000 Subject: What is Harry's Secret Weapon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lydia French" wrote: firefly: > We know this means the power of Love but what does THAT mean? > Not just the protection his mother's loving sacrifice provided but the > power to FEEL love is definitely one explaination. It was his feelings > of Love for Sirius that forced LV out of Harry in OOP. However, as we > saw in GoF, in a one-on-one duel, Love is not a weapon Harry can wield > on his own. So, the question is, in what way is Love, this "power the > Dark Lord knows not" going to end up helping Harry in his battle with > Lord Voldemort? Geoff: I don't think that you can support your hypothesis on Harry's use of love as a weapon on just one piece of evidence because Harry does not know about this "weapon" at this point in time. The duel in GOF occurs before Sirius' death, before Dumbledore talks about the locked room and before Harry learns about the prophecy. On this occasion, Harry was fighting for his life in GOF and he was not expecting to win... 'Harry crouched behind the headstone and knew the end had come. There was no hope... no help to be had. And as he heard Voldemort draw nearer still, he knew one thing only and it was beyond fear or reason - he was not going to die crouching here like a child playing hide-and-seek; he was not going to die kneeling at Voldemort's feet... he was going to die upright like his father and he was going to die trying to defend himself even if no defence was possible...' (GOF "Priori Incantatem" p.575 UK edition) This will not be the scenario in the final confrontation. He now knows the prophecy and he knows that he has avoided death at Voldemort's hands several times; but this time the power of love is going to play a part in /his/ actions - not his mother's. I"ll tell you how he does it on the 22nd July..... :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 26 23:07:36 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:07:36 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Pot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167973 --- "lealess" wrote: > Lealess : > > Perhaps Harry will grow to reject his/our world's > lines of authority, but I realistically do not see > that happening. I do not see his group opposing the > Ministry directly. ... > > ... I honestly see Rowling's message as being more > reactionary than anarchist in its setting up of > extra-state militias seemingly answerable to no-one but > a strong leader like Dumbledore or Harry. ... bboyminn: Here is the thing, I don't support our current government. I think they are the biggest bunch of dunderhead to ever disgrace the office they hold. But that dislike is not directly literally at the government, only the men currently in charge. And I suspect nearly anyone in any reasonably democratic country feels the same about the men holding office in their country. But, I, while I don't support the men, I do support the government in concept. I stand behind, and will defend with my life, the founding concepts and founding documents of my country. In Harry, I see the idealism of youth. His demand is that the men in government and the people controlling the Press are and do what they have sworn to do. He, like me, is holding them accountable to the founding concepts and duties of their office. He, like me, supports the wizarding government in concept, but is thoroughly disappointed with the practical execution of that government by those currently in charge. In that sense, I agree, Harry and friends are 'reactionary' not anarchists. They are reacting to the specifics of this administration, not rebelling against the concept of government in general. The anarchist aspect is also tied to the idealism of youth. They see that rules are not absolute. Because government can become corrupt, the rules made by those governments can become corrupt. Even on a smaller scale, they see that the morally right thing overrides the legally right thing to do. All law and rules address general and broad circumstances, but sometime the specifics overrule the general, and then the right thing to do is to disregard the rules. So, in the sense, that Harry and the gang do not see rules as absolute and immutable, that their is a higher moral cause than 'doing what your told', there is an element of anarchism in them. Though I certainly suspect all this is happening on an subconscious and instinctive level. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Apr 26 23:34:12 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:34:12 -0000 Subject: A Little Bit on 1692 and Hogwarts Location Speculation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > Odd, a battle that took place in Essex having an effect on the > wizarding world?. Both the Vikings and the anglo-saxons had a > strong wizarding folklore. Ann: I meant, I was wondering how the presence of wizards would have affected the battle - I'm sure there weren't any dragons or giants (or maybe Dementors?) at our Battle of Maldon. Dementors as soldiers? Nasty - especially if Muggles can't even see them! For non-UK members, Essex is famous for its traditions of witchcraft and dragons. The latest Essex monster I've been able to find was a cockatrice in Saffron Walden, though sadly it was nothing like a Potterverse Basilisk. There used to be a church shrine to the knight who defeated it, but that was vandalised during the Civil Wars. By that time, "superstition" was over. > More Goddlefrood: > > That Grindelwald was defeated in 1945 > and that JKR has acknowledged that this is not merely a > coincidence does not mean that every Muggle battle or war has an > influence on the wide wizarding world. Is your suggestion that > there was some friction that led to the establishment of Hogwarts? > If anyone is interested here are some pictures from a website > devoted to the battle referred above: Ann: The similarity between our world and the HP world is why I want to push Seclusion as early as possible, and the 1692 date for the International Statute of Secrecy doesn't, to my mind, tell us a great deal. But no, I don't think the foundation of Hogwarts had anything to do with persecution from outside. Thanks for the lovely pictures, by the way. > Goddlefrood: > I am familiar with (your?) theory that it > was at one time the HQ for everything in the Wizarding World, that > is the MoM, a Hospital and all other wizarding geopolitical > necessities. Ann: If you've met it before, then I've independently re-invented it. The Search function didn't tell me if anyone's brought it up here before. > Goddlefrood: > > Another mystical place, and it agrees with an assessment I made > in another forum of the location of Hogwarts, which was that it > would be on the Eastern side of Scotland (the Highlands are more > in the West and to the North), due to the use of the east coast > mainline to get there from Platform 9 3/4 of King's Cross, > without changing at Edinburgh (that's E-din-brr-a). Ann: On the other hand, given that they walk through a wall to get the Platfrom 9 3/4, I don't think a little thing like changing stations would stop the Hogwarts Express. Also, "Slough" is pronounced "Slou", not "Sluff". >Goddlefrood: > > Of course, Matthew Hopkirk would also disagree with the > assessment of wizards and especially witches being in hiding > before the Secrecy Statute (he was the Witchfinder General :)), > but found few and was himself later accused of being loopy, if > not a wizard himself ;) Ann: You mean Hopkins - ah, another Essex boy (probably)... but he presumably had little to do with the HP world's witch-hunts. PoA mentions these in the fourteenth century, three hundred years before they happened in our world. I don't have it to hand, but it's on the first page or so, from memory. Now, English witches weren't burnt (as I'm sure you know) so that may imply that these are Continentals, or maybe that the Church in England was less *insular*, but I think they'd get the message that it might not be safe to live openly. And we know that at some point they did. Remember Hopkins' elaborate trials? They'd hardly be needed if wands, books, Floo powder, and so on could be produced - they wouldn't need to test by cold water in that case. (The version of Hopkins' death I heard involved him being tested this way and drowning. Irony, huh?) Incidentally, there may not be a Statute of Secrecy in British Wizarding Law, if I'm barking up the right tree. If Seclusion was as gradual and cultural as I think, it's possible that it was so basic that the Ministry might not have thought to legislate against it - after all, there are no laws forbidding April Fools after noon, are there? > Goddlefrood: > > Perhaps the above may assist you in your theory, which, btw I > would be interested to see :) Ann: Just that Seclusion happened much earlier than the 1692. Sorry to get you excited over nothing. Ann From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 26 23:56:16 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:56:16 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167975 > Alla: > > I am sorry, but **I** saw nothing of Lupin's arranging for Snape to > be publicly humiliated in PoA. I saw Lupin trying his best to > restore Neville's self confidence after **Snape** publicly > humiliated him. Pippin: So you are saying the *only* way for Neville's confidence to be restored was for Snape to be humiliated? It would speak poorly of Neville, IMO, if the only way he could be built up was to see Snape run down. We can contrast the way that McGonagall dealt with Harry's experience with Trelawney. Harry was terrified by the prediction of his death, but McGonagall did not find it necessary to terrify Trelawney in order to restore Harry's confidence. She simply made it very clear that she did not put much stock in such predictions, that Trelawney had a habit of making them and that none had come true and that --well, it wasn't her policy to speak ill of her colleagues, implying that there might be something to say otherwise. Not all sweetness and light, of course, but nothing to put the whole school in an uproar either. Lupin might have dealt with Neville's loss of confidence in a similar way, and arranged for Neville to deal with his boggart privately, as he did for Harry (but not for Hermione, who flubs her exam thereby.) > > Alla, for whom the strongest point in favor of Lupin never being > evil or Voldemort servant always will be JKR's remark that she would > want Lupin to teach her daughter. > Pippin: Why not? Lupin in our world might never have faced the choices he has in the WW, where he's been deprived all his life of rights and freedoms which many of us take for granted. Is social pressure and an instinct for compliance enough to turn people who aren't notably cruel or malicious into collaborators with evil? I'm afraid so. And if you don't believe me, there's the Stanford Prison Experiment. http://www.prisonexp.org/ Pippin From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Apr 27 00:00:24 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:00:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione doing magic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470704261700r29ec9bd7uf5692c0ae31fb770@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167976 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com , "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok so is it just me or does she seem to get away with doing magic > outside of school? She fixed Harry's glasses on the train in the first > book and in the middle of Diagon Alley in the second book (I'm sure > there are more examples but as I am reading through the books again > and am only on book 3, I don't have anymore right now LOL) > > Did anyone else notice this or is it just me? And didn't she also > mention practicing magic once she got her letter and then books in the > first book? Hermione did not fixed Harry's glasses on the train, and it was Arthur Weasley who did it in Diagon Alley. You are confusing the books with the movies, I'm afraid :-). Hermione did mention practicing spells before going to school in SS/PS. I personally think that they don't punish Muggleborn children for this, because they (the children) don't know that it's forbidden, as they haven't been to Hogwarts yet. After all, they did accidental magic all their lives, not knowing what it was. =============================== Jeremiah: Well, in this thread there have been a lot of excellent recollection. However, what I recollect is this: First years are not notified that performing magic outside of school is forbidden. So, really, when she wnetions she has tried some outside of school in PS/SS i guess it is "technically" ok. Also, regardless of where she may or maynot have actually performed magic before she left for Hogwarts the first time... I woudl think she'd be so inept (as would any first year) that she would be hard pressed to do anything really horrible and detrimental to the WW. And, yes, Tandra. I'm sorry to say that you are confusing the movies and the books. It's ok. We all do from time to time. Not only that, but JKR has said there are some technical glitches here and there. Also, if I were in the Ministry and knew Hermione had done something "wrong" I'd tread very carefully in persuing her, assuming I knew the girl. She's very clever and knowledgable. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Apr 27 00:23:48 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:23:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius Charm again (Was: Apparition & Secrets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470704261723w4b6066efx6dc21c8381c4ef4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 167977 Carol earlier: > > I'm not sure about the rules of Apparition, but neither Narcissa in "Spinner's End" nor Dumbledore in "The Cave" Apparated to their > exact destination. > > > va32h here: > My thinking has always been that Lupin, Sirius, Hagrid, and anyone > else who might have visited the Potters knew where their house was, > and could visit it, but they were just magically prevented from > sharing that information with anyone else. Carol: I don't think they would know the Secret (the Potters' location) once it had been hidden inside the Secret Keeper, even if they knew it before. And if they did, they still wouldn't be able to see the Potters at their home in GH. I'm talking about someone who knew the Potters' hiding place *before* the Secret was concealed but was not told the Secret *by the Secret Keeper* *after the Charm had been cast.* I think that person, for example, Lupin or DD, would no longer no what he knew before because that knowledge is now concealed inside the Secret Keeper. Unlike Sirius Black, who knew the Secret but couldn't reveal it, they wouldn't know the Secret because Wormtail hadn't told them. Their knowledge before the Fidelius Charm was cast would be voided by the Fidelius Charm, which requires the SK himself to tell the Secret in order for it to be known. Carol, who realizes that others may understand the Fidelius Charm differently but can only make sense of it if it works as she's described --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremiah: That's Very interresting. I have had questions about that charm, but going back to the origional question in this thread... Harry asks about this very question on HBP and DD says that is it rude to just apparate into someone's house and they should have time to be warned and to refuse you. (Leave it to DD to know proper Wizarding Etiquette, huh?) So, Narcissa (being chased by Bellatrix) was probably following etiquette. As far as Godric's Hollow, we don't know who was in on the Secret and I've had a few posts about how I am sure the charm is still in tact regardless of Pettigew "cheating" on the Potters. We'll find out, I guess.It could all be a moot point. However, I would htink that if DD can be dead and still have the Fidelus charm work on Grimauld Place then it should still work for Pettigrew... but that's just how my brain processes information. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 00:34:33 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:34:33 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167978 > > Alla: > > > > I am sorry, but **I** saw nothing of Lupin's arranging for Snape to > > be publicly humiliated in PoA. I saw Lupin trying his best to > > restore Neville's self confidence after **Snape** publicly > > humiliated him. > > Pippin: > So you are saying the *only* way for Neville's confidence to be > restored was for Snape to be humiliated? It would speak > poorly of Neville, IMO, if the only way he could be built up > was to see Snape run down. Alla: What I said was that I saw nothing of Lupin **arranging** for Snape to be publicly humiliated and I stand by this intepretation. I believe Lupin chose the way that worked better for Nevile. He managed to make him laugh at greasy bastard, good for Neville I would say. Pippin: > We can contrast the way that McGonagall dealt with Harry's > experience with Trelawney. Harry was terrified by the prediction > of his death, but McGonagall did not find it necessary to terrify > Trelawney in order to restore Harry's confidence. She simply > made it very clear that she did not put much stock in such > predictions, that Trelawney had a habit of making them and > that none had come true and that --well, it wasn't her policy > to speak ill of her colleagues, implying that there might be > something to say otherwise. Not all sweetness and light, of > course, but nothing to put the whole school in an uproar either. Alla: Actually I saw **a lot** of similarities between how Mcgonagall dealt with Harry's fears after Trelawney's predictions. Sure, she **said** that she does not speak bad of her colleagues, but IMO the way she talked about Trelawney's predictions was indeed rather subtle or maybe not so subtle way of speaking bad of her colleague, who I maintain deserved that. McGonagall IMO was primarily concerned about Harry, and whether the side effect of her remarks would be that class' opinion of Trelawney would go down, did not seem to concern her much. Just as IMO what Lupin did, he was primarily concerned with Neville and not whether the side effect of his dealings would be Snape humiliated, just as IMO it should have been. But really it is neither here, nor there, because no matter how we interpret what Mcgonagall did, I believe that Lupin chose what worked best for Neville. IMO of course. Pippin: > Lupin might have dealt with Neville's loss of confidence in > a similar way, and arranged for Neville to deal with his > boggart privately, as he did for Harry (but not for Hermione, > who flubs her exam thereby.) Alla: Eh, he might have been of course, but why should he? I think Lupin was playing it by ear and doing right away what he thought was best for the child who was humiliated here and now. I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that he decided that Neville should be helped **right now**, and any considerations of Snape dear should be secondary at best. IMO for Lupin - Neville mattered more than greasy bastard and I applaud him for that. This of course just the interpretation, **not** a fact, but I believe it is a valid one. And of course it was sooooo funny for me. Hear me JKR? Did you write something like that in book 7? :) Pretty please? > > > > Alla, for whom the strongest point in favor of Lupin never being > > evil or Voldemort servant always will be JKR's remark that she would > > want Lupin to teach her daughter. > > > > Pippin: > Why not? Lupin in our world might never have faced the choices > he has in the WW, where he's been deprived all his life of rights > and freedoms which many of us take for granted. > > Is social pressure and an instinct for compliance enough to turn > people who aren't notably cruel or malicious into collaborators with > evil? I'm afraid so. And if you don't believe me, there's the Stanford > Prison Experiment. > > http://www.prisonexp.org/ Alla: Why? Because she did not say I want Lupin as if he existed in ou world teaching my daughter. Because I do not see her imagining that the character who went evil for any reasons would teach her daughter. Social pressure, whatever, any reason IMO. IMO this is the highest **thumbs up** JKR can give the character - deeming him worthy of teaching her child. I do not remember her saying that she would want Snape teaching her daughter for example. So, yeah, any time I read Lupin can be evil, I think of JKR wanting him to teach her kid and I think that he cannot be. It is like JKR saying IMO - oh yeah, I want Voldemort to teach my daughter, after all in our world he could have turned out different. I think this was author's liking of the character as he "exists" in Potterverse, because he does not exist anywhere else, if that makes sense. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 01:22:41 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:22:41 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167979 > Alla: > IMO for Lupin - Neville mattered more than greasy bastard and I > applaud him for that. zgirnius: Canon is quite clear on this point, Alla. Eileen Prince married Tobias Snape, and only then had baby Severus. Greasy he may be, but he is not a bastard. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 01:41:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:41:43 -0000 Subject: Snape as greasy bastard WAS: Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167980 > > Alla: > > IMO for Lupin - Neville mattered more than greasy bastard and I > > applaud him for that. > > zgirnius: > Canon is quite clear on this point, Alla. Eileen Prince married Tobias > Snape, and only then had baby Severus. Greasy he may be, but he is not > a bastard. > Alla: LOL. I do think you are joking, but just in case you are not. ;) I would not want anybody to think that I would call dear Snape a name incorrectly. Bastard: 1. an illegitimate child 2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse I meant and mean the meaning 3a. I think it suits him really well, except of course I am not using it as a term of abuse, but to express what I honestly think of this character. JMO, Alla. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Apr 27 01:46:25 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:46:25 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius Charm again (Was: Apparition & Secrets In-Reply-To: <948bbb470704261723w4b6066efx6dc21c8381c4ef4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167981 Carol: > I'm talking about someone who knew the Potters' hiding > place *before* the Secret was concealed but was not told > the Secret *by the Secret Keeper* *after the Charm had > been cast.* I think that person, for example, Lupin or DD, > would no longer no what he knew before because that > knowledge is now concealed inside the Secret Keeper. > Unlike Sirius Black, who knew the Secret but couldn't > reveal it, they wouldn't know the Secret because Wormtail > hadn't told them. Their knowledge before the Fidelius > Charm was cast would be voided by the Fidelius Charm, > which requires the SK himself to tell the Secret in > order for it to be known. houyhnhnm: The aspect of the Fidelius charm that I've never seen discussed is how it works to prevent someone who has been given the secret but is not the SK from giving it away. In "Spinner's End", Snape says, "I am not the Secret-Keeper; I cannot speak the name of the place." That implies that the constraint works on the sender not the receiver of information about the secret. "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where James and Lily were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed up against their sitting room window!", said Flitwick. That sounds as if, possibly, even if someone else who knew the secret were to divulge it, the information could not be received. Harry speaks the address of the Order's headquarters twice out loud when he is using the fireplace in Umbridge's office. Was he able to do so only because he was alone? What would have happened if Umbridge had caught him out the first time or been a little quicker the second? If she had opened the door right at the moment Harry was saying "Twelve Grimmauld Place", would Harry have had an automatic Silencio kick in, or would Umbridge just not have heard anything or maybe heard some noise issuing from Harry's mouth but be unable to process any meaning from it? Is Snape spinning another one for Bella? When he asks, "You understand how the enchantment works, I think?" is it an expression of his confidence in the fact that she has just shown him that she doesn't? Not that there is really much difference in terms of effect between what he says and something like "I could speak the name of the place, but none of you would be able to hear it," but why not say that? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 01:52:20 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:52:20 -0000 Subject: The Coward and Deserter (correction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167982 > Carol again: > Aargh! Obviously, I meant "Where is your evidence for the assumption that LV *thought that Snape* was a coward? > Carol, sorry to waste a post but not wanting to put words in Goddlefrood's mouth! Goddlefrood: What you bring is certainly evidence, and perhaps some may now get the distinction I made in my earlier. I assess evidence on a daily basis, but none of it constitutes proof. It can be persuasive, but it is not our place to assert matters that have not been *clearly* stated to be proof. Having said this I doubt LV will ever confirm either way who he was talking about in the graveyard, so, quite honetsly, it is neither here nor there. The main point is that assumptions, which I never make ;), just extrapolations where available, such as "everyone agrees on x", are always dangerous things. There is other evidence in the graveyard scene that should not be overlooked, but this part of who the three were probably quite safely can be, because it is no longer relevant for the way the story may develop ;). Unless Bagman's one of the three, but then as explained in a past life I think he was at the graveyard and remains a Death Eater and will be back :> If we all did agree on things this group wouldn't be such fun :) Goddlefrood From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 02:17:36 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:17:36 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Pot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > > In Harry, I see the idealism of youth. His demand is that > the men in government and the people controlling the Press > are and do what they have sworn to do. He, like me, is > holding them accountable to the founding concepts and > duties of their office. He, like me, supports the > wizarding government in concept, but is thoroughly > disappointed with the practical execution of that > government by those currently in charge. > > In that sense, I agree, Harry and friends are 'reactionary' > not anarchists. They are reacting to the specifics of > this administration, not rebelling against the concept of > government in general. Trying to keep this to the books in general, I agree that Harry demands that the government listen to the truth, for example, about his use of magic outside school and about Voldemort's return. Beyond that, is there any evidence that Harry supports the wizarding government or the concept of a wizarding government, or even thinks about it at all? And yes, in general, an anarchist would want to live without the oppression of a state (not necessarily without a government, although some anarchists do advocate that), in self-determination and voluntary cooperation with others. > The anarchist aspect is also tied to the idealism of youth. > They see that rules are not absolute. Because government > can become corrupt, the rules made by those governments > can become corrupt. Even on a smaller scale, they see > that the morally right thing overrides the legally right > thing to do. All law and rules address general and broad > circumstances, but sometime the specifics overrule the > general, and then the right thing to do is to disregard > the rules. > > So, in the sense, that Harry and the gang do not see rules > as absolute and immutable, that their is a higher moral > cause than 'doing what your told', there is an element of > anarchism in them. > > Though I certainly suspect all this is happening on an > subconscious and instinctive level. I guess the point I have been trying to make is that anyone, not just anarchists, can object to the actions of government and participate in redirecting or opposing those actions. Look at the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, for example. How many of its youthful participants (and not all were youthful) do you think were anarchists? How many of them broke the "law" to achieve their ends? Many of them used peaceful means to do so, as well. What you are talking about is civil disobedience. And any teenager who disobeys his or her parents may see rules as being unfair. I don't think you would say they are necessarily morally justified. They are also not anarchists. If you or Dan are defining simply taking action or disobeying rules as being anarchist, then you are using the wrong definition. Anarchy is a political philosophy (actually, many of them) that addresses the imbalance of power between the state and the individual, with the specific intention to address that topic. This I do not see Harry Potter or Rowling doing, even subconsciously. On a cruder level, in general English usage, behaving "anarchistically" does not mean behaving without regard for rules. It means behaving without order. For what it's worth! lealess From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 02:26:14 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:26:14 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167984 > Ceridwen: > You could also add Snape's references to Lupin as a werewolf for the > scenario you suggest. Having the nasty-but-good guy repeatedly giving > a clue about the nice-but-bad guy would fit in nicely. Neri: The problem is that Snape makes in the Shrieking Shack several comments that smell of anti-werewolf bigotry: "Lupin a tame werewolf" (sarcastically describing Dumbledore's position, although I don't believe Dumbledore used that expression), "You, Potter, and Weasley are out-of-bounds, in the company of a convicted murderer and a werewolf" (as if merely being a werewolf is equivalent to being a convicted murderer), "I'll drag the werewolf" (as if Lupin doesn't have a name anymore) and "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works" (as if a werewolf's mind isn't human or rational). If it will be found that Snape was correct in his suspicions in the Shrieking Shack, JKR will appear as endorsing his bigotry. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 27 02:31:26 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:31:26 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167985 > > Alla: > > What I said was that I saw nothing of Lupin **arranging** for Snape > to be publicly humiliated and I stand by this intepretation. Pippin: Lupin suggested the means by which boggart Snape could be ridiculed, and then had Neville demonstrate this for the class. Sounds like an arrangement to me. You might as well say that Bella didn't arrange to attack Sirius, she just thought it was the best way to get the prophecy. Alla: I believe Lupin chose the way that worked better for Nevile. He > managed to make him laugh at greasy bastard, good for Neville I > would say. Pippin: But it wasn't good for Neville. Fun for the readers, a laugh for three fourths of the school, but not for Neville. He ended up being bullied worse than ever, meaning there wasn't any real boost in his confidence. Anyway, why should Lupin be so interested in what's good for Neville when he's not interested in what's good for Hermione, who never learned to fight her boggart at all, or for Harry, who left the lesson feeling humiliated that he wasn't thought capable of facing a boggart? Guilty conscience, maybe? > Alla: > > Actually I saw **a lot** of similarities between how Mcgonagall > dealt with Harry's fears after Trelawney's predictions. Sure, she > **said** that she does not speak bad of her colleagues, but IMO the > way she talked about Trelawney's predictions was indeed rather > subtle or maybe not so subtle way of speaking bad of her colleague, > who I maintain deserved that. Pippin: It wasn't only subtle, it was mild. Even Lavender and Parvati didn't find anything to complain about. What could they say..."McGonagall is so mean, she refused to say anything bad about Trelawney but you could just tell she really can't stand her." Hardly something that would have "traveled through the school like wildfire". And McGonagall also let Harry know that Trelawney's scariness need not to be taken seriously, something Lupin did *not* do with Neville. There was no hint that the real Snape need not be feared so much. > Pippin: > > Lupin might have dealt with Neville's loss of confidence in > > a similar way, and arranged for Neville to deal with his > > boggart privately, as he did for Harry (but not for Hermione, > > who flubs her exam thereby.) > > Alla: > Eh, he might have been of course, but why should he? Pippin: Besides the plain fact that canon indicates that humiliating people in public is *wrong*, it increased the tension between the Houses, it got Neville bullied worse than ever, and it wasn't very kind to Grandma Longbottom either. It's just seems typical Lupin -- thoughtless, carried away by his own cleverness and not really caring for anyone's welfare as long as he makes himself popular with the people he wants to accept him. It might be forgiveable in a boy of sixteen, but Lupin is supposed to be in his thirties here. > Alla: > > Why? Because she did not say I want Lupin as if he existed in ou > world teaching my daughter. Because I do not see her imagining that > the character who went evil for any reasons would teach her > daughter. Social pressure, whatever, any reason IMO. Pippin: Then I think you might be missing the whole point of someone who has links to Amnesty International on her website. We wouldn't need civil rights if we were all like Harry. But in the real world, if those rights aren't defended, anyone, any ordinary person, might succumb to those pressures, IMO. That is why Dumbledore says it's such a wonder that Harry hasn't. He's unusual. He's not only virtuous, he's *lucky*. If he was the standard, then there probably wouldn't be anyone available to teach JKR's daughter, because people like that are *rare*. Do you think Jessica's teachers in real life are all saints or something? JKR gave Lupin the teaching skills and the style that she admires, *that*'s why she would like him to teach her daughter, IMO. And where could that happen, except in our world? I'm sure JKR is not wishing her daughter were fictional! Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 02:38:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:38:06 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius Charm again (Was: Apparition & Secrets In-Reply-To: <948bbb470704261723w4b6066efx6dc21c8381c4ef4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167986 Jeremiah: > As far as Godric's Hollow, we don't know who was in on the Secret and I've had a few posts about how I am sure the charm is still in tact regardless of Pettigew "cheating" on the Potters. We'll find out, I guess.It could all be a moot point. However, I would htink that if DD can be dead and still have the Fidelus charm work on Grimauld Place then it should still work for Pettigrew... but that's just how my brain processes information. Carol responds: Not to rehash the subject because I know you're aware of the old thread, but in simplest terms, I don't think it matters in this case whether Pettigrew is alive or dead. He betrayed the Secret, two of the Potters were killed, and their hiding place was destroyed, so, IMO, the Secret no longer exists. It's different from the Secret of 12 GP, which is stated as "The Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number 12 Grimmauld Place, London," where the HQ itself is the Secret and is hidden. We know that the cottage or house that the Potters were living in was *not* hidden, only the Potters themselves were. DD says that Voldemort could have pressed his nose against the window and could not have seen them if the had not been told the Secret by the SK. So if the Secret is (was) "The Potters are hiding at [street address], Godric's Hollow" and that Secret is no longer true because two of them are dead, the third is no longer hiding there, and the house itself is no longer a hiding place, then I don't think there's a secret. As I said, the house itself was never hidden, only the Potters themselves. Although it will be interesting from a historical perspective to find out who knew and did not know the Secret, I don't think it matters in terms of seeing the house. Surely Hagrid, for example, was never told the Secret by PP. I don't think anyone knew it except the adult Potters, Peter Pettigrew, and Sirius Black. Now, however, even Muggles can see it. (Hagrid mentions hurrying away before the Muggles showed up.) Carol, who doesn't think that Harry will have any difficulty finding or seeing the ruins of his parents' house (though I hope someone is there to fillin the gaps in the story) From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Fri Apr 27 02:19:39 2007 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:19:39 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167987 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble > wrote: > > > > I've always thought that the glasses were simply NHS basic specs, > > like the ones John Lennon wore. Given the ailments that are cured in the HP series, isn't it curious that magic hasn't cured Harry of wearing glasses? Barry From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 27 02:51:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:51:21 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167988 > Neri:If it will be found that Snape was correct in his suspicions in the > Shrieking Shack, JKR will appear as endorsing his bigotry. > Pippin: I'd say she has a lot more to worry about on that score if it will be found that Harry is correct in his suspicions about Snape, since Harry has expressed far more bias towards Snape than Snape has ever expressed towards Lupin. But I think JKR will appear as endorsing the view that life is complicated. Someone who has been accused by a bigot can still be guilty. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. Pippin From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 02:56:54 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:56:54 -0000 Subject: What is Harry's Secret Weapon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lydia French" wrote: > We know this means the power of Love but what does THAT mean? Love is not a weapon Harry can wield > on his own. So, the question is, in what way is Love, this "power the > Dark Lord knows not" going to end up helping Harry in his battle with > Lord Voldemort? Dondee: I think the fact that Harry IS loved is a powerful weapon. He has people surrounding him who care about him and are willing to fight and die standing beside him. He has learned eternal truths of sacrifice, loyalty, trust, and forgiveness from these people. Harry loves and is loved - he knows what is at stake and he has the passion and drive to keep fighting the good fight because of it. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 03:14:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:14:43 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167990 > > Alla: > > > > What I said was that I saw nothing of Lupin **arranging** for Snape > > to be publicly humiliated and I stand by this intepretation. > > Pippin: > Lupin suggested the means by which boggart Snape could be ridiculed, > and then had Neville demonstrate this for the class. Sounds like an > arrangement to me. You might as well say that Bella didn't arrange > to attack Sirius, she just thought it was the best way to get the > prophecy. Alla: Eh, no, that is not a fact that this is what Lupin did. I believe that he was helping Neville first and foremost. Would it be clearer if I say that Lupin did not **plan** to humiliate Snape? That this is just unexpected consequence of him helping Neville? Of course I am not arguing that Snape was **not** humiliated, sure he was ( not nearly enough if you ask me), I am just saying that this was not Lupin intent ( This is only my belief obviously that those are Lupin's thoughts). > > Alla: > > > > Why? Because she did not say I want Lupin as if he existed in ou > > world teaching my daughter. Because I do not see her imagining that > > the character who went evil for any reasons would teach her > > daughter. Social pressure, whatever, any reason IMO. > > Pippin: > Then I think you might be missing the whole point of someone > who has links to Amnesty International on her website. We > wouldn't need civil rights if we were all like Harry. But in the > real world, if those rights aren't defended, anyone, any > ordinary person, might succumb to those pressures, IMO. Alla: Eh, what? What do civil rights have to do with discussing what that means that JKR IMO expressed unconditional liking for the character? How is that relevant? Are you trying to find the qualifier for her liking? Sorry, all that I get from her interviews is that she likes him, period. And as to me missing the point, well, that could be of course. You seem to be saying that JKR would want the character who in your interpretation killed his good friend, killed innocent kid, I mean, in your cannon Lupin did kill Cedric, right, masquerading as second Wormtail? You seem to be saying that JKR would want this character to teach her child. I think you are missing JKR's point in the major way, lol, but of course only book 7 will say who is missing what. That point being author expressing liking the character so much that he can teach her kid, IMO. Pippin: > That is why Dumbledore says it's such a wonder that Harry hasn't. > He's unusual. He's not only virtuous, he's *lucky*. If he was the > standard, then there probably wouldn't be anyone available to > teach JKR's daughter, because people like that are *rare*. Do > you think Jessica's teachers in real life are all saints or something? > Alla: I think it is a safe guess Pippin that none of her teachers serve evil overlord or even killed anybody, but I can be wrong Pippin: > JKR gave Lupin the teaching skills and the style that she admires, > *that*'s why she would like him to teach her daughter, IMO. > And where could that happen, except in our world? I'm sure > JKR is not wishing her daughter were fictional! Alla: See, I was brought up that teacher should try not only teach the subject, but also try to teach the kids be good human beings. Sure, my school system was in the communist state, but I was lucky to met plenty teachers like that, so I do not think that I am romanticising profession or anything. I met bad teachers too obviously. I believe that JKR holds the view ( no, I do not know that) that bad person - a killer, a traitor should not be near kids. I believe that she thinks that teacher should be good person too. We shall see whether I am right or not :) JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 03:22:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:22:49 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167991 Pippin wrote: > But it wasn't good for Neville. Fun for the readers, a laugh for three fourths of the school, but not for Neville. He ended up being bullied worse than ever, meaning there wasn't any real boost in his confidence. > > Anyway, why should Lupin be so interested in what's good for Neville when he's not interested in what's good for Hermione, who never learned to fight her boggart at all, or for Harry, who left the lesson feeling humiliated that he wasn't thought capable of facing a boggart? Guilty conscience, maybe? > [McGonagall's criticism of Trelawney] wasn't only subtle, it was mild. Even Lavender and Parvati didn't find anything to complain about. What could they say..."McGonagall is so mean, she refused to say anything bad about Trelawney but you could just tell she really can't stand her." Hardly something that would have "traveled through the school like wildfire". And McGonagall also let Harry know that Trelawney's scariness need not to be taken seriously, something Lupin did *not* do with Neville. There was no hint that the real Snape need not be feared so much. Carol responds: I don't know who to side with here. Certainly, I don't share Alla's glee at Snape's humiliation, and I do think that it was wrong to embarrass a colleague, and particularly to suggest dressing up Boggart!Snape in Neville's grandmother's clothes. But I can see Alla's point, too. Neville had to learn to deal with his Boggart (which happened to be Professor Snape), and the way to deal with a Boggart is to make it ridiculous (which is different from publicly criticizing a colleague as McGonagall did. I suppose that the best way would have been to let Neville figure out a way to do that on his own, and if he couldn't, to help him do it privately. After all, Lupin chose not to terrify the whole class by having them see Harry's Dementor (which he assumed would be Lord Voldemort) or to embarrass Hermione by having them see her homework Boggart (though how he could guess her Boggart so early in the year is beyond me). Certainly, Pippin is right that learning how to deal with a Snape Boggart is different from learning how to deal with Snape himself. Neville can hardly cast a Ridikulus spell on the real Snape! Ideally, Lupin should have taken Neville aside and explained to him that the way to get over his fear of Snape was to build his self-confidence and to understand that Snape was only a teacher. The worst he could do was to give Neville detention or a zero for that day's potion. (We're not dealing with DE Snape here.) Practical help, practical advice, not humiliating Snape and increasing Snape'e frustration with him would have been a more thoughtful and sensible course. And he should have given Hermione some private help, as well. I just wonder what Lupin would have done if Neville's Boggart had turned out to be a Death Eater casting a Crucio. How do you make *that* ridiculous? How do you deal with *that* fear and that level of insecurity? Carol, who wonders if that's what Snape had in mind, too, by calling Lupin's attention to Neville's presence in the class From lydiafrench at gmail.com Fri Apr 27 02:52:58 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (Lydia French) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:52:58 -0000 Subject: If Love is Harry's Secret Weapon, How Will He Wield It? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167992 wrote: > In general terms, the power (love) that Voldemort knows not > means that when he attempted to kill Harry with the killing > curse, Voldemort wouldn't know that Harry would be protected > by a blanket of his mother's love. As I said it is unclear > what role it will (if any) beyond these events love will play > in Harry's adventure. Firefly: I've NEVER considered the idea that Harry's capacity for Love has already fulfilled its purpose in the prophecy and may no longer be that integral to the plot. DD's emphasis of it, JKR's consistent return to it and it's prominence in the prophecy seem to give it more importance, IMO. I am working under the assumption that it is pivotal. I have an unformed thought involving: 1. The "Old Magic" that Lily's Love infused Harry's blood with. 2. The fleeing of Lord Voldemort's spirit from within Harry when Harry felt love for Sirius. 3. The triumph that DD seemed to feel when he heard Lord V now has Harry's Love infused blood flowing through his veins. 4. That Snape loved Lily and that he will not only be there at the end but may also be willing to sacrifice himself for Harry, as Lily did. Firefly From gregtaylor02 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 06:23:41 2007 From: gregtaylor02 at yahoo.com (gregtaylor02) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:23:41 -0000 Subject: Sirius a DE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167993 No, Sirius was never a death eater. He was blamed for giving the information of Lily and James' location to Lord Voldemort. He was supposed to be their secret keeper, and convinced them to use the less obvious choice of Wormtail. When he found out of the betrayal he went after Wormtail, no one knew it was Wormtail who was the one who betrayed the Potters. Sirius was blamed for Wormtail's death and giving the information to Lord Voldemort. This was wrong, it was Wormtail. We do know that Sirius did not have the Dark Mark, which he would have to have had if he was a Death Eater. Lord Voldemort made all his Death Eaters get this mark and it was clear in one of the books (not sure which) that Sirius did not have it. Remember also that Sirius said "No one stops being a Death Eater" to Harry in the Goblet of Fire (when he was talking in the fire). If Sirius had been a death eater and was not anymore, he would not have made that statement, even if he was a spy. Hope this was helpful - Greg From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Apr 27 08:20:11 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:20:11 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167994 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > >> Alla: > > Eh, no, that is not a fact that this is what Lupin did. I believe > that he was helping Neville first and foremost. Would it be clearer > if I say that Lupin did not **plan** to humiliate Snape? That this > is just unexpected consequence of him helping Neville? > > Of course I am not arguing that Snape was **not** humiliated, sure > he was ( not nearly enough if you ask me), I am just saying that > this was not Lupin intent ( This is only my belief obviously that > those are Lupin's thoughts). Leah: But defeating a boggart means ridiculing it, so once Lupin knew that Snape was Neville's boggart the humiliating of Snape would have followed on from that. I see your point that until Neville spoke, Lupin would not have known about Boggart!Snape (though perhaps it couuld have been deduced, and we have had suggestions of Lupin using Leglimancy). However,once he knew, Lupin could, as Carol suggests, deal with this boggart privately, but he prefers to press ahead and amuse everyone. What I do see in this episode is another example of Lupin betraying someone who has helped him. Throughout POA, Snape, as Lupin himself admits later, made potion for him carefully and well, thus sparing Lupin a great deal of pain, distress and humiliation. Just as Lupin betrayed DD's trust for some fun at school with the Marauders, he is happy to humiliate the man who is now helping him a great deal. I don't on the whole go with the ESELupin theory, though I enjoy Pippin's arguments. I don't think these are deliberate betrayals, but thoughtless ones, preferring the amusement and friendship of the moment to thinking about the wider implications of his actions. What I wonder is whether in DH, another such moment will come along for Lupin. Leah From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 10:01:16 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:16 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167995 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167970 > > Pippin: > > Lupin would not have had to rat out his friends -- he > > only had to tell them that he didn't want them to let > > him out of the Shrieking Shack any more. But, as he says > > he always managed to forget his guilty feelings when it > > came time to plan the next adventure. > wynnleaf > Exactly! Lupin not tattling on his friends pales to > insignificance when compared to his willingness to -- for > years -- make a mockery of Dumbledore's giving him a chance > to be a student at Hogwarts and yet keep Hogwarts and the > surrounding population safe from a werewolf. Goddlefrood: I did not overlook it, I simply failed to mention it ;). It all goes to the code of the schoolyard. The kids were having fun, why tell anyone who might stop them? Irresponsible, yes, but by the time Remus returned to Hogwarts he mostly :) remembered to take his Wolfsbane Potion. A sign of maturity and that certainly should not be ignored ;;) Alla's argument re JKR's comments relative to Remus being her idea of Remus being a good enough teacher for her own daughter also seems prescient to me. The full text: "If you had to choose one teacher from your books to teach your child, who would it be and why? A. It would be Professor Lupin, because he is kind, clever, and gives very interesting lessons." >From Online chat, Scholastic.com, 3rd February 2000, available here: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm So you consider him kind and clever too, as well as a good teacher, ah, thanks for the response :). I had a further question to ask Ms. Rowling, that is whether Remus is loved by her, she had this to say: "A. I love, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, and Professor Lupin." Same source as above. Of course they could all be in it together ;) We readers do cut Lupin some slack, that's not to say he may not do something contrary to Harry's interest, but I'm failing to see what it might be so far. His running with the werewolves is of interest. They presumably run around when not transformed, do they, causing havoc with their teaching and other skills? I have already said he has flaws, but to extrapolate those flaws to the point where he's evil is simply clutching at straws, IMO, naturally ;). > wynnleaf > Sirius *does* mention that he and James suspected Lupin. But > even though he was cataloging Peter's crimes, he never said > anything that even hints that he considered one of Peter's > crimes to be spreading discord or suspicions among the friends. > That, imo, is fairly decent evidence that Peter did not spread > any such suspicions. Goddlefrood: There were quite enough in the catalogue for Sirius not to have got to them all ;). Speculation on how Peter was trusted to the point where Sirius and James were both fooled into thinking he would be a suitable Secret Keeper would be of interest. He is certainly manipulative from what we were shown in the shack and elsewhere and acts in is own interest a good deal, as pointed out on the list elsewhere very recently. As I always say about Peter, never underestimate him, he could easily have moulded events to the point where Sirius trusted him but not Lupin, and the same applies to James. Certainly the fact that Remus was a werewolf and ostensibly untrustworthy from a wizarding world meta standpoint can not be overlooked, but to this reader there should be more to it than that. Peter fits the case, despite the lack of direct canon support. Having said this perhaps Ms. Rowling, you would like a further say. Will every litle loose end be explained?: "There are things I know about many of the characters in the Harry books that might not make it into the books themselves ... too much information, not enough space!" Extract from Writer's Digest, February 2000 That is a shame, but there it is :) Oh, and I too hope we are in for some surprises in DH, but I do not expect Remus to be one of them. > wynnleaf > As I've pointed out, JKR always does have a surprise traitor, > or at east betrayer. And in order to make it a surprise, yet > also make sense, JKR generally sprinkles enough ahead of time > that it all makes sense once she reveals who the surprise > betrayer actually is. Goddlefrood: Agreed, she tends to surprise us, but not so much in respect of characters' loyalties. Quirrell in PS, Riddle being LV in CoS, reverse surprise in PoA and the Pettigrew business, Barty Jnr in disguise in GoF, not really in book 5 (subject to persuasion ;)), and not really in book 6 (ditto ;). On betrayers or imposters at least. There are undoubtedly many other surprises, but few so far in respect of character's allegiances, IMO. Snape is not yet certain, but that's a whole other matter. Other characters' allegiances have been set out quite straightforwardly so far, except possibly DEs Moody, Hagrid, McGonagall et al in the Order;), oh and Goyle Snr and other Death Eaters actually being good guys of course :). I exclude the MoM from this as it has been presented as a bureaucracy gone mad a la "The 12 Tasks of Asterix", quite cartoonish really I reckon :). Still, not bad ;). That's my opinion, but subject to further examples of betrayal and betrayers or other characters not turning out to be what we expect with support preferrably. Scabbers is covered above, btw ;) In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167975 > Pippin: > And if you don't believe me, there's the Stanford Prison Experiment. Goddlefrood: And vast numbers of other real world examples, doesn't necessarily mean they apply to the WW. We have no comparators for flobberworms or blast-ended skrewts either ;) Your ponts on Neville I generally agree with, but they do not, IMO make for an evil Lupin, just a little pettiness would meet the case, perhaps? Of course, Mummies will never have a good press again :| From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Apr 27 10:25:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:25:22 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167996 Neri: > The problem is that Snape makes in the Shrieking Shack several comments that smell of anti-werewolf bigotry: *(snip)* If it will be found that Snape was correct in his suspicions in the Shrieking Shack, JKR will appear as endorsing his bigotry. Ceridwen: Snape repeats and repeats the word here. He assigns an essay on werewolves. There is no doubt in people's minds that Remus is a werewolf. That the constant drum of attention is brought by a character who, by all appearances, is a bigot against werewolves merely makes the reader file it away as bigotry, nothing more. So, if there is a surprise in DH regarding Remus and the werewolves, or Remus's betrayal based on that point, we've had this glaringly blatant clue staring us in the face since PoA, but no one picked up on it because of the messenger. The surprise is complete in the moment, though the clues will be easy enough to spot during re-reads. Snape hammering on the 'werewolf' theme rather than Remus is a werewolf, would set up the entire group wooing that Voldemort is doing. Werewolves as a group have been marginalized. Remus admits that he has personally been marginalized: seen as a werewolf first, and lost jobs because of it. Remus has been sent to spy on his peers, others who have been marginalized. Would his weakness, of wanting people to like him enough that he will break rules or hide important information, cause trouble for Harry in DH? We don't know. Could it? Yes. By holding back, by not stepping up, by concealing things, Remus can influence outcomes. He probably won't admit to seeing that he did wrong, which played out at his leaving in PoA. He'll feel the weight of his condition pressing down on him, and blame it, as he's always done. Werewolves don't usually have friends: he has friends so he had better be grateful and not carry out his prefect duties with them. Will this play out in DH? We don't know. JKR likes Lupin. She would have him as her daughter's teacher. But, many of the failings in the Real World are caused by people who don't stand up for what is right. Lupin's weakness is that he won't if the wrong thing is done by his friends. There are a lot of messages she can send with Remus Lupin and his situation. I think she'll choose the one that makes for the best story. Ceridwen. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 11:22:57 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:22:57 -0000 Subject: An Oddity - Dumbledore and Fawkes incorporating a little on 1637 :) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167997 Goddlefrood, presenting a quote for good measure to start: "First of all, Harry, I want to thank you," said Dumbledore, eyes twinkling again. "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you." (From Harry's debriefing in CoS) ??? How could this work, I ask myself. A, probably, quite random thought occurred to me recently. Basically it runs like this: What if the connection between Dumbledore is a little more than just simply owner and pet? Dumbledore is acknowledged by many as the most skilled wizard of his age (he is, as I've said before the only wizard of his age ;)). I'll go further and state that perhaps Dumbledore knows magic of which we are so far unaware, oh, that's right, he does. Two examples that spring immediately to mind are the spell with the gong noise during the exchange in the MoM Atrium and his statement in PS that some do not need an Invisibility Cloak to become invisible. There are other instances too. In respect of Fawkes my ridiculous suggestion for the evening is that somehow Fawkes is a transformed part of Dumbledore. Why not? There is indubitably a strong link between them and when needed Fawkes is able to help, even if Dumbledore himself is not present. If Dumbledore was ready to die and go on to the next great adventure atop the tower, regardless of the circumstances of what went on there, then Fawkes would not have had to swoop in to save him. Fawkes's lament thereafter could suggest a mourning for a close and integral part of the Phoenix, rather than simply grief over a lost master. The other little thought I had was that somehow Fawkes could be a repository for a portion of DD's soul, which would then mean that Dumbledore is not truly gone and those who ask for help will find such help forthcoming from this residual piece of Dumbledore that is alive in Fawkes. Igor Stravinsky's The Firebird gave me my initial point of entry to this matter, read this: http://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Firebird-Spring-Persephone- Francisco/dp/B00000IOCZ and particularly Dr. Jacques Coulardeau's review of The Firebird dated 2nd August 2003, it is intiguing, if nothing else, and could lend itself to being a source of the above oddity ;), as it was :) Also there are precedents for other birds turning out to be more than what they at first seem, not necessarily the Ugly Duckling type fairytales either. This next link is to a story that is not wholly removed from that of the Firebird as in the above link, take a look: http://www.lacquerbox.com/saltan-long.htm I'm thinking particularly of the resolution of the swan's part in the story there :). It certainly could be one reason JKR, in an offhand remark to Dan Radcliffe in February this year said: "Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble" Does it make any sense or am I just equivalent to what Peeves called Professor Lupin? (Break) Some small links to 1637 now :), the same year as the Werewolf Code of Conduct, that is 1637, a proof was offered by Pierre Fermat for what has now come to be known as his Last Theorem. Probably not relevant to HP as it involves mathmatics, but there it is ;). Also a good year for the Star Chamber, an extract from a report on that body, which is, remember not dissimilar to the Wizengamot, IMO: 'William Prynne may perhaps be considered lucky. Despite the fact that his pamphlet denouncing actresses, Histrio Mastix, was licensed in 1633, the Chamber declared the Puritan lawyer guilty of sedition. This was no doubt because the book was a thinly veiled attack on Charles I's wife, Queen Henrietta Maria, who was both French and Catholic. As in all similar cases, truth was not a defense. Prynne's ears were cropped. Convicted again in 1637, the Chamber fined Prynne 5000 pounds, ordered the removal of the stumps of his ears, and branded his cheeks with the initials "SL" which stood for "seditious libeller."' Legally about the same standard of system as we have been shown of the Wizengamot, as that body too seems unusual in its operation and guidance, or lack thereof, so does the above, at least to the modern reader :). 5000 pounds in those days was an extortionate amount of money, beyond the dreams of Croesus, almost (well not really ;)). Goddlefrood with a cheery goodbye for now :-{)} From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Apr 27 13:25:20 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:25:20 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 167998 > > wynnleaf > > > Exactly! Lupin not tattling on his friends pales to > > insignificance when compared to his willingness to -- for > > years -- make a mockery of Dumbledore's giving him a chance > > to be a student at Hogwarts and yet keep Hogwarts and the > > surrounding population safe from a werewolf. > > Goddlefrood: > > I did not overlook it, I simply failed to mention it ;). It all > goes to the code of the schoolyard. The kids were having fun, > why tell anyone who might stop them? wynnleaf You still don't seem to get the point. Lupin didn't have to "tell anyone who might stop them." All he had to do was stop. Period. Who said he had to tell on anyone? As far as I can see, that's something you brought up, not me or pippin. Goddlefrood: Irresponsible, yes, but by > the time Remus returned to Hogwarts he mostly :) remembered to > take his Wolfsbane Potion. A sign of maturity and that certainly > should not be ignored ;;) wynnleaf Considering that literally millions of people are able to remember to take prescribed medicine which makes them feel better, I really don't see how that's some sort of notable sign of maturity that precludes Lupin being irresponsible or weak enough to make choices which can risk the lives of Harry and or betray the good guys. Goddlefrood: > Alla's argument re JKR's comments relative to Remus being her > idea of Remus being a good enough teacher for her own daughter > also seems prescient to me. wynnleaf As I've tried to point out, I don't necessarily think the idea of Evil!Lupin fits with what we know. After all, according to JKR, Lupin's big weakness is in allowing his friends too much latitude, which just doesn't seem to go along with "cares so little about his friends that he intentionally betrays them to be killed." On the other hand, this argument that JKR likes Lupin, and therefore she can't possibly use him to betray Harry or the Order has *already* been proved wrong. JKR has *already* had Lupin, in POA, betray Dumbledore's trust for many months in a way that risked the lives of all the school children and in particular Harry. So we know for certain that JKR can and has made Lupin irresponsible and for purely his own benefit, risk lives and betray Dumbledore. The notion that her "liking" Lupin will somehow keep her from having him do this again makes no sense. As I said, JKR liking Lupin, or thinking he's a good teacher does *not* equate to "he's responsible and trustworthy." JKR has already *proven* that by making him irresponsible and untrustworthy in POA. JKR quote > "If you had to choose one teacher from your books to teach your > child, who would it be and why? > > A. It would be Professor Lupin, because he is kind, clever, and > gives very interesting lessons." wynnleaf And yet she still had him betray Dumbledore's trust and put Harry and all the school at risk, purely for his own benefit. So obviously being "kind, clever, and gives very interesting lessons," isn't the same as "responsible, trustworthy and self-sacrificing." > Goddlefrood: > We readers do cut Lupin some slack, that's not to say he may > not do something contrary to Harry's interest, but I'm failing > to see what it might be so far. > > His running with the werewolves is of interest. They presumably > run around when not transformed, do they, causing havoc with > their teaching and other skills? I have already said he has > flaws, but to extrapolate those flaws to the point where he's > evil is simply clutching at straws, IMO, naturally ;). wynnleaf And I *don't* say that Lupin is intentionally being evil. Pippin does hold that view. But I don't think it fits with what JKR has said about his attitude toward his friends. But Lupin has already shown us that a character doesn't have to be evil to put Harry's life at risk, betray Dumbledore, and expose the school to life-threatening danger. A character needn't be "evil" to put his own self-interest ahead of the lives and safety of others -- Lupin's already shown that. As regards the werewolves, Lupin refers to them in HBP as his "equals." In OOTP we learn that Lupin was very upset at the restrictions that the MOM placed on werewolves. In OOTP, we also see him acting sympathetically to a werewolf at St. Mungos. In HBP we learn through Lupin that werewolves have a very hard time even getting food without killing for it. Lupin may hate Fenrir, but that doesn't mean he hates all werewolves. I think we have enough evidence to conclude that he doesn't hate all werewolves. Therefore it would be completely within Lupin's character to become friends with the werewolves he is with under cover and to afford them the same kind of latitude that he did the Marauders, especially if he was particularly sympathetic to their plight -- which we already know he is. It would be perfectly within his character to want to hold on to the goodwill of werewolf friends just as he wanted to maintain the goodwill of other friends. And we've already seen that Lupin is willing to risk the lives of others in order to keep the goodwill of those whose goodwill he desires. > > wynnleaf > > > Sirius *does* mention that he and James suspected Lupin. But > > even though he was cataloging Peter's crimes, he never said > > anything that even hints that he considered one of Peter's > > crimes to be spreading discord or suspicions among the friends. > > > That, imo, is fairly decent evidence that Peter did not spread > > any such suspicions. > > Goddlefrood: > > There were quite enough in the catalogue for Sirius not to have > got to them all ;). wynnleaf On this, we shall have to agree to disagree. Zero canon, the perfect place for Sirius to comment on Peter raising suspicions and yet Sirius mentions nothing, are enough for me to consider a theory too weak. Most especially when I consider your argument circular, as I pointed out before. Goddlefrood: Certainly the fact that Remus was a werewolf > and ostensibly untrustworthy from a wizarding world meta > standpoint can not be overlooked, but to this reader there > should be more to it than that. wynnleaf While characters may consider Lupin untrustworthy because of being a werewolf, that is not, as I understand it, any part of either my or pippin's theories. Lupin is untrustworthy because he's been proven to be untrustworthy. Whether his willingness to sacrifice the safety of others for his own benefit is due to some weaknesses stemming from his dealing with a socially abhorrent disease, or whether he's just like that for other reasons, isn't the point. The point is that he *is* untrustworthy, not because he's a werewolf, but because he has made too many long-term very untrustworthy decisions. Goddlefrood: Peter fits the case, despite > the lack of direct canon support. wynnleaf As does Lupin, *with* some canon support. Goddlefrood: > Oh, and I too hope we are in for some surprises in DH, but I do > not expect Remus to be one of them. wynnleaf Nevertheless, your argument earlier was that Harry wouldn't get any *more* surprise problems (other than he's already got at the end of HBP), and therefore Lupin wouldn't betray Harry. No unexpected problems for Harry equates to no major suspense. I don't buy that. JKR loves it too much. > Goddlefrood: > > Agreed, she tends to surprise us, but not so much in respect > of characters' loyalties. wynnleaf I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Obviously Quirrell was thought by Harry to be loyal, but turned out not to be. Tom Riddle was trusted by Harry, but turns out to be Voldemort and tries to kill Harry. Scabbers was thought to be an ordinary, even faithful rat, but turns out to be a traitor. Fake!Moody was thought to be very supportive of Harry and turned out to be Barty Jr, seeking his death. Kreacher was known to be nasty, but was at least thought to be "safe" in that he was bound to do whatever Sirius said and no character, including Harry, suspected that Kreacher was actively betraying the Order. Further, Harry trusted Kreacher to tell him the truth about Sirius, and Harry's trust was proven misguided. Umbridge, while always known to be an incredibly nasty woman, was surprisingly revealed to be the one who sent the dementors to attack Harry (she may not count, since Harry never trusted anything about her and her loyalties were never really in question). And in HBP, Snape was "revealed" to be a "loyal" Death Eater and murderer of Dumbledore. While Snape will likely turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore after all, it's clear that for *Harry* Snape was the "traitor" of that year. And it's Harry that ultimately finds his trust or his good opinion of someone misplaced or finds himself having been betrayed, each and every year. wynnleaf From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 27 17:47:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as greasy bastard WAS: Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin Message-ID: <9830245.1177696044832.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 167999 >Alla: > >LOL. I do think you are joking, but just in case you are not. ;) I >would not want anybody to think that I would call dear Snape a name >incorrectly. > >Bastard: >1. an illegitimate child >2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of >questionable origin >3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized >term of abuse > >I meant and mean the meaning 3a. I think it suits him really well, >except of course I am not using it as a term of abuse, but to >express what I honestly think of this character. Bart: Well, although forced marriage between people originally from countries where such things are legal are currently de facto recognized as genuine in England (even if the marriage ceremony occurs in England), foced marriages were illegal back when Tom and Merry were married, and therefore their marriage is illegal, making Voldemort a bastard in more than one way. The etymology of the term is revealing; in pre-Christian Europe, along with other tribal cultures, it was believed that characteristics like loyalty to the tribe were inherited. If a woman has a child of unknown fatherhood, then the father may well have been a member of another tribe, meaning that the child is a potential traitor. Hence, bastard as a person not to be trusted; as one who claims friendship to your face while stabbing you in the back. Snape DOES make an excellent bastard. Speaking of analysis, I've been doing some reading on psychopathy and sociopathy (it appears that the main psychological references do not differentiate between these conditions). Voldemort has more than his share of psychopathic traits, but one that is missing is key: Psychopaths tend to be inconsistent, and often unable to see a plan through to the end. Voldemort, on the other hand, is capable of spending years in planning and executing (although you can see how he is his own worst enemy in many cases, like failing to obey the Evil Overlord manual by not just executing Harry in GOF. It is also the reason why he has made 7 horcurxes; he is so out of touch with his soul that missing most of it makes little or no difference to him. That is why he is unredeemable to Dumbledore; he has cut himself off from what might have been able to redeem him, regardless of how unlikely. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Apr 27 17:55:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:55:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are Message-ID: <31216317.1177696557018.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168000 From: Barry >> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble >> wrote: >> > >> > I've always thought that the glasses were simply NHS basic specs, >> > like the ones John Lennon wore. > >Given the ailments that are cured in the HP series, isn't it curious >that magic hasn't cured Harry of wearing glasses? >Barry Not really; bad vision requires a delicacy not evident in the WW. Unlike teeth; if you can regrow bones in an arm, then why not teeth? Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 18:55:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:55:22 -0000 Subject: An Oddity - Dumbledore and Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168001 Goddlefrood wrote: > > "First of all, Harry, I want to thank you," said Dumbledore, > eyes twinkling again. "You must have shown me real loyalty > down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called > Fawkes to you." > > How could this work, I ask myself. A, probably, quite random > thought occurred to me recently. Basically it runs like this: > > What if the connection between Dumbledore is a little more than > just simply owner and pet? Dumbledore is acknowledged by many > as the most skilled wizard of his age (he is, as I've said > before the only wizard of his age ;)). > In respect of Fawkes my ridiculous suggestion for the evening > is that somehow Fawkes is a transformed part of Dumbledore. > > Why not? There is indubitably a strong link between them and > when needed Fawkes is able to help, even if Dumbledore himself > is not present. If Dumbledore was ready to die and go on to > the next great adventure atop the tower, regardless of the > circumstances of what went on there, then Fawkes would not > have had to swoop in to save him. Fawkes's lament thereafter > could suggest a mourning for a close and integral part of the > Phoenix, rather than simply grief over a lost master. > > The other little thought I had was that somehow Fawkes could be > a repository for a portion of DD's soul, which would then mean > that Dumbledore is not truly gone and those who ask for help > will find such help forthcoming from this residual piece of > Dumbledore that is alive in Fawkes. Carol responds: I don't think that fawkes is "a repository for a portion of DD's soul." That sounds too much like a Horcrux. Clearly, however, the bond between Fawkes and DD is very strong and, IMO, parallels that between Voldemort and Nagini. Both seem to me to be variations on the idea of a witch's or sorceror's "familiar." Of course, they're not spirits in animal form but magical animals, but they do the bidding of their masters without losing their own identities, and their own goodness or wickedness matches that of their master. (Nagini, of course, may also be a Horcrux, but that's beside the point here. She's Voldemort's "dear Nagini," whose venom helped create and sustain his fetal form; Dumbledore's beloved Fawkes helped him to escape from Fudge et al. and took an AK for him in the MoM.) Regarding that first quotation from CoS, my theory is that DD set up the protection of the Sword of Gryffindor in the Sorting Hat in advance, anticipating that a certain "true Gryffindor" would need to literally pull it out of the hat if he entered the Chamber of Secrets, and he instructed Fawkes to carry the Sorting Hat to anyone in dire peril (specifically from the Basilisk?) who expressed loyalty to him, as Harry does. DD says first, knowing that Harry is hiding under the Invisibility Cloak and can hear him, "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" (CoS Am. ed. 264). Help for Harry arrives in the form of Fawkes bearing the Sorting Hat with the concealed Sword of Gryffindor in it. (Fawkes himself blinds the Basilisk and heals Harry's wound; the sword, of course, is used to kill the Basilisk.) None of this would be possible, IMO, unless DD had engineered it in advance, as his words to Harry in Hagrid's hut suggest. Fawkes is acting as DD's agent, carrying out his will to help Harry (the only person likely to find himself in the CoS confronting the Heir of Slytherin). How, exactly, does this work? I'm not sure, but I think that Harry's words expressing loyalty to DD worked as a kind of charm to summon Fawkes, rather like the words "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good" work as a spell to reveal the Marauder's Map. Fawkes appears, bearing the Sorting Hat (which he must know conceals the sword and must be carrying on DD's instructions) when Harry says, after defending DD as the greatest sorceror in the world, "He's not as gone as you might think!" (315) At these words, which echo what DD said to Harry in Hagrid's hut, Fawkes appears. And even Diary!Tom knows that the protection has been set up by DD: "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender! a songbird and an old hat!" (316) Probably the specific words that Harry spoke didn't matter; it was the sentiment--fierce loyalty to Dumbledore in a time of need--that summoned Fawkes to help Harry. Similarly, a mere thought, or a sense of his master's need, seems to summon Fawkes to Dumbledore in OoP. He appears out of nowhere as "a burst of flame in midair" as Voldemort reappears after taking the form of a serpent and casts an AK, which Fawkes swallows (OoP Am. ed. 815). The question is, of course, given this bond between them, this instantaneous, silent communication, why Fawkes didn't swoop down and swallow Snape's AK on the tower. And the only answer I can think of is that Dumbledore didn't want him to. BTW, I almost forgot. DD is not "the only wizard of his age." Madam Marchbanks, who tested the young DD in Transfiguration and Charms, IIRC, is obviously older than DD. So are some of the other examiners, e.g., Professor Tofty, and possibly some members of the Wizengamot. (Tiberius Ogden?) And, at a guess, Aberforth Dumbledore isn't more than, say, ten years younger than Albus--probably less, as brothers and sisters in the HP books are generally no more than a few years apart. Carol, who is not suggesting that Fawkes or any other magical animal in the HP books is an evil spirit, only that the bond between JKR's witches, wizards, and even Squibs and their pets resembles the bond between a witch and her familiar in old tales and legends (stripped of any connection to demons and devils) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 19:27:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:55 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are In-Reply-To: <31216317.1177696557018.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168002 Barry wrote: > >Given the ailments that are cured in the HP series, isn't it curious that magic hasn't cured Harry of wearing glasses? Bart responded: > Not really; bad vision requires a delicacy not evident in the WW. Unlike teeth; if you can regrow bones in an arm, then why not teeth? Carol chimes in: I've asked myself both questions and can only conclude that JKR is placing limitations on magic, just as she does when she makes real money and real food necessities in the WW. You can't conjure either one, or the Weasleys wouldn't be poor and Lupin wouldn't be thin and hungry-looking. And Sirius Black could simply have stolen a wand and conjured food rather than living on rats. (I still think it's unfair to poor Merope to think that she could have kept herself alive using magic when she couldn't conjure food or money.) Aside from regrowing bones using Skele-Gro, most magical Healing seems to consist of healing magical diseases (e.g., dragon pox) and magically induced injuries from, say, potions or hexes. Madam Pomfrey does reduce the size of Hermione's teeth, but she's reversing the Densuageo hex with a shrinking spell. "Episkey" will heal a broken nose or a swollen lip (HBP), but it doesn't seem to be a well-known spell and may not work for a broken arm or leg. (Surely, Lupin would have healed Ron's leg instead of merely conjuring a splint if it were that easy.) "Reparo" seems to work only on broken objects, not to restore lost teeth. And it's amazing how many characters lose teeth in the HP books--Rita Skeeter has three gold ones (indicating how many times she's been beaten up by outraged readers?). Dobby knocks out several of Kreacher's teeth. Grawp knocks out some of Hagrid's. The WW is a tough world, and magic doesn't solve all problems. (Someone should send those poor people or creatures to Hermione's parents for some nice Muggle false teeth.) Some wounds, like Bill Weasley's, won't entirely heal. Mad-Eye Moody has a wooden leg with a claw on the end, a magical glass eye that he probably prefers to the original, and a chunk out of his nose (surely that could have been restored magically if he'd wanted it to be?). His frightening appearance illustrates the rough life of an Auror and partly explains his paranoia. A frightening appearance may serve his own purposes (and Fake!Moody's, as well). As for eyeglasses, bad eyesight is not, of course, a magical ailment, so maybe witches and wizards use nonmagical remedies for it just as Muggles do. A skilled witch or wizard *might* be able to change the shape of another witch or wizard's eyeball to correct near- or far-sightedness, but it seems like a terrible risk. Better to wear glasses and be safe. Carol, divided between plot needs and the limits of magic as an explanation for unrestored teeth and wishing, uncanonically and OT, that the boy who plays Neville in the films would get himself to a Muggle orthodontist From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 19:49:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:49:57 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic - Anarchy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168003 --- "lealess" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > > > In Harry, I see the idealism of youth. His demand > > is that the men in government and the people > > controlling the Press are and do what they have sworn > > to do. ... > > > > In that sense, I agree, Harry and friends are > > 'reactionary' not anarchists. They are reacting to > > the specifics of this administration, not rebelling > > against the concept of government in general. > lealess: > > Trying to keep this to the books in general, I agree > that Harry demands that the government listen to the > truth, ... Beyond that, is there any evidence that > Harry supports the wizarding government or the concept > of... government, or even thinks about it at all? > bboyminn: Interesting discussion, but also getting difficult to keep on topic. True we don't see evidence that Harry supports government in general, but we also see no evidence that he doesn't. Ron's Dad works for the government without Harry's opposition. Harry himself is interested in a career in government (an Auror) after Hogwarts. I think his lack of opposition to government in general indicates his defacto support. Very few people believe it is possible to live without a controlling government. Anarchists may think that it would be much better if we all cooperated and did our own thing. Well, the 'do your own thing' part would work out nicely, it's the 'cooperate' part that would be a dismal failure. Even in our controlled society, the greatest problem is that people don't cooperate when it comes to fundamental and basic rules of behavior. > > bboyminn: > > The anarchist aspect is also tied to the idealism of > > youth. They see that rules are not absolute. ... > > > > So, in the sense, that Harry and the gang do not see > > rules as absolute and immutable, that their is a > > higher moral cause than 'doing what your told', there > > is an element of anarchism in them. > > > > ... > lealess: > > I guess the point I have been trying to make is that > anyone, not just anarchists, can object to the actions > of government and participate in redirecting or opposing > those actions. Look at the Civil Rights Movement ..., > for example. ... > > And any teenager who disobeys his or her parents may > see rules as being unfair. I don't think you would say > they are necessarily morally justified. They are also > not anarchists. > bboyminn: Yes, but let us not lose sight of the moral aspect. Harry and the gang disregard the rules when the rules have an absolute need to be disregarded. They follow a higher moral purpose. When a kid disobeys his parents, it's usually not to pursue some higher moral purpose, it simply because they don't like the restrictions they have been given. In most cases Harry is not a bratty kid who isn't getting his way. He does TRY to obey the rules, thereby implying that he understands the general need for rules. But when lives are at stake and the rules have lost their moral focus, then it is time to act and the rules be damned. That is not true anarchism, but it reflects an anarchistic like tendency. Government wants all citizens to conform, to follow the rules blindly and obediently, yet many citizens feel that there are times when breaking the rule is the MORALLY RIGHT thing to do. This is true of the "Freedom Marchers" in the Civil Right era. Though they were not really violating the foundation of our Democracy. They were violating petty and arbitrary local rules that existed against the Founding Principles and against the legally defined doctrines and laws of liberty. Yes, they were arrested, but they were arrested by corrupt government that had created and selectively enforced a set of unconstitutional laws. So, I'm not saying that in understanding that rule sometimes need to be broken, that Harry is a absolute anarchist, only that he is displaying anarchistic tendencies. Overal, he is 'reacting' to individuals, not rebelling against the concept of government in general. In concept I think we agree, we just have a slightly different application of concepts and definitions. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From boarhunter67 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 26 23:18:34 2007 From: boarhunter67 at hotmail.com (wranglerdavis) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:18:34 -0000 Subject: What happened to Voldemort's wand? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168004 wranglerdavis writes: I was just wondering what happened to V's wand. In GoF he states that he was reduced to less than a spirit. He certainly could not have carried his wand away with him. Later in GoF, Wormtail uses a wand to kill Ced. Diggory. Evidently it was V's wand he used because later Ced's ghost or memory comes out of V's wand. Why would Wormtail use V's wand instead of his own? Also, after Wormtail uses the wand he seems to keep it, but Voldemort then reaches into his own robes and presto it is there. Did Wormtail pick up the robes with his one hand, and somehow put the wand into the pocket with the same hand before draping the wand onto Voldemort? Hmm. I'm still wondering how he got it in the first place. wranglerdavis From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 21:08:46 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:08:46 -0000 Subject: Notes on Literary uses of magic - Anarchy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168005 > >>lealess: > Trying to keep this to the books in general, I agree that Harry > demands that the government listen to the truth, for example, about > his use of magic outside school and about Voldemort's return. > Beyond that, is there any evidence that Harry supports the wizarding > government or the concept of a wizarding government, or even thinks > about it at all? > > And yes, in general, an anarchist would want to live without the > oppression of a state (not necessarily without a government, > although some anarchists do advocate that), in self-determination > and voluntary cooperation with others. Betsy Hp: Yeah, I wouldn't link Harry or his friends with anarchists. If anything, their way of looking at the world (and I hesitate to label it as their politics, because I honestly don't think any of them, including Hermione, have thought their views through enough to be an actual defined political philosophy) is almost feudalistic at heart. (I *think* feudalism is the right word here.) They all (and I'm including both Order members and Harry's group of friends here) have an intrinsic loyalty to Dumbledore that they use to define themselves. That loyalty does get transferred to Harry, but even Harry defines himself as Dumbledore's man. The two stand as one but with Harry as subservient (Dumbledore doesn't use Harry to define himself). There is little to no tolerance given towards anyone who questions Dumbledore's or Harry's authority. We see that in the opening of OotP when Harry's dormmates say whether they are for or against Dumbledore. When Seamus lets his confusion be known, when he asks for further information in order to make a decision, he's not only shut down, but Ron uses the authority given to him by the "State" (or Hogwarts) to keep Seamus down. The overall treatment of Zach Smith in OotP and HBP is another example of Harry and his friends reluctance to share information, and their resentment of those who question. > >>bboyminn: > > > > So, in the sense, that Harry and the gang do not see rules > > as absolute and immutable, that their is a higher moral > > cause than 'doing what your told', there is an element of > > anarchism in them. > > > >>lealess: > I guess the point I have been trying to make is that anyone, not > just anarchists, can object to the actions of government and > participate in redirecting or opposing those actions. > > Anarchy is a political philosophy (actually, many of them) that > addresses the imbalance of power between the state and the > individual, with the specific intention to address that topic. > This I do not see Harry Potter or Rowling doing, even > subconsciously. > Betsy Hp: I agree. Really, Harry and friends weren't going up against the MoM *because* it was the MoM. They opposed it because it first opposed Dumbledore. They follow Dumbledore's "rules", and they understand that Dumbledore's authority trumps the authority of the MoM. If the two powers come into conflict, they go with Dumbledore. They're not about the individual, they're about absolute and unquestioning loyalty to their Man. Honestly, the closest group within the books that I'd link to Anarchists are the Death Eaters. I mean, they're *not*. But they started out as a group working against the oppressive authority of the MoM. Or that's how Voldemort spun the literature anyway. And I'm betting that's how he won so many young people to his side. (Oh gosh! This gives even *more* support to punkrock!Snape! I can *totally* see a frustrated and angry young!Snape being all "Anarchy in the UK!" as he joins up with the Death Eaters. ) > >>bboyminn: > > Harry and the gang disregard the rules when the rules have an > absolute need to be disregarded. They follow a higher moral purpose. > > So, I'm not saying that in understanding that rule sometimes need > to be broken, that Harry is a absolute anarchist, only that he is > displaying anarchistic tendencies. Overal, he is 'reacting' to > individuals, not rebelling against the concept of government in > general. > Betsy Hp: The thing is though, I have a hard time linking individualism with Harry. He *doesn't* like people to question him. He doesn't like people to question Dumbledore. And he does expect absolute, unswavering loyalty to himself and his (or Dumbledore's) cause. And while Dumbledore is a bit more witty and a lot less capslocky about it, he's pretty much the same way. "Because I said so" is kind of Dumbledore's modus operandi, and his people can be very violent against those that ask why. Harry and his friends don't dislike authority. They dislike non- Dumbledore authority. Gosh, they don't even dislike cronyism (something I'd bet anarchists have a real problem with) as long as it's their cronies getting ahead. It's not that they're following a "higher moral purpose". They're following Dumbledore. (All wizards are equal; Dumbledore is more equal than others. ) Betsy Hp From va32h at comcast.net Fri Apr 27 22:15:34 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:15:34 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side & Harry/Myrtle's Glasses are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I've asked myself both questions and can only conclude that JKR is > placing limitations on magic, just as she does when she makes real > money and real food necessities in the WW. You can't conjure either > one, or the Weasleys wouldn't be poor and Lupin wouldn't be thin and > hungry-looking. And Sirius Black could simply have stolen a wand and > conjured food rather than living on rats. (I still think it's unfair > to poor Merope to think that she could have kept herself alive using > magic when she couldn't conjure food or money.) va32h: I do agree with you except - we have seen Molly conjure food. She's made sauce come out of her wand when cooking. And Harry has conjured water from his wand. In general, my understanding of magic is that conjured items do not last...for example, when Dumbledore conjures a chair at Christmas dinner for Prof. Trelawney, it disappears at some point after dinner. Maybe conjured food and water is not filling. va32h From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Apr 27 22:15:32 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:15:32 -0000 Subject: What happened to Voldemort's wand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168007 > wranglerdavis writes: > > I was just wondering what happened to V's wand. Wormtail uses a wand to > kill Ced. Diggory. Evidently it was V's wand he used because later > Ced's ghost or memory comes out of V's wand. > wranglerdavis JW: This is on my list of questions to be resolved in DH. The mystery of LV's wand - and it is obvious LV did not carry it with him - leads readers to believe that at least one more person was in the Potter hide- away (in addition to three Potters and LV). Was it Peter? Was it Snape? Lupin? DD? Somebody from the future time-traveling back to the scene of the crime? The speculation goes on and on. Where was LV's wand kept until GOF, and who kept it? Was Peter (in his rat animagus state for all those years) capable of carrying it, or did he (or somebody else) hide it for all that time. Did Peter then make a pit stop to retrieve the wand before wandering off to Albania to team up with LV? Then again, the first time we see LV with ANY wand is in the beginning of GOF in the Riddle house, when he kills the caretaker. Was it hidden THERE? By whom? Lots of questions, a myriad of guesses and speculations. I have not heard any idea that I find provable or otherwise compelling. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 00:00:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:00:43 -0000 Subject: What happened to Voldemort's wand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168008 Wranglerdavis wrote: >> I was just wondering what happened to V's wand. In GoF he states that he was reduced to less than a spirit. He certainly could not have carried his wand away with him. Later in GoF, Wormtail uses a wand to kill Ced. Diggory. Evidently it was V's wand he used because later Ced's ghost or memory comes out of V's wand. Why would Wormtail use V's wand instead of his own? Also, after Wormtail uses the wand he seems to keep it, but Voldemort then reaches into his own robes and presto it is there. Did Wormtail pick up the robes with his one hand, and somehow put the wand into the pocket with the same hand before draping the wand onto Voldemort? Hmm. I'm still wondering how he got it in the first place. JW replied: > This is on my list of questions to be resolved in DH. The mystery of LV's wand - and it is obvious LV did not carry it with him - leads readers to believe that at least one more person was in the Potter hide-away (in addition to three Potters and LV). Was it Peter? Was it Snape? Lupin? DD? Somebody from the future time-traveling back to the scene of the crime? The speculation goes on and on. Where was LV's wand kept until GOF, and who kept it? Was Peter (in his rat animagus state for all those years) capable of carrying it, or did he (or somebody else) hide it for all that time. Did Peter then make a pit stop to retrieve the wand before wandering off to Albania to team up with LV? Then again, the first time we see LV with ANY wand is in the beginning of GOF in the Riddle house, when he kills the caretaker. Was it hidden THERE? By whom? > > Lots of questions, a myriad of guesses and speculations. I have not > heard any idea that I find provable or otherwise compelling. Carol responds: I just lost a post on this topic, so I'll try again. First, I think JW's point that LV had his wand at the beginning of GoF is important. He didn't get it back at the graveyard; he used it to kill Frank Bryce. In fact, he had it before that since it was also used, either by LV or by Wormtail, to kill Bertha Jorkins. And that murder occurred soon after Wormtail abducted Bertha and took her to Voldemort. No other person--Snape, Lupin, Crouch Jr., or anyone else--was in contact with LV at that time. The person who returned LV's wand had to be Wormtail, the same person who resurrected him. Since Wormtail was the SK and betrayer of the Potters, it makes perfect sense for him to have been at Godric's Hollow, hiding in rat form and witnessing the murders of his former friends and the vaporization of his master. He could have quickly hidden the wand, maybe Apparating first to get away from GH, and come back for it later. He would still have had his own wand at that point, so he could have hidden LV's wand magically. He must have used his own wand to blow up the street and blast off his own finger since those spells don't show up on Voldemort's wand (though the Potters' deaths do). But he no longer has a wand when he's transformed into a "man" in the Shrieking Shack. (He grabs Lupin's wand when Lupin transforms and uses it to attack Ron and Crookshanks, but Harry disarms him, so he's wandless again when he scampers away in rat form.) I'm guessing that PP lost his own wand after he blew up the street, dropping it along with the bloody cloak that Fudge mentions in PoA, and, of course, the finger. It would have been suspicious if his wand disappeared with him, but if it was lying there on the ground, he'd be presumed dead. He clearly did not have either his own wand or LV's with him when he transformed and went into the sewers or he'd have been armed when Lupin and Black forced him to assume his human form in the Shrieking Shack. I'm guessing that he scampered away from the Shrieking Shack, Apparated to GH or wherever LV's wand was hidden, and returned with it to his vaporized master, who was evidently possessing small animals at that point. (Wormtail, who could talk to animals in his Animagus form, would have had a huge advantage over other wizards in finding him. I think he did have the wand with him in his Animagus form this time around, probably in the pocket of his transfigured robes.) As I said, Voldemort had his own wand at the time that he tortured and killed Bertha Jorkins. It had to have been brought to him by Wormtail, and probably Wormtail was forced to return it to him after he restored to fetal form. It just occurred to me that Wormtail could have taken Bertha Jorkins's wand for his own use after she was murdered, which would explain how he could have two wands at the graveyard after losing his own, but it doesn't explain why he would have used LV's wand to kill Cedric if he also had Bertha's. I think, to answer wranglerdavis's question, he must have put Voldemort's wand into the pocket of Voldie's robes before he made the potion and used Bertha's wand to summon the "bone of the father" from Tom Sr.'s grave. Otherwise, I don't see how the wand he used for that spell could have gotten into Voldemort's pocket. Carol, quite sure that there are holes in her explanation but unable to come up with a better one at the moment From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Apr 28 01:21:15 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:21:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Notes on Literary uses of magic - Anarchy References: Message-ID: <014c01c78933$8657d8f0$ad6c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168009 > bboyminn: > > Yes, but let us not lose sight of the moral aspect. Harry > and the gang disregard the rules when the rules have an > absolute need to be disregarded. They follow a higher > moral purpose. > > When a kid disobeys his parents, it's usually not to > pursue some higher moral purpose, it simply because they > don't like the restrictions they have been given. In > most cases Harry is not a bratty kid who isn't getting > his way. He does TRY to obey the rules, thereby implying > that he understands the general need for rules. But when > lives are at stake and the rules have lost their moral > focus, then it is time to act and the rules be damned. Magpie: Actually, while there's certainly examples of this, Harry is also perfectly capable of just not liking the restrictions, which is why he sneaks out to Hogsmeade. Most teenagers *do* think they have good reason for damning the rules when they break them. Harry always feels justified in breaking the rules, but then, what teenager doesn't when the rules are stupid or interfere with something he thinks is important? There's probably a rules about kids using Polyjuice, but Harry felt justified using it on Crabbe and Goyle. We could look at that as Harry having a higher calling, but then, Crabbe and Goyle were innocent. If you go deeper you see the real reason for the rule--everybody doesn't become justified in using Polyjuice and spying just because there was a monster on the loose. Hermione's justification is quite slippery. She says: What's worse, making a complicated Potion or killing Muggleborns? It doesn't really describe the situation at all. Really what we're talking about is saying every person decides what he does himself based on what he thinks is right...which comes down to not respecting rules for their own sake at all, or to following the rules as long as it doesn't interfere too much with what you want to do (which can have moral implications anywhere from "I ought to be able to go to Hogsmeade" to "I know Malfoy is guilty" to "We need to learn Defense Spells" to "I need to make Polyjuice" to "I need an edge in the TWT.") And of course, this doesn't mean that any of the people breaking rules feel the same way about other people breaking their rules. And of course, through it all, Dumbledore makes it clear he's fine with a "certain disregard for rules." I've always gotten the impression that breaking rules for non-life-threatening reasons was smiled upon in canon, even if you're roaming around with a werewolf and people could be in danger. It's not like Tolkien, for instance, where people don't break rules lightly, and are praised for it *only* if there was a true higher moral reason. Being too bound to rules seems a consistent character flaw in Rowling's universe. Hermione's love of rules is shallow and not based on any deep understanding of the reasons for the rules...which is why she pretty consistently breaks them. When it comes down to it, she wants to decide what's right and wrong to do--and ironically, she often feels like she should be able to decide it for other people as well. Lealess touched on that in mentioning how dissent is tolerated in the DA. I would have found that organization quite domineering if I were in it, and objected to the very idea that it needed some sort of leader or personal loyalty to Harry. So while I see that these characters don't hold rigidly to rules in terms of following them, compared to the people I hang around with they're actually a lot more authoritative and demanding of conforming. BetsyHp: "Because I said so" is kind of Dumbledore's modus operandi, and his people can be very violent against those that ask why. Magpie: Yup, it's kind of the classic fantasy set up where the best leader is a single person whose judgement everyone else can depend on. And by now I'm pretty used to Harry's group considering challenges from outsiders to be wrong. (Even insider challenges can be put down.) -m From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 02:09:10 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Magic as a Virus? Message-ID: <956920.6241.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168010 There has been a lot of dicussion on this list on the 'genetics of magic' and pureblood and muggle-borns? This has often taken the form of dicusion of regressive genes. But has anyone thought of a different angle. Perhaps the reason 'magic' is so rare is that in JKR's world it is a disease. In other words: 'Magic is a virus.' A virus that most muggle's have natural immunity to but Wizards do not. In other words a pure-blood wizard or witch literally catches the magic from his parents as you or I could catch a cold. For whatever reason the immunity to the 'magic illness' is dominant, but once in a while a 'muggle-born' is born who does not have immunity and is then somehow exposed to the 'magic-bug' and catches magic. A squib would be a a pure-blood who somehow spontaneously develops resistence to the 'magic bug'. This resistance might be partial or full. So not all squibs may be 'full squibs'. And not all may be immune in the same way. The magic bug could even be a 'parasite' gaining something from infecting the host that in some way harms them, which would explain why muggles have immunity. Though I have no idea what this could be. How could 'magic' harm a which or wizard? What do you think? ------------------------------------------- DA Jones --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From boarhunter67 at hotmail.com Sat Apr 28 01:44:50 2007 From: boarhunter67 at hotmail.com (wranglerdavis) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:44:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168011 I've always thought that with all the clues in the pensieve that Harry would have to go back to get it. Maybe DD leaves it to him in his will? DD did say he felt like all the clues were there, but that he was missing something. Maybe the three musketeers will put the clues together to find the first Horcrux and that will lead to the next and so on... wranglerdavis From boarhunter67 at hotmail.com Sat Apr 28 01:39:28 2007 From: boarhunter67 at hotmail.com (wranglerdavis) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:39:28 -0000 Subject: What happened to Voldemort's wand? / LV in Albania / finals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168012 JustCarol67, it sounds like we were both born the same year, or does 67 mean something else? So far your explaination sounds the most logical. The only thing that still seems odd is that wormtail would keep using LV's wand if he had one of his own. Also, I'm assuming Wormtail had a wand (other than LV's) when he met Bertha or he probably wouldn't have been able to overpower her. The other two things that have always seemed odd in GoF to me are LV's going to Albania and implying he couldn't get back until he had the help of Prof. Q. If he is too weak to really travel as he states in GoF then how did he get to Albania in the first place and how did he leave Europe again after book one to get back to where Wormtail found him? Also if everyone in GoF kept saying he was rumored to be where Bertha J. disappeared, why wasn't anyone looking for him either supporters or nonsupporters? Several key players seem to know where he was, yet nobody except Wormtail saw him. The rumors were accurate so how did they get started if nobody saw him and why didn't anyone follow up on the rumors while he was still there. Lastly, in most of the novels, I thought when finals were over they sat around the tree relaxing and visiting. Didn't it mention several times in other books that once finals were over there wasn't anything to do until the results, feast, and train home? In GoF after the finals they still go to class. This seems odd. Maybe I'm mistaken. What do you think? wranglerdavis From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 02:53:34 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:53:34 -0000 Subject: The Code of the Schoolyard and Potential Surprises in Store ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168013 > > > wynnleaf > > > Lupin not tattling on his friends pales to insignificance > > > when compared to his willingness to -- for years -- make > > > a mockery of Dumbledore's giving him a chance to be a > > > student at Hogwarts and yet keep Hogwarts and the > > > surrounding population safe from a werewolf. > > Goddlefrood: > > I did not overlook it, I simply failed to mention it ;). It > > all goes to the code of the schoolyard. The kids were having > > fun, why tell anyone who might stop them? > wynnleaf > You still don't seem to get the point. Goddlefrood: I'll stop you there. I have got the point, your misgrasp of mine appears to be causing some difficulty ;) For all here at HPfGU I present some expansion on the code of the schoolyard. I didn't make this up, it's simply something that exists :) First though allow Argus Filch to have a say: "I bet you'll think twice about breaking a school rule again, won't you, eh?" he said, leering at them. "Oh yes... hard work and pain are the best teachers if you ask me.... It's just a pity they let the old punishments die out... hang you by your wrists from the ceiling for a few days, I've got the chains still in my office, keep 'em well oiled in case they're ever needed.... Right, off we go, and don't think of running off, now, it'll be worse for you if you do." >From PS / SS - Chapter 15 The Forbidden Forest Filch, remember, joined the school after Molly and Arthur had left. The above clearly implies that in his time as caretaker some quite antiquated ;) punishments were used. That schoolyard code in a nutshell: (i) Never, but never sneak on fellow students (Marietta has been referred before) (ii) Break as many school rules as possible without getting caught. With this one HRH, Fred and George, and many others seem to try their best to comply. The Marauders need have been no different, they enjoyed themselves, iow, and hang the consequences. Not an unfair reading, it seems to be what happened, Remus ignored the consequences, irresponsible, of course, as I said before, but also insufficient to hang a theory of betrayal on. He could have stopped, yes, but he did not ;) (iii) Prefects can have limited exceptions to the above, so if the whole argument is relative to Remus's having been a prefect then it may have some merit, but not a great deal, as prefects ultimately remain students themselves. (iv) The Head Boy or Girl should show no favouritism, but within acceptable bounds not rat out their friends and other fellow students except where not to do so could come back to haunt them. They should not be seen to be breaking school rules themselves. (v) Look out for members of your own house above all others. This hardly needs examples from canon as they would be far too many to go into :). This also remains after school, what is often referred to as the old boy's network or old girl's netwrok as applicable. (vi) Goad the teachers wherever possible. This is a regular occurence in the HP world too :) (vii) Never, but never sneak on fellow students. This one is so fundamental it bears repetition. Draco has broken this on a regular basis, and for that alone he deserves a painful death ;) There are other less serious ones, but these about cover it. My own social and cultural parameters, which include a background in various educational establishments not far removed from Hogwarts, that is boarding schools associated with nearby towns or villages which could only be visited on occasion, lends some strength to my view that a very similar situation prevails at Hogwarts. I firmly believe that Ms. Rowling's basic system at Hogwarts follows an ostensibly similar code for her schoolyard :). Having said all that should one have been caught breeching any school rules then the punishments, which I have gone through before and will not repeat here, would have been severe. Not quite to the point of being hung from a dungeon wall perhaps, but certainly not far off :) Many children, and that is after all what we are dealing with in respect of the Marauders and HRH, have little regard for the school rules. JKR also had this to say when questioned about adults' perception of what is essentially a children's world (the school part of it anyway): " ... adults surprise me by appearing to forget how powerless you feel as a child, how despairing... and just... enormous pressures on you as a child, even a happy child..." That from The Magic Behind Harry Potter, Sixty Minutes (CBSNews), 3rd October 2002, which can be found in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1002-sixtymin-stahl- reedit.html It certainly seems to me an eminently sensible suggestion, adults do forget what things were like and tend to discount the viewpoint, which is IMO a reasonable extrapolation from the above quote, they may have had when at school themselves, which IMNSVHO would contain the code of the schoolyard, at least if it included a background in a school that were not dissimilar to Hogwarts ;) --------------- On other real world comparators brought in in the post to which this responds I would say that they are hardly applicable, and in fact on at least one occasion Snape brought the Potion of control to Lupin. I doubt if it was prescribed ;). I also find it difficult to accept when many compare the Dursleys to real world exemplars due to the lack of clear understanding shown on how social services might work. They do not swoop in on any slight infringement of a child's rights, perhaps they should, but they do not. I also agree with the point that Remus is weak-willed, but I can not extract from that a situation where it would mean he were evil, as it appears to me even wynnleaf concedes :). If it turns out Remus is some kind of hindrance then it would be, IMO, through inadvertance rather than any other motive. -------------- > wynnleaf > Your argument earlier was that Harry wouldn't get any *more* > surprise problems (other than he's already got at the end of > HBP), and therefore Lupin wouldn't betray Harry. No unexpected > problems for Harry equates to no major suspense. I don't buy > that. JKR loves it too much. Goddlefrood: This you mean?: "There will be quite enough problems for Harry to face without one more he was not expecting." Or perhaps this? "Oh, and I too hope we are in for some surprises in DH, but I do not expect Remus to be one of them." I couldn't find anything that could fit with what this above extract says to meet the case ;) A further misinterpretation of what I said. I only meant said there will be few surprises over *character's allegiances* left, barring Snape, is what I have said, not the above, sorry if you feel differently, but there it is. There certainly will be surprises. Here's a few I expect: (i) The person who will perform magic later in life will be surprising, whether it is Mrs. Figg, Filch or whomsoever as it will surprise Harry ;) (ii) I anticipate that at least one of the Horcruxes will be surprisingly easy to find ;) (iii) There will be surprises in the quest for the Horcrux, where they are, what they are is a possibility too and also whether the numbers add up. (iv) Harry will be surprised to find out who R. A. B. is, even if we here appear now to have resolved to accept that it is Regulus. (v) There will indubitably be surprise attacks on Harry, one of which may be at Privet Drive. (vi) Aunt Petunia will surprise us all and Harry further. (vii) The mystery to be left at the end :) (viii) and (ix) the (x) list goes (xi) on and on :) Clear enough now? I was certainly not surprised by the six-gilled shark, she's a nasty woman and capable of appaling depravity. She is also most likely to be the reason that Fudge held out acceptance of LV's return for so long, she certainly has been shown as a strong supporter of the misinformation campaign against Harry. Kreacher was not much of a surprise either, IMO. Snape's allegiance may or may not be a surprise, it will be to Harry only if he turns out to be assisting Harry in some way, as I've speculated on ad nauseam before. ;) What I do see in these arguments to Remus being other than good is a singular lack of any speculation as to how this may affect Deathly Hallows, even if it turns out to be correct, which I highly doubt. Try not to be too selective in quoting this material for any responses it may bring ;), and do bring in new material if possible, stressing the same matters over and over is quite dull I find :) Goddlefrood who remains far from convinced, and gives little credence to arguments that do not come from a perspective of experience of similar situations. Also wondering where we might extract a comparator from the real world for a bat bogey hex :-? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 07:10:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:10:58 -0000 Subject: An Oddity - Dumbledore and Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168014 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > I don't think that fawkes is "a repository for a > portion of DD's soul." ... too much like a Horcrux. > Clearly, however, the bond ...(between Dumbledore & > Fawkes)... parallels that between Voldemort and > Nagini. Both seem to me to be variations on the idea > of a witch's or sorceror's "familiar." ... > > DD says first, ... "... You will also find that help > will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for > it" (CoS Am. ed. 264). > > Help for Harry arrives in the form of Fawkes bearing > the Sorting Hat with the concealed Sword of Gryffindor > in it. ... None of this would be possible, IMO, unless > DD had engineered it in advance, .. > bboyminn: When it comes to Dumbledore pre-planning to help Harry by sending Fawkes, I have the same feeling that I have when people suggested the Dumbledore planned for Snape to kill him. That just feels like too much detail. I take a more general approach. Dumbledore planned for Snape to do what must be done for the greater good regardless of any necessary but unpleasant sacrifice, but nothing so specific as 'when the DE's enter the castle, then you seek up an kill me'. That's just too absurd. Now, I think Dumbledore had a general plan for helping Harry, but again, you are presenting too many details that Dumbledore simply wasn't able to foresee. So, a general plan. Dumbledore instructed Fawkes to watch over things while he was gone. If /anyone/ was in dire need of help and had shown loyalty to Dumbledore then Fawkes should go to their aid, and aid them as best he could. Though I can't prove it, I've alway suspected the Sword was always in the hat, but no one ever knew it. Fawkes grabbed that Hat knowing it contain great magic, and could produce what Harry needed. Maybe the sword was not always in the Sorting Hat, but maybe the Hat worked like a magic wishing Hat. Harry had a need, wished for something to fulfill that need, and the Hat provided by summoning the Sword from where ever it was stored. I can't say that Dumbledore did /not/ put the sword in the Hat, but that seems very specific. Again, I question whether he could have foreseen what Harry would need in the moment. Perhaps what Harry really needed under other slightly different circumstances was not a sword but a mirror so the Basilisk could see it's own gaze and essentially kill itself. That's actually been done before, creatures that kill with a look, kill themselves by looking at themselves. I think the Magic Hat bringing what was needed in the moment makes more sense than Dumbledore being able to predict the future. But then, I always was a little odd ;). > Carol: > > ... > > Probably the specific words that Harry spoke didn't > matter; it was the sentiment--fierce loyalty to > Dumbledore in a time of need--that summoned Fawkes > to help Harry. > bboyminn: Off on a tangent, as I frequently am. Note that Dumbledore is gone, Fawkes is still at large. What are the chances that Harry will call Fawkes to him again at a time of very dire need in the final book? Is this ability, demonstrated more than once, of Harry's to draw aid from Fawkes merely a set up for a greater need and greater calling of Fawkes in the final book, or has that card already been played? I can see Harry captured by Voldemort and/or Death Eaters, trapped in a Dungeon. Desperately lamenting that Dumbledore isn't there to help him, but wishing with all his might that he was. Suddenly Fawkes appears, grabs Harry by the shoulders, and the two of them are out of there. OK maybe that specific scene isn't that likely, but the core question remains, do you see a /likely/ possibility that Harry will call Fawkes to him again, in a time of great need? Just curious. Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 09:24:09 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:24:09 -0000 Subject: An Oddity - Dumbledore and Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168016 > bboyminn: > When it comes to Dumbledore pre-planning to help Harry > by sending Fawkes, I have the same feeling that I have > when people suggested the Dumbledore planned for Snape > to kill him. That just feels like too much detail. > I take a more general approach. Dumbledore planned for > Snape to do what must be done for the greater good > regardless of any necessary but unpleasant sacrifice, > but nothing so specific as 'when the DE's enter the > castle, then you seek up an kill me'. That's just too > absurd. Goddlefrood: This is an interesting viewpoint. It could certainly be commended. It does not seem likely that DD planned that closely, just in a general way as suggested. It has me thinking of a deeper bond between master and pet, though. If one shows true loyalty to DD it could turn out, as suggested, that Fawkes will answer the call as DD is no longer able to, being dead and all. I do agree that it is likely Fawkes will have quite an important role to play in DH and will, almost certainly, have a beak or claw in Harry's continuing adventure. JKR would not really help us here, but this exchange: "Who did Fawkes previously belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book? JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next books, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been owned by anyone but Dumbledore. You will notice that when Harry goes back in the Pensieve in this book, Fawkes is never there, and ?? no, I am sorry, not in this book, I take that back. When Harry has previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession." >From Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16th July 2005, available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4690800/469088 5.stm Is about all she has said relative to Fawkes, other than for his link to a conspirator in the Gunpowder Plot of the early 17th century and the continuing tadition of bonfire night, which is celebrated on 5th November each year. When JKR says such things it can be expected that there would be more to come in Deathly Hallows. Despite the usual link that is made between soul repositories and dark magic I think it may be possible that something similar, but almost entirely reversed could be at play with this DD / Fawkes bond. The power of love, which has come up time and again in the books, followed to a not wholly illogical conclusion, could lead to a view, which I now present, that there is a somewhat equivalent positive spell, charm, potion, enchantment or any other form of magic that would be called light magic to each piece of dark magic. This is not a new view, others have expressed it before me, but perhaps not quite in the same way. This despite there being no real clarity over what is dark and what is light. Although there are no spells to reverse death, JKR has said this, could it be that there is some spell that draws out the badness in a person or even takes away their magical ability altogether? Was this, perhaps what DD was trying to cast in the MoM Atrium that made the gong sound? Dumbledore almost certainly knows of this form of magic, LV has even alluded to such positive magic in the graveyard at Little Hangleton when he said "It was an old magic, I was a fool to overlook it", or thereabouts. The outcome of this old magic's emplacement was a positive, love-filled one and there is strong evidence that only deep and abiding love could have caused it to work, and it did work in that it saved Harry to live and eventually fight against LV. That DD was a blood expert should be in little doubt, having had a hand in formulating the twelve uses of dragon's blood and his not infrequent remarks in respect of the blood link that keeps Harry safe while at Privet Drive, links that I am confident of his having had a hand in putting in place. It came as a surprise to me that it came as a surprise to one Scott Moore that the crying of Fawkes to heal Harry's wounds in the CoS was left in the media we never mention ;). This: "The phoenix--a classic symbol of Christ, who dies and rises again--comes to help him. He kills the serpent, then in a moment quite shocking--I'm surprised Hollywood left it in-- the phoenix weeps in his wound to heal him. That's a classic symbol of Christ's passion. It's Christ's tears that make us whole." is what he said from Time, 23rd June, 2003. The article is available on the net: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005057,00.html So, yes, almost definitely Fawkes will help Harry and quite probably in a time of dire need. Perhaps he'll be there singing his songs to inspire the brave at heart and inspire fear in the less than true of heart, why not? The other interesting feature of a Phoenix, which is not in the books themselves, but is in one of the schoolbooks, FB, is that they can disappear and reappear at will, that too may have a part to play in the resolutio, it has been seen before and also reinforces my opinion that DD was ready to die, whatever the mechanics of that death may have been and notwithstanding the loyalties of those involved. It would be something, though, if Fawkes is more closely linked to DD by some tie of which we are as yet unaware :) A few further matters to chew on perhaps :-?. Goddlefrood #-o From kirp86 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Apr 28 11:23:33 2007 From: kirp86 at yahoo.co.uk (kirp86) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:23:33 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168017 Hi, hope I'm not intruding... I'm new to HPfGUs and wanted to add my 2 cents. Apologies if I end up repeating previous posts! I'm afraid I'm biased in that Lupin is my favourite character. He reminds me, in his actions, of Harry; doing everything possible for his friends. This can be interpreted as weak-willed - feeling guilty over disobeying Dumbledore but doing it just to retain his friends, for example. But consider his background; he never had friends, he'd never been accepted before. Probably wishful thinking, but during his time at Hogwarts as DADA teacher, he didn't go against Dumbledore, he merely neglected to tell him that he had abused his trust years previously (trust he hadn't been given before that, and almost certainly hasn't since). Like Harry, I would say that Hogwarts was the one place that he felt at home, especially during that time where he believed two friends to be dead at the hands of the third. This shifted once Sirius was cleared, as of OofP his home was with Sirius. He is weak in that he has spent a lot of time doing things for and by himself, and when he doesn't have to, when he has his friends, he will do anything to keep them near. Once he had the Marauders Map, note that he was 'examining it in his office' when he saw Sirius drag Ron and Pettigrew into the Whomping Willow... Is it a leap to assume he has been keeping an eye on it through guilt about his secret extra knowledge about Hogwarts? I guess I'm arguing that he isn't overtly a hero, but he does what he can in his own way, his flaw being he needs to keep the trust of those around him. He is also brave... why else would he be in Gryffindor? I think he's the most tragic figure in the books; a lot of people will disagree, but his four best childhood friends are dead or betrayers, to borrow a nicer word than traitor ;). I did think the change was interesting following Sirius' death. His role for the OotP has not changed since book 5, but it is only in HBP that this is shown to be making him more tired. He describes himself as old in HBP, when JK's description of him in all the other books is that he is young despite appearances. Could this be a factor in him turning out to be betrayer? Possibly. He could also be an unwitting betrayer, although his appearance fighting for the OotP at hogwarts in the presence of Greyback is sure to be a factor. Could it be that Snape and Lupin are both keeping up appearances? Sure. I'd like to remind people of his grief following Dumbledore's death; he is the one that Harry observes taking in the news - example of his innocence or guilt? I realise I'm going on a bit, I'm nearly done I promise! Just wanted to touch on the discussion of his Boggart lessons. He has been criticised in this forum for making Neville take on the Boggart Snape; self-confidence is not something that can be taught, but it can be developed in situations such as this. Does he see his own lack of self-confidence in Neville, who has a small friendship group he would do anything for, but who is suffering at the hands of an old adversary? Also, where is the evidence that he deliberately stopped Hermione from taking on her Boggart? And as well as stopping the classes fearful reaction to Harry's boggart, was he also protecting his job, and his re-found home? Lastly, JK Rowling!! She has expounded throughout her books the idea of people not being what they seem, and that 'half-breeds' should not be judged by that. She has an evil werewolf in Greyback, would she put all her werewolves on the side of Voldemort (especially without Dumbledore to explain to Harry that Lupin is misguided, not evil). Equally, would she take Harry's last father figure and put him against his cause? Finally, could she turn a character she loves? I don't know what she would or wouldn't do, these really are just rhetorical questions, she has written these books with an inimitable style, and however she writes it I will learn to love it! It's her universe, after all! Ok, sorry it's quite long, does any of this make sense? What do you think? Apologies again if I've repeated or stepped on any previous argument. Kirp86 From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Apr 28 14:50:56 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:50:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin References: Message-ID: <003a01c789a4$a1460170$229e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168018 > Kirp86 > I'm afraid I'm biased in that Lupin is my favourite character. He > reminds me, in his actions, of Harry; doing everything possible for > his friends. This can be interpreted as weak-willed - feeling guilty > over disobeying Dumbledore but doing it just to retain his friends, > for example. But consider his background; he never had friends, he'd > never been accepted before. Probably wishful thinking, but during his > time at Hogwarts as DADA teacher, he didn't go against Dumbledore, he > merely neglected to tell him that he had abused his trust years > previously (trust he hadn't been given before that, and almost > certainly hasn't since). Like Harry, I would say that Hogwarts was > the > one place that he felt at home, especially during that time where > he believed two friends to be dead at the hands of the third. This > shifted once Sirius was cleared, as of OofP his home was with Sirius. Magpie: I like Lupin a lot too, but I wouldn't say he does everything possible for his friends (I don't even know if I'd use that expression for Harry either--Harry will do a lot for his friends, but it's not like he centers his life around their problems). Lupin wants to be liked, I believe JKR said, and that's very different than being very loyal to his friends. He knew he was doing something wrong by roaming the countryside as a werewolf, and he didn't have to tell anybody, as wynnleaf said, just speak up and say they shouldn't do it. This is the same thing we see in Snape's Worst Memory, where Lupin isn't particularly doing something for his friends, he's just not standing up for what's right if he thinks his friends won't like it. Once he's back at Hogwarts, well, I really love that Lupin covers up for Sirius--but it's a bad thing he's doing. It's very serious that he thinks Sirius is a murderer trying to kill Harry and who is a danger to other students. And yet he sits on important information about him just so he doesn't have to look bad in front of Dumbledore for his friends becoming Animagi years before. By that time, remember, Sirius wasn't exactly a friend as far as Lupin knew. His stated reason for not speaking is about himself, not Sirius. > Kirp86: > He is weak in that he has spent a lot of time doing things for and by > himself, and when he doesn't have to, when he has his friends, he > will do anything to keep them near. Magpie: His weakness is pretty specific--and it had to be strong enough to make him conceal important information in PoA.. In the Pensieve he sees something he knows is wrong and that he should stop, but pretends he doesn't see it because his friends are doing it and he wants to be liked. When he doesn't tell Dumbledore about Sirius it again seems to be about wanting to be liked--Sirius isn't a friend to keep near by that point. Also, I wouldn't say Lupin is really driven by keeping people near. He doesn't make an effort to stay close to Harry and tries to push Tonks away. Not that I hold that against him--I think he has reasons for doing that that I can understand--but he's not just about keeping people close to him. > Kirp86 Once he had the Marauders Map, > note that he was 'examining it in his office' when he saw Sirius drag > Ron and Pettigrew into the Whomping Willow... Is it a leap to assume > he has been keeping an eye on it through guilt about his secret extra > knowledge about Hogwarts? I guess I'm arguing that he isn't overtly a > hero, but he does what he can in his own way, his flaw being he needs > to keep the trust of those around him. He is also brave... why else > would he be in Gryffindor? Magpie: I'm sure he was looking at it out of guilt, but how does that make him a hero, overtly or otherwise? He's got good reason to be guilty, based on what he thinks to be true, and has to watch for Sirius because he's made it impossible for other people to watch for him as well as he can. Sure he shows bravery and has done good things for others, but his flaw has led to some seriously questionable behavior on his part. I love his questionable behavior.:-) > Kirp86 > Just wanted to touch on the discussion of his Boggart lessons. He has > been criticised in this forum for making Neville take on the Boggart > Snape; self-confidence is not something that can be taught, but it > can be developed in situations such as this. Does he see his own lack > of self-confidence in Neville, who has a small friendship group he > would do anything for, but who is suffering at the hands of an old > adversary? Also, where is the evidence that he deliberately stopped > Hermione from taking on her Boggart? And as well as stopping the > classes fearful reaction to Harry's boggart, was he also protecting > his job, and his re-found home? Magpie: I think the Boggart lessons is interesting, because while I do think he's helping Neville and that it's a natural part of the lesson, I think it is also kind of in Lupin's character that it makes him popular while also making him nice, with Snape's humiliation seemingly an unfortunate by-product. I just mean that I think JKR is very consistent about everybody and it's cool the way you can kind of see the same Lupin even here, and imagine how he comes across to Snape.:) > Kirp86 > Equally, would she take Harry's last father figure and put him > against his cause? Magpie: An aside, but is Lupin really a father figure? He was a beloved teacher, but it seems like his relationship with Harry is not a father figure one, exactly. Which I kind of like about Lupin. After Dumbledore and Sirius I really can't see the loss of Lupin comparing in Harry's life. -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Apr 28 15:38:44 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:38:44 -0000 Subject: The Code of the Schoolyard and Potential Surprises in Store ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168019 wynnleaf If I repeat myself you are welcome to skip the bits you feel are repetitious. I sometimes am concerned that, as in formal debate, if one drops a point people start assuming you conceded it, or begin to argue as though the point had never been made. Not that you do that, Goddlefrood, but it is a common practice. If you notice my repeating myself within this post, just chalk it up to bad writing. I can be a very convoluted writer. I must admit, I still don't get how this "code of the schoolyard" would somehow prevent Lupin from saying to his friends, "hey, guys, I really don't feel comfortable about running around as a werewolf in the forest and in the village every month and I want to quit. It's just too easy for me to kill people if we were to stumble on somebody." The closest thing in real life I could think of to compare this to would be perhaps if you had a guy in a school culture where weekend intoxication was common. This kid has a car. Those in locos parentis (sp?) over this kid make sure he has a cell phone and always has money to hire a cab or call someone to bring him home. They stress to him that even if they can't prevent him from going out and getting supremely drunk, no matter what, they just don't want him endangering anyone by driving. So they've got all these safety measures. But the kid has some friends who think it would be a lark to go with him, while so intoxicated that he is in no control over his actions, and put him behind the wheel of a car and drive around the countryside and the local town. These kids don't just sit around planning their drinking party (a common teenage thing), their primary focus is planning how to get the most dangerous person behind the car wheel and drive all around town. They do this for literally years. Each month, the kid is given all the safety precautions -- the cell phone, the money for a cab, maybe even someone else to drive him home -- but each month he secretly ditches all these safety measures and instead makes premeditated arrangements to go joyriding while drunk. He is very much aware that he could kill people doing this, but he does it anyway. He -- the kid himself -- actually gets no personal fun out of it, since he is never able to actually remember what happened on those nights. The reason he keeps up this activity is because his friends think it's fun. But make no mistake -- it's not the friends who are likely to kill someone. They aren't the one's driving drunk. He is. And he does nothing to stop this for years. Yet the whole time, he pretends to everyone else that he's being perfectly safe, making full use of all the safety precautions in place for him. And the "code of the schoolyard" makes this perfectly understandable? What we don't know is how JKR wants us to view the Marauder's actions. Is planning excursions in the woods *and* village with a deadly werewolf on the same par as Fred and George sneaking to the kitchens for food and butterbeer? Or Harry sneaking to Honeydukes for candy? Is Harry and friend's midnight trip to send the baby dragon away on the same level as endangering the whole community with werewolf jaunts? Maybe JKR *does* want us to view them as just all childhood pranks. But to me it's like comparing the kids at our school that went out at night and removed the clock in the local square and hid it, to another group of boys who for kicks on a Saturday night go through town firing off guns. When does "childish behavior" cease to be "kids will be kids?" I'm not sure exactly what JKR meant for us to think, but I am interested in other comparisons she makes between Harry and other kids in his year, and I don't necessarily think she intends us to believe that all of these actions are explainable simply under the banner of childhood and school culture. > Goddlefrood: > > I'll stop you there. I have got the point, your misgrasp of mine > appears to be causing some difficulty ;) wynnleaf Let me go through your points and show you what I don't get. Goddlefrood: > That schoolyard code in a nutshell: > > (i) Never, but never sneak on fellow students (Marietta has > been referred before) wynnleaf Simply telling his friends he wanted to quit wouldn't be sneaking. Goddlefrood: > (ii) Break as many school rules as possible without getting > caught. With this one HRH, Fred and George, and many others > seem to try their best to comply. The Marauders need have > been no different, they enjoyed themselves, iow, and hang the > consequences. Not an unfair reading, it seems to be what > happened, Remus ignored the consequences, irresponsible, of > course, as I said before, but also insufficient to hang a > theory of betrayal on. He could have stopped, yes, but he > did not ;) wynnleaf The problem here is the scale of rule-breaking. This is not just sneaking out to the kitchens, or sneaking around to the forest. This is actively planning monthly excursions that knowingly risked the lives of many. Remus *knows* he can kill people. Goddlefrood: > (iii) Prefects can have limited exceptions to the above, so > if the whole argument is relative to Remus's having been a > prefect then it may have some merit, but not a great deal, > as prefects ultimately remain students themselves. wynnleaf We're really not talking about Remus' actions as a prefect. This is his control over his *own* rulebreaking I'm talking about. Goddlefrood: > (iv) The Head Boy or Girl should show no favouritism, but > within acceptable bounds not rat out their friends and other > fellow students except where not to do so could come back to > haunt them. They should not be seen to be breaking school > rules themselves. wynnleaf This has nothing to do with ratting anyone out. So it doesn't apply. Goddlefrood: > (v) Look out for members of your own house above all others. > This hardly needs examples from canon as they would be far too > many to go into :). This also remains after school, what is > often referred to as the old boy's network or old girl's > netwrok as applicable. wynnleaf This perhaps can apply to why Remus didn't do anything (or even ever *say* anything) about the Marauder's bullying of Snape. I did not count that as his betrayal of Dumbledore's trust. It was to a small degree, but nothing like the werewolf escapades. Besides, even Harry can see that the Marauder's actions in bullying are without excuse and Remus doing nothing about it is also without excuse. Harry doesn't view all that and think anything of it as understandable within school culture. Goddlefrood: > (vi) Goad the teachers wherever possible. This is a regular > occurence in the HP world too :) wynnleaf Not sure what this has to do with any of the Marauder's actions, as we have no mention of their ever goading teachers. Goddlefrood: > (vii) Never, but never sneak on fellow students. This one is > so fundamental it bears repetition. Draco has broken this on a > regular basis, and for that alone he deserves a painful death ;) wynnleaf You keep going back to this one -- sneaking on fellow students, ratting people out -- as though I or anyone has suggested that Lupin should have done that when in school. Which I haven't. Telling Dumbledore as an adult in POA is completely different. Goddlefrood: > There are other less serious ones, but these about cover it. wynnleaf Okay, please tell me which of those points above prevented Lupin from telling his friends "I don't want to run through the forest and village as a werewolf anymore. I could kill someone. You guys aren't going to kill anyone, but I could." I'm curious as to what specific actions a student could take with his friends which you would *not* consider understandable under this school "code?" If Lupin had actually killed someone in the village, would their actions have still been considered understandable? At what point would their actions be indicative of a major character flaw, even if they could be explained by "school code?" Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps you are only explaining *why* it occurred. But my feeling is that you are trying to explain why it is not a terrible character flaw for Lupin to have done these things, because explaining it under "school code" makes it so understandable that any kid might have done these things. I don't agree. I teach at a college level, but I have 3 teenagers 14-19 and we have lots of kids in and out of the house quite a bit, and I'm pretty involved with the kids at school. I understand about not ratting on your friends, and not always telling your friends when they do something you think is wrong. I understand about the fun of breaking minor rules or thwarting the teachers occasionally. But there reaches a point -- especially when you're consistently endangering the lives of others (not just involved in personally risky behavior) -- when I don't think such a "code" is really any justification or excuse. It becomes a true character issue. A person is choosing to endanger innocent people on a regular basis in order to not jeopardize his friendships. Goddlefrood: > Many children, and that is after all what we are dealing with > in respect of the Marauders and HRH, have little regard for the > school rules. > > JKR also had this to say when questioned about adults' perception > of what is essentially a children's world (the school part of it > anyway): wynnleaf You're excusing here, imo. It's one thing to use that explanation for why kids might sneak out at night for a bit of fun. It's another thing to actively plan activities that are known to be seriously dangerous to innocent people. Sure, we can say that the boys thought they could control it, wouldn't hurt anyone, etc. But there reaches a point where the danger is so extreme that it's no excuse. Goddlefrood: > " ... adults surprise me by appearing to forget how powerless you > feel as a child, how despairing... and just... enormous pressures > on you as a child, even a happy child..." wynnleaf I honestly don't think JKR means us to consider Lupin's running around as a werewolf -- even through the village -- for years as just something any child might do given the pressures of childhood. Besides, she speaks of this as Lupin's particular weakness, not a weakness common to all. Goddlefrood: > I also agree with the point that Remus is weak-willed, but I > can not extract from that a situation where it would mean he > were evil, as it appears to me even wynnleaf concedes :). If > it turns out Remus is some kind of hindrance then it would be, > IMO, through inadvertance rather than any other motive. wynnleaf Well, his putting Harry and the kids at risk during POA wasn't inadvertent. So I think it perfectly in character for him to knowingly make more bad choices that put people at risk. He might not mean them in evil intent, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they'd be inadvertent. > > > wynnleaf > > Your argument earlier was that Harry wouldn't get any *more* > > surprise problems (other than he's already got at the end of > > HBP), and therefore Lupin wouldn't betray Harry. No unexpected > > problems for Harry equates to no major suspense. I don't buy > > that. JKR loves it too much. > > Goddlefrood: > > This you mean?: > > "There will be quite enough problems for Harry to face without > one more he was not expecting." wynnleaf Yes, that comment, as it was in your earlier post. Goddlefrood: > There certainly will be surprises. Here's a few I expect: > > (i) The person who will perform magic later in life will be > surprising, whether it is Mrs. Figg, Filch or whomsoever as it > will surprise Harry ;) > > (ii) I anticipate that at least one of the Horcruxes will be > surprisingly easy to find ;) > > (iii) There will be surprises in the quest for the Horcrux, > where they are, what they are is a possibility too and also > whether the numbers add up. > > (iv) Harry will be surprised to find out who R. A. B. is, even > if we here appear now to have resolved to accept that it is > Regulus. > > (v) There will indubitably be surprise attacks on Harry, one > of which may be at Privet Drive. > > (vi) Aunt Petunia will surprise us all and Harry further. > > (vii) The mystery to be left at the end :) > > (viii) and > > (ix) the > > (x) list goes > > (xi) on and on :) > > Clear enough now? wynnleaf Sure, I see that you expect surprises. But I expect Harry to run into surprises that cause him some major difficulties and *especially* that cause him some major *inner* difficulties. After all, that's where the growth of a character is -- within. Learning about RAB, or horcruxes, or who does magic late in life is interesting, but those are unlikely to cause inner change in Harry. It's inner conflict, more than anything, that will build the character. So, imo, Harry will need to have some of his inner attitudes and assumptions changed in order to grow. >Goddlefrood: > What I do see in these arguments to Remus being other than good > is a singular lack of any speculation as to how this may affect > Deathly Hallows, even if it turns out to be correct, which I > highly doubt. wynnleaf Oh, I have a lot of ideas about that, but find it unproductive to speculate too far out on a limb -- out onto the twigs, as it were, when you go too far into DH. If practically no one even thinks Lupin has done anything very appalling in the past and will certainly never do anything wrong again, it makes little sense to expound on how I think his wrong actions in DH will endanger others or betray the Order. My personal guess is that Lupin has already betrayed the Order, without intending the damage that occurred. I have a theory that Fenrir came to Hogwarts that night because Lupin leaked the info among other werewolves that Dumbledore was leaving the castle that night (Lupin would have known ahead of time, since he was called in from his undercover position). Therefore the DE's were ready and waiting the moment Draco got the cabinet fixed, and invaded the castle. I don't think Lupin expected Dumbledore to be killed. I think he was probably trying to play both sides. When Lupin heard of Dumbledore's death, he expressed far, far more emotion than we've ever seen from Lupin. Lupin never exhibits a lot of emotion, not even when his great friend Sirius died directly in front of him. Yet Harry felt Lupin's grief was almost indecent to see. So why did cool, collected, Lupin fall apart? I wonder if it was guilt. If that theory were correct, we wouldn't have to have Lupin do much more in DH. We and Harry could just discover his part in the attack on Hogwarts. Just one of many theories... wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 28 16:15:16 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:15:16 -0000 Subject: The Code of the Schoolyard and Potential Surprises in Store ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > (ii) Break as many school rules as possible without getting > caught. With this one HRH, Fred and George, and many others > seem to try their best to comply. Pippin: The Marauders went beyond breaking school rules. They were exposing people to attacks by a dark creature and here's what Ron has to say about that, "Stuff like this [the attack on Mrs. Norris] doesn't often happen at Hogwarts. They'll catch the maniac who did it and have him out of here in no time. I just hope he's got time to Petrify Filch before he's expelled. I'm only joking--" -CoS ch 9 Fred and George tell Harry that up until the reign of Umbridge, they didn't do things that would get them expelled. They don't, for example, blackmail Bagman, even though he cheated them. Ron's not entirely sure that they wouldn't have, but it's clear he agrees with Hermione that there's such a thing as normal rule breaking and that would be beyond it. He wouldn't have snitched on them, but he wouldn't have helped them do it either. Lupin knew the Marauders had got beyond ordinary rule breaking, but he not only didn't tell them it had to stop, he helped them plan to do it. It had nothing to do, IMO, with the code of the schoolyard. It had to do with his being marginalized all his life, so that, as Rowling says, he cuts his friends too much slack. We can hope that Remus's friends will draw always the line at murder -- or can we? We already saw what happens when they don't. Remus stood side-by-side with Sirius, ready to kill Pettigrew, and it took an outside influence, Harry, to stop him. Goodlefrood: > What I do see in these arguments to Remus being other than good > is a singular lack of any speculation as to how this may affect > Deathly Hallows, even if it turns out to be correct, which I > highly doubt. Pippin: The werewolves want Voldemort to be their champion, at least until he's overthrown their oppressors. It would be useful to have Harry get rid of Voldemort then, but not before. It echoes Ron's comment about Filch above. But the werewolves wouldn't be joking. I expect that Harry will find Lupin very co-operative in the matter of locating horcruxes, but not so helpful when it's time to actually destroy the last one. And then Harry will remember where Lupin was standing when Sirius died...and Lupin will have to make his final choice. Alla:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167990 See, I was brought up that teacher should try not only teach the subject, but also try to teach the kids be good human beings. Sure, my school system was in the communist state, but I was lucky to met plenty teachers like that, so I do not think that I am romanticising profession or anything. I met bad teachers too obviously. Pippin: Um, that's the way totalitarian systems work, isn't it? They claim moral superiority for the leaders and the system -- That's why "noble" refers to both a feudal overlord and the qualities an overlord was presumed to have. Someone who believed in a more individualist approach might allow for competing self-interests in morality as in everything else, asking only for compliance with the rules determined for mutual benefit, and allowing that rules are only machines for making choices, and like all machines do not function equally well in every circumstance. Lupin shares with Harry a willingness to break rules for a higher benefit, but his idea of a higher benefit is very narrow -- just those few people who like him. If their moral vision is pure, fine, but what happens when it's not? That's his weakness. He knows it. He has to choose his companions carefully, and I'm not sure he does. People seem to think there's some sort of magical barrier whereby Lupin can threaten to kill but not harm anyone important, can betray Dumbledore but not give away anything that might really hurt the Order, can be cruel but not to anyone worth caring about. And maybe there is such a barrier at Hogwarts, where there are spells to safeguard those within its walls, but what happens elsewhere? If JKR is okay with Lupin teaching her daughter even though he needs someone to prepare wolfsbane potion to keep him safe one day of the month, why shouldn't she be okay with him needing a certain amount of social support in order to keep him safe on all the other days? And why wouldn't she want to write about what would happen to him if he didn't get it? She has something to say about the nature of evil, and I don't think she can say it with Voldemort and his thugs alone. She's very interested, I think, in *why* people co-operate with regimes that they know, or ought to know, are evil, people who know they could resist, who recognize it as a moral duty, but cooperate instead. Pippin hoping that she has not snipped Goodlefrood too much, and reminding him that JKR never went to boarding school and is also writing from an outsiders' perspective From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 15:44:21 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:44:21 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Pippin: > I'd say she has a lot more to worry about on that score if it will > be found that Harry is correct in his suspicions about Snape, since > Harry has expressed far more bias towards Snape than Snape has > ever expressed towards Lupin. > I'd say she already has a lot worse to worry about, when it comes to endorsing things -- like child abuse by teachers and epitomes of goodness that approve of it. But I doubt JKR really thinks very deeply about such things -- and therein lies much of her weakness, in that so much of that is in the category of background/world building/consistency of character, which is where she falls flat on her face much of the time. Bias is perhaps not the best way to look at this, since although technically it doesn't connote prejudice, I suspect most people these days DO link bias with prejudice. I don't think the attitudes of any of these three towards each other is the result of prejudice, despite Lupin's use of the term, but rather of resentment -- i.e. the result of very specific injustices inflicted. That is not to say that they may not be prejudiced, but their attitudes aren't as simple as unreasoning dislike (which, although it may not be the technical definition of prejudice, is how most people seem to use the term). Draco is a much better model of prejudice than Harry or even Snapey- poo. So is Umbridge. Maybe all three of them should just go at each other with nerf bats. It would certainly help Snapey-poo, as he seems perpetually frustrated by hating a dead man and a wet wolf pelt. Lupinlore, who would be vastly amused by a nerf-bat scene in DH, if only for its ridiculous nature and the fact that it would add a touch of humor to what will doubtless be a very heavy book From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 16:01:33 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:01:33 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: <003a01c789a4$a1460170$229e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168022 > Magpie: > I like Lupin a lot too, but I wouldn't say he does everything > possible for his friends (I don't even know if I'd use that > expression for Harry either--Harry will do a lot for his friends, > but it's not like he centers his life around their problems). Lupin > wants to be liked, I believe JKR said, and that's very different > than being very loyal to his friends. He knew he was doing > something wrong by roaming the countryside as a werewolf, and he > didn't have to tell anybody, as wynnleaf said, just speak up and > say they shouldn't do it. This is the same thing we see in Snape's > Worst Memory, where Lupin isn't particularly doing something for > his friends, he's just not standing up for what's right if he > thinks his friends won't like it. Well, Lupin's passivity undoubtedly comes from a variety of sources, some "legitimate," i.e. intrinsic to the story, and some not. Part of it is his struggle with his "disease" and the prejudice against werewolves which helps to create his desire to be liked. The other problem, I suspect, is that JKR needed him for the plot in PoA and DH, but didn't really know what to do with him in the meantime. PoA was an excellent time to introduce him and, if speculation be correct, he has a part to play in DH if only symbolically as the Last Marauder. But for the three books between he really doesn't have any purpose other than to exist, like the proverbial gun on the proverbial wall. Which is altogether too bad, as his character had the potential for all sorts of fascinating things that were wasted on wheel-spinning and unfortunate diversions like Grawp. Part of the Lupin Problem is subsumed in the general problem of the last two books. JKR wanted to do all seven years but didn't really have stories for years five and six. Rather she had plot twists that needed to take place to set the stage for the Grand Finale. Therefore out of the last 1600 pages or so we've had 1200 pages of wheel-churning combined with 400 pages that actually moved things along. Lupin, unfortunately, got his appearances during the wheel-churning moments, giving a throw-away comment here and a generally pointless cameo there. Only at the very end of HBP does he really emerge as anything like a major plot element, and I suspect even the Remus/Tonks ship was thrown in as a whim by JKR to give the fans something they would like. Lupin probably will figure into the Grand Finale -- what was the purpose of keeping him around otherwise? But in the end, when people look back over the entire series and most current speculation seems quaint and misguided whatever happens, I suspect his story will be loaded down with a crippling burden of might-have-beens. Lupinlore, who also likes the werewolf, but really does wish he'd get up, brush the dandruff out of his fur, and do something uniquely useful (i.e. something another character couldn't have done just as easily) for Harry -- or anybody else -- for once From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Apr 28 17:14:21 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:14:21 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168023 Kirp: > Hi, hope I'm not intruding... I'm new to HPfGUs and wanted to add my 2 cents. Ceridwen: Hi, Kirp, welcome to the list! Two cents is always welcome, and Gringotts is always willing to convert to Wizarding currency (two cents converts to two knuts: http://cgi.money.cnn.com/apps/hpcurrconv ) :D Kirp: > I'm afraid I'm biased in that Lupin is my favourite character. He reminds me, in his actions, of Harry; doing everything possible for his friends. This can be interpreted as weak-willed - feeling guilty over disobeying Dumbledore but doing it just to retain his friends, for example. But consider his background; he never had friends, he'd never been accepted before. Probably wishful thinking, but during his time at Hogwarts as DADA teacher, he didn't go against Dumbledore, he merely neglected to tell him that he had abused his trust years previously (trust he hadn't been given before that, and almost certainly hasn't since). Ceridwen: Lupin is a very sympathetic character. He's the sort of guy you want to pat on the head, straighten his collar, and tell him everything's going to be all right. In fact, I wonder if he might not inspire the same sort of feelings in readers toward himself, as he himself has toward the people who have befriended him. We do like to stick up for him, protect him from perceived attacks, and smooth away things that he's done wrong because he really didn't mean those things. He's likeable and unassuming: humble and loveable, like Shoeshine Boy from the old Underdog cartoons. He does everything for his friends. Or, rather, he does anything for them. I don't quite see him waiting on them hand and foot. I think that's Peter's schtick. These days, I hear he's pouring wine at Chez Snape. ;) But, yes, Remus does things that benefit his friends. I'm not sure if this is a good blanket policy. I agree with your assessment that Remus has been on his own and will do anything to keep his friends from leaving him. To the point of allowing them to harrass another student (SWM, OotP), to not divulging information about a friend which would help his employer to keep their students safe (PoA). Remus Lupin does indeed bend over backwards for his friends, only sometimes, his friends don't deserve it; sometimes, the enterprise is too risky for it to go on. And in that, he did go against Dumbledore in PoA. He had information that Sirius, "known" murderer, "known" to be after a student, was an Animagus who could shift his shape and avoid the protections put into place by both school officials and the Ministry of Magic. He may have been able to fool himself into thinking that this wouldn't be too important to tell, but after the episode of Black slashing the Fat Lady's portrait, and certainly after he stood over Ron with a knife, he had to see that telling was important. He didnt' tell. Remember, all this time, he thought Sirius had betrayed James and Lily and killed Pettigrew. He had no loyalty to Sirius now that might not backfire in his face. His failure was in worrying what Dumbledore might think at his not having spoken up about Sirius's talent before the slashing incident. He didn't want Dumbledore's disappointment. He kept his mouth shut, even as this "dangerous criminal" made deeper and deeper progress into Harry's dorm. This went against Dumbledore. It is Dumbledore's responsibilty, as head of the school, to ensure the students' safety. In order to do this, he needs all available facts at his disposal. Remus withheld a key fact. He made Dumbledore look very bad, and might have even facilitated Dumbledore's removal if Sirius had indeed been a crazed murderer bent on revenge. That Sirius was innocent was just Remus's luck, just as no one being killed during the Marauder Romps with the Werewolf was his luck as well. He did nothing to stop the possibility of tragedy himself, because he didn't want the people he values to be angry at him. I also agree that he is, in some ways, a very tragic figure. It's understandable why he doesn't stand up to his friends, and why he doesn't want them to be angry with him. He's led a tragic existence from childhood, when he was bitten and left to transform into a Dark Creature once a month. People shun him for this, only seeing the Creature and not the Man. He's gentle, he's understanding, and he has a Tragic Flaw. A lot of people have the same flaw. We don't like people to be angry with us. We don't like to rock the boat. We care about other people's opinions of us. Friends matter. But, what about when friends or business associates are doing something wrong? Should we stop them? Should we let them have enough rope to hang themselves? If we ignore it, will it go away? I think JKR could hold Remus Lupin up as a mirror to a lot of people if she allowed his flaw to create (non-fatal!) problems in Deathly Hallows. Most of us are good people, but most of us, *given the right circumstances*, would sit back and say nothing just to keep good will. Or to avoid being tortured or killed. Or to avoid losing a sweetheart or a spouse. Or to avoid being teased by friends. Saying nothing is the easy choice in so many situations! The hard choice would be the one Neville took at the end of PS/SS, standing against people he desperately wanted to like him. Having a sympathetic and likeable character like Remus displaying the worst of this flaw would send a very clear message, in my opinion, and would fit with the theme of Right Over Easy that has been repeated throughout the books. I'm open to Remus having any number of functions in Deathly Hallows. This is just one possibility. And, it's all in fun and speculation, after all, until DH comes out. Ceridwen. From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Apr 28 17:20:22 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:20:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic as a Virus? In-Reply-To: <956920.6241.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <956920.6241.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40704281020i51e657b0p7d39a95d7dc6114@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168024 On 4/27/07, career advisor wrote: > > There has been a lot of dicussion on this list on the 'genetics of magic' > and pureblood and muggle-borns? This has often taken the form of dicusion of > regressive genes. > > But has anyone thought of a different angle. Perhaps the reason 'magic' is > so rare is that in JKR's world it is a disease. In other words: 'Magic is a > virus.' > > A virus that most muggle's have natural immunity to but Wizards do not. > > In other words a pure-blood wizard or witch literally catches the magic > from his parents as you or I could catch a cold. montims: Why need it be a virus? Why not an evolutionary trait, such as music for example? Some people are born natural musicians, some have an ability but need to be trained, and others are tone deaf. The same with artists, poets, and other seemingly unnecessary human traits which nevertheless are essential to the human condition. Back to music, we know that wherever and whenever there have been communities, there are found musical instruments of some kind - it is a primal need. But not everybody enjoys music, and nobody enjoys every single kind of music... I'm digressing. I think of magic in this way. Some people have the "gene", if you like, and some don't. And again, all cultures have acknowledged magic. Depending on their viewpoint, the person working magic can be highly esteemed, or treated as a scapegoat. Like blondes, or black cats. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 28 17:26:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:26:21 -0000 Subject: What happened to Voldemort's wand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168025 > Carol responds: > I just lost a post on this topic, so I'll try again. First, I think > JW's point that LV had his wand at the beginning of GoF is important. > He didn't get it back at the graveyard; he used it to kill Frank > Bryce. In fact, he had it before that since it was also used, either > by LV or by Wormtail, to kill Bertha Jorkins. And that murder occurred > soon after Wormtail abducted Bertha and took her to Voldemort. No > other person--Snape, Lupin, Crouch Jr., or anyone else--was in contact > with LV at that time. The person who returned LV's wand had to be > Wormtail, the same person who resurrected him. Pippin: We don't know whether anyone else was in contact with Voldemort. He says there wasn't, but he's a liar. It makes sense for Peter to have been at Godric's Hollow, but it doesn't make sense for him to have taken the wand. Peter, we are told, never risks anything unless there's something in it for him. Taking the wand was an awfully big risk--it was incriminating evidence. After all, he couldn't be sure that Sirius would come after him alone and set himself up so beautifully. Peter could have found himself facing twenty Aurors and Dumbledore, who would have had a very hard time doubting Sirius's story of the SK switch if Voldemort's wand turned up in Peter's pocket. What reward would Peter expect and from whom did he think he was going to get it? The wand would be an advantage only for someone who *knew* that Voldemort would be coming back. But if Peter knew that, then why didn't he seek out Voldemort at once? What possible excuse could he have for hiding the wand, *proving* he expected Voldemort's return, and then waiting twelve years to seek out his Master? My guess would be that even if Peter was at Godric's Hollow someone else was there too, probably the same mysterious individual who "sent" the Lestranges to deal with the Longbottoms, and maybe made sure they'd be caught. It appears there was someone who wanted Voldemort to come back, but not immediately. What's gained by waiting twelve years? Well, Voldemort had time to become very very unhappy with his Inner Circle. Too bad, from a strategic point of view, since with their help he was winning. But not so bad if you wanted to replace the current Inner Circle with one that was equally anti-Ministry, but much more friendly to *your* interests. At any rate, there is much about the graveyard scene that is easier to understand if there was someone else involved. How could Peter, burdened with Baby!Mort and hopeless at duelling, draw his wand and kill a Tri-wizard Champion like Cedric when Cedric already had his wand in hand? Why do the ropes and the fire which Peter conjures not re-appear as shadows from Voldemort's wand? Why do the shades of James, Lily, Bertha and Cedric take no notice of Peter at all, though he's unmasked and conspicuous? You'd think they'd have a hiss or two to spare for him. And BTW, what sort of an explosion could rip Voldemort from his body, destroy the house, and yet leave Harry, Voldemort's wand and even his robes unharmed? Did someone take the wand, the robes and the baby out of the house first and then destroy it? Pippin From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Apr 28 18:21:22 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:21:22 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > > I also agree that he is, in some ways, a very tragic figure. It's > understandable why he doesn't stand up to his friends, and why he > doesn't want them to be angry with him. He's led a tragic existence > from childhood, when he was bitten and left to transform into a Dark > Creature once a month. People shun him for this, only seeing the > Creature and not the Man. He's gentle, he's understanding, and he > has a Tragic Flaw. wynnleaf While I overall agree with Ceridwen's post, I'd like to point out something here. While a student at Hogwarts, Lupin was *not* being shunned for being a werewolf. No students even knew about it other than the Marauders. While certainly some people must have known all along (the Ministry knew), Lupin did not apparently grow up with either muggle or wizarding kids who knew he was a werewolf. So I can't say that he actually was experiencing the effects of being shunned when he developed these traits of being willing to allow his friends anything. It's possible that he might have been afraid, deep down, of losing the Marauder's friendship, not because he's a werewolf, but by disagreeing and disapproving of them openly. I could see that. Once they knew his secret, he couldn't afford their ill-will. Who would want them as enemies? But other than that, I really don't see what shunning Lupin was experiencing while at Hogwarts. wynnleaf From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Apr 28 18:37:37 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:37:37 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168027 Goddlefrood: > I did not overlook it, I simply failed to mention it ;). > It all goes to the code of the schoolyard. The kids were > having fun, why tell anyone who might stop them? Kirp86: > I'm afraid I'm biased in that Lupin is my favourite > character. He reminds me, in his actions, of Harry; > doing everything possible for his friends. This can > be interpreted as weak-willed - feeling guilty over > disobeying Dumbledore but doing it just to retain his > friends, for example. But consider his background; he > never had friends, he'd never been accepted before > [...] > I think he's the most tragic figure in the books; a lot > of people will disagree, but his four best childhood > friends are dead or betrayers, to borrow a nicer word > than traitor ;) houyhnhnm: Neville Longbottom could also have been a tragic figure. For all practical purposes he is an orphan, except that he has to visit his demented parents and have the wound continually reopened. Raised by a dragon of a grandmother, constantly reminded of how disappointing he is compared to his insane father, reviled by his family for his lack of magical ability, dropped on his head by his uncle, Neville is a continual butt of derision at Hogwarts. The Trio shows him a certain degree of kindness. Hermione helped him look for his toad on the first journey from platform nine and three-quarters. Harry told him that he was worth twelve of Malfoy. He's allowed to tag along, sit with HRH at the Quidditch matches and so forth, but he's not really one of them. He is a dependent. All of this could have set Neville up as a character who would, understandably, be willing to do anything for his friends including being an enabler for their rule breaking. But it doesn't. "I won't let you do it. I'll--I'll fight you!" he says to the Trio. This is Rowling's model for the right way to behave in the case of friends who are doing something one believes to be wrong. Neville didn't rat them out, but he did stand up to them. Just in case anyone didn't get the moral, she had Dumbledore repeat it at the end-of-year feast. "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends." So, I think that Lupin stands condemned out of Rowling's own mouthpiece and I think his moral failure will have to be shown to have consequences before the story ends. BTW, Lupin was my favorite character up until the Pensieve scene in "SWM". That scene sickened me more than just about anything I've read in all six books. It permanently changed the way I feel about several characters. I recently read it again and found it even more apalling than I did the first time. houyhnhnm, thinking Neville had more to teach Lupin than the other way around. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Apr 28 20:23:44 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:23:44 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168028 wynnleaf > While I overall agree with Ceridwen's post, I'd like to point out > something here. > > While a student at Hogwarts, Lupin was *not* being shunned for being a > werewolf. Ceridwen: Sorry I made myself as clear as mud here. ;) I have a habit of going back and forth as thoughts strike me. I usually put a tangent alert, but with Remus, it's hard to separate the past from the present, and the possible from the concrete. No, Remus wasn't shunned at Hogwarts, for the reasons you mentioned. But he has been shunned since, by adults who should know better, who still see the Creature instead of the Man. He also strikes me as a person who was raised by timid, frightened parents who instilled a fear of shunning early-on. They probably only wanted the best for him. To them, that best might be to keep on people's good side, not let them know any more than was necessary, and never rock the boat. He may have grown up with the idea that he wasn't good enough for "normal" people and so had to "pass" to fit in. Some parents worry a lot about their child fitting in. Having friends like the Marauders who were not ony friendly to him, but who actually found something positive in his condition, and who were popular on top of that, could have been something beyond anything he had been raised to expect. Old baggage could well have come back to haunt him in that he feared that any misstep would make them shun him. Tangent alert: I wonder if he might have felt used at all during that time at Hogwarts. If something happened, it would be Remus who did it, and Remus who got into trouble. His monthly ordeals were a chance to break the rules with an interesting companion for the others. They joked about it: James called it Remus's "furry little problem", around enough people who didn't know the truth, that they thought he had a naughty bunny. It was a joke to them, a supreme prank, while it was deadly serious to Remus. Back on track: And, again as you said, once they knew his secret, he couldn't afford for them to get angry at him. Fear of exposure is also fear of shunning. Exposure gets you shunned. He may have been off- base about what they would do. I expect he was. But, I do think that early training had a lot to do with the way he interacts with others. Ceridwen. From dougsamu at golden.net Sat Apr 28 20:58:40 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:58:40 -0400 Subject: Magic as a Virus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168030 Rowlings own gene based explanation is inadequate, but it is canon. alas. i suggested a viral mechanism as an alternative in discussions on Mugglnet, only to have canon thoroughly slap it down. A virus is a gene, however.... :-) ___ __ From dougsamu at golden.net Sat Apr 28 21:00:19 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:00:19 -0400 Subject: Magic as a Virus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168031 But it still leaves a huge conundrum over how Voldemort regained his own previous magical power when reborn in the cauldron. ___ __ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 21:47:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:47:31 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168032 Ceridwen wrote: He had information that Sirius, "known" murderer, "known" to be after a student, was an Animagus who could shift his shape and avoid the protections put into place by both school officials and the Ministry of Magic. He may have been able to fool himself into thinking that this wouldn't be too important to tell, but after the episode of Black slashing the Fat Lady's portrait, and certainly after he stood over Ron with a knife, he had to see that telling was important. > > He didnt' tell. Remember, all this time, he thought Sirius had betrayed James and Lily and killed Pettigrew. He had no loyalty to Sirius now that might not backfire in his face. His failure was in worrying what Dumbledore might think at his not having spoken up about Sirius's talent before the slashing incident. He didn't want Dumbledore's disappointment. He kept his mouth shut, even as this "dangerous criminal" made deeper and deeper progress into Harry's dorm. > > This went against Dumbledore. It is Dumbledore's responsibilty, as head of the school, to ensure the students' safety. In order to do this, he needs all available facts at his disposal. Remus withheld a key fact. Carol notes: Nice post, Ceridwen, and I agree with you. But I want to add that Lupin withheld more than *a* key fact from Dumbledore. The only information that Lupin himself admits to withholding is Sirius Black's being an Animagus, which, of course, enabled Black to slip past the Dementors guarding the gates (and allowed him to climb into the stands to watch the Quidditch match undetected). But Lupin also knew that Black knew more than one secret passageway into the castle (even if the Hump-backed witch passage was the only one that was unguarded and unblocked, that's still a way to get inside Hogwarts) and that he could be hiding in the Shrieking Shack once he was on Hogwarts grounds (as he clearly was, to have gotten into the castle twice). As Ceridwen asys, he withheld this information from Dumbledore even after Black had slashed up the Fat Lady's painting and Ron's bed curtains with a twelve-inch knife. And it really doesn't matter that Black wasn't after Harry. He *was* intent on murder and he *was* terrifying the students. And Lupin *thought* that he had betrayed the Potters and killed Peter Pettigrew, not to mention twelve Muggles, yet he said nothing about all these things! In addition, he kept the Marauder's Map rather than turning it in to Dumbledore. Had he done so, confessing that he'd withheld all that information earlier, DD could have spotted Pettigrew on the map and followed Black and Ron into the Shrieking Shack and prevented all the events at the end of PoA, from Lupin's failure to take his Wolfsbane Potion to Pettigrew's escape. Lupin might even have kept his job since he wouldn't have endangered any students and Snape wouldn't have had any motive for letting Lupin's condition "slip." I suppose we could blame it all on the DADA curse instead of Lupin , but, really, his behavior was quite irresponsible not only in rushing out without his potion knowing that students were on the grounds (PP was in Ron's posket) but throughout the year. Of course, if he hadn't spotted PP on the map, rushed out without his potion, and transformed into a werewolf, allowing PP to escape to Voldemort and costing himself his job, GoF would have been hard up for a plot. Carol, who thinks that Lupin was concealing a lot more than he admits to concealing in PoA but thinks that the DADA curse intensified his weakness and used it to his detriment From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Apr 28 22:02:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Code of the Schoolyard and Potential Surprises in Store ;) References: Message-ID: <00ac01c789e0$eb5b3050$229e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168033 > Goddlefrood: >> (vii) Never, but never sneak on fellow students. This one is >> so fundamental it bears repetition. Draco has broken this on a >> regular basis, and for that alone he deserves a painful death ;) > > wynnleaf > You keep going back to this one -- sneaking on fellow students, > ratting people out -- as though I or anyone has suggested that Lupin > should have done that when in school. Which I haven't. Telling > Dumbledore as an adult in POA is completely different. Magpie: Agreed that this has nothing to do with Lupin ratting on any of his friends, but also wanted to point out that Draco has never ratted on his own friends that I can remember. I doubt likewise that the Marauders had any such code to apply to Snape, frankly. They may have preferred bullying him to telling on him, but I don't think they'd lie to keep him out of trouble any more than Ron would lie to keep Draco out of trouble. Hermione not report Malfoy for something if she could? I doubt it. Harry spends all of HBP telling people --teachers included--that Malfoy's up to something and he saw him up to this or that--did the Code suddenly disappear? Does the Code not apply when it comes to people you dislike (or only Harry dislikes)? Or was there never any Code to begin with and of course Harry wouldn't think twice about telling on Malfoy. It seems like the Code of the Schoolyard argument, which I've heard before, mostly appears when Gryffindors are doing things that some people--all former schoolyard residents themselves--think is a bit low. (At 16 I would have certainly considered myself capable of just saying "no" to regular activities that could easily have ended in death.) As has been said, Harry doesn't react the way Lupin does to the Marauders' bullying. I can't imagine Hermione would have stood for Harry and Ron roaming around with a werewolf for fun. It seems to me to come down far more frequently to individual characters dealing with specific situations, period. Characters in canon disagree sometimes as to whether something was an awesomely deserved distrubution of justice or a dirty trick that ought to be avenged. That was also my experience at school. There was no code any more than there's a specific code for workers to deal with the boss at work. Sure there are certain things people assume that people who aren't jerks will or won't do for others, but it's still, imo, mostly about individual people doing what they think is right, and sometimes clashing with other people. There have always students who can stand up for what they think is right without being considered bad guys, and there are people who break rules who are considered pains in the butt that anyone would be happy to see get detention. Actually, there was an incident in my town that involved kids and something deadly. The person who told the authorities was not considered to have broken any code at all. It was the other kids who were considered psycho. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 28 22:05:25 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:05:25 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: and that he could be hiding in the Shrieking Shack once he > was on Hogwarts grounds (as he clearly was, to have gotten into the > castle twice). Pippin: Nice post Carol. I would just like to add a little correction. Dumbledore did know that Sirius could enter the Shrieking Shack, since he knew that Sirius had once told Snape how to enter it. Snape says that he didn't think Sirius would have had the nerve to use the Shack as a hideout. I'm sure it was checked multiple times and that nothing was found. My guess would be Sirius never actually used it as a hideout but rather ran to it on the spur of the moment when he realized that Harry and Hermione were pursuing him, not running back to the castle for help. Pippin From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sat Apr 28 22:06:28 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:06:28 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: <003a01c789a4$a1460170$229e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > Kirp86 > > Just wanted to touch on the discussion of his Boggart lessons. He has > > been criticised in this forum for making Neville take on the Boggart > > Snape; self-confidence is not something that can be taught, but it > > can be developed in situations such as this. Does he see his own lack > > of self-confidence in Neville, who has a small friendship group he > > would do anything for, but who is suffering at the hands of an old > > adversary? Also, where is the evidence that he deliberately stopped > > Hermione from taking on her Boggart? And as well as stopping the > > classes fearful reaction to Harry's boggart, was he also protecting > > his job, and his re-found home? > > Magpie: > I think the Boggart lessons is interesting, because while I do think he's > helping Neville and that it's a natural part of the lesson, I think it is > also kind of in Lupin's character that it makes him popular while also > making him nice, with Snape's humiliation seemingly an unfortunate > by-product. I just mean that I think JKR is very consistent about everybody > and it's cool the way you can kind of see the same Lupin even here, and > imagine how he comes across to Snape.:) Quick_Silver: The problem I have with the Boggart lesson is that it's really a subtle humiliation of Snape that continues throughout PoA the lies to Snape about the Marauder's map and not drinking his potion in front of Snape (which seems like a subtle taunt). People read Snape's Worst Memory and assumed that Lupin had mainly been on the sidelines of the conflict with the Snape (which seems true) but they overlook that PoA established that Lupin was willing to mock (taunt, undermine, take your pick) Snape without the support of the Marauders. And given that PoA also seems to show Snape having an anti-werewolf bias perhaps the conflict between Snape and Lupin (and/or the Marauders) was more complex then we've seen. Also it should be noted that the conflict between Lupin and Snape is a "war between spies" that shows a degree of subtlety compared to the Sirius/Snape tussles (both sides don't even try to hide their dislike of the other) that we've read. Quick_Silver From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 22:59:53 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:59:53 -0000 Subject: Magic as a Virus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168036 >Doug: >Rowlings own gene based explanation is inadequate, but it is canon. >alas. i suggested a viral mechanism as an alternative in discussions >on Mugglnet, only to have canon thoroughly slap it down. >A virus is a gene, however.... :-) > But it still leaves a huge conundrum over how Voldemort regained his > own previous magical power when reborn in the cauldron. JW: I would not be surprised if JKR is even weaker at genetics and microbiology than she is at algebra, so perhaps you need not take her so literally on this topic. Without going too far off-topic with irrelevant detail, a virus is a packet of DNA (or RNA for retroviruses) enclosed in a protein coat. A gene is a bit of DNA that encodes instructions for manufacturing proteins, or regulatory info on when to make and how to use these proteins. When a virus invades a host cell, it takes over the DNA manufacturing process, causing the host to make many copies of the virus, which then burst out to invade more host cells. In the course of evolutionary history, there have been occasions when infectious micro-organisms have actually been incorporated into animal and plant cells. Sometimes such mergers have no impact; however, at other times, these mergers have resulted in highly significant evolutionary adaptations. For example, chloroplasts, which contain chlorophyl that makes photosynthesis possible, could have been one such merger. Mitochondria, the energy-producing organelles in animal cells, is probably another example. Life as we know it probably would not exist without these mergers. The point of this is that such a merger between an invading micro- organism and a host cell would fit both the "genetic" explanation provided by JKR, and the "viral" explanation offered by Doug. To impact both plants and animals, such a merger would either take place before the animal kingdom split from plants, or else there would have been mergers involving the same invader multiple times, or more probably multiple mergers involving multiple micro-organisms after the split between plants and animals. The last possibility might explain the different "flavors" of magic exhibited by various plants, humans, and non-human magical species. As for how LV regained all his previous magical powers, the answer would probably NOT be genetic. Most of LV's ability to perform specific spells was LEARNED, NOT INHERITED. As we ALL recall from middle-school biology, traits resulting from either learned or environmental factors do NOT impact genetic code, and can not be passed to or received from other generations. This must be true in the WW - otherwise, young magicians would not have to go to school to learn the same subjects their parents studied. From cute_janers at yahoo.com Sat Apr 28 23:18:10 2007 From: cute_janers at yahoo.com (Liz Stephens) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Inconsistency of Magic (was Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's side) In-Reply-To: <4633918C.000003.02712@JUSTME> Message-ID: <955952.82464.qm@web37206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168037 Debi: > As to Sirius eating rats, he didn't have a wand. If he had stolen > one I'm sure it would have been reported, just as I'm sure wands are > somehow magically registered with the ministry. Once he started > using a wand it would have given away his location. Liz: Just my opinion. If wands were registered to the Ministry of Magic, wouldn't they know who did underage or illegal magic? Because, as Dumbledore said, they only know where it happened, and not who did it. The only reason that [can't think of his name!] was accused of killing Voldemort's parents was because he was a known muggle hater and lived near them. ~*Liz Stephens*~ ?If you live to be 100, I hope I live to be 100 minus 1 day, so I never have to live without you.? -- Winnie the Pooh From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Apr 29 00:36:00 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:36:00 -0000 Subject: An Oddity - Dumbledore and Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168038 Goddlefrood: > What if the connection between Dumbledore is a little more than > just simply owner and pet? Dumbledore is acknowledged by many as > the most skilled wizard of his age (he is, as I've said before the > only wizard of his age ;)). > In respect of Fawkes my ridiculous suggestion for the evening is > that somehow Fawkes is a transformed part of Dumbledore. Jen: You mean a partial transformation of some sort that Dumbledore understands how to do because of his vast knowledge of transfiguration? It's not that I don't think JKR could make something like this work, it's more that the transfiguration skills seem poised to explain how Dumbledore can make himself invisible. My other thought is the connection between Dumbledore and Fawkes is largely symbolic from what I've gathered, so a literal connection wouldn't necessarily move the story along in a way that the symbolic connection can't do already: Fawkes lives on, and will be there to aid Harry after Dumbledore's death just as he did while Dumbledore was alive. Carol responds: > I don't think that Fawkes is "a repository for a portion of DD's > soul." That sounds too much like a Horcrux. Clearly, however, the > bond between Fawkes and DD is very strong and, IMO, parallels that > between Voldemort and Nagini. Both seem to me to be variations on > the idea of a witch's or sorceror's "familiar." Of course, they're > not spirits in animal form but magical animals, but they do the > bidding of their masters without losing their own identities, and > their own goodness or wickedness matches that of their master. Jen: I agree with the parallel between the two most powerful wizards and their magical animals. If Nagini is a Horcrux, that would be yet another example of the opposite poles these two wizards occupy in Potterverse. The graveyard scene represents how Voldemort's choices shaped his life and his refusal to die, and the tower represents how Dumbledore's choices shaped *his* life and acceptance of death. It's the comparison of these two scenes that makes me wonder if Fawkes was not meant to be on the tower and understood that innately instead of being ordered to stay away by Dumbledore. Nagini is controlled by Voldemort and does his bidding at all times, possibly to the point of being a repository for his soul, and the apt parallel would be if Fawkes chooses loyalty to Dumbledore and has a certain amount of independence in determining his own actions. Jen From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 00:46:04 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:46:04 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168039 > > > Neri:If it will be found that Snape was correct in his suspicions in the > > Shrieking Shack, JKR will appear as endorsing his bigotry. > > > > Pippin: > I'd say she has a lot more to worry about on that score if it will > be found that Harry is correct in his suspicions about Snape, since > Harry has expressed far more bias towards Snape than Snape has > ever expressed towards Lupin. > Neri: Whether Harry has been biased about Snape or just estimating him better than we have is still remained to be seen. In any case, bias is one thing and bigotry is another. Harry hates Snape because of Snape's behavior, not because Snape is a half-blood or because he has greasy hair, or because of anything else Snape doesn't have control over. > Pippin: > But I think JKR will appear as endorsing the view that life is complicated. > > Someone who has been accused by a bigot can still be guilty. > Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. > Neri: It's not a situation of being right twice a day. Had we seen Snape showing bigotry towards 24 werewolves, and in the end only two of them proved traitors, then you'd have a point. But this isn't the situation. The point is that if Lupin proves a traitor and Snape proves loyal, Snape will not be regarded as a stopped clock, he'll be regarded as a hero for being the one who has always warned us against Lupin (at least this is how I understood Ceridwen's point that I responded to). Being a hero *because* you're a bigot isn't a good message in a book. > Ceridwen: > Snape repeats and repeats the word here. He assigns an essay on > werewolves. There is no doubt in people's minds that Remus is a > werewolf. > > That the constant drum of attention is brought by a character who, by > all appearances, is a bigot against werewolves merely makes the > reader file it away as bigotry, nothing more. So, if there is a > surprise in DH regarding Remus and the werewolves, or Remus's > betrayal based on that point, we've had this glaringly blatant clue > staring us in the face since PoA, but no one picked up on it because > of the messenger. The surprise is complete in the moment, though the > clues will be easy enough to spot during re-reads. Neri: I didn't disagree that plotwise this would be a nice trick for JKR to pull. I'm just saying that the price she'd have to pay for it would be in endorsing Snape's bigotry in the Shrieking Shack. Note that no good guy got credit for exposing or stopping Kreacher, certainly not those that could appear even remotely as prejudiced against house-elves, like Sirius or Ron. The only good guy who might be able to claim some credit, namely Dumbledore, is the one who says upfront that Kreacher is not to be blamed. JKR took extra care not to appear as endorsing anti-house-elves bigotry. > Ceridwen: > Snape hammering on the 'werewolf' theme rather than Remus is a > werewolf, would set up the entire group wooing that Voldemort is > doing. Werewolves as a group have been marginalized. Remus admits > that he has personally been marginalized: seen as a werewolf first, > and lost jobs because of it. Remus has been sent to spy on his > peers, others who have been marginalized. Would his weakness, of > wanting people to like him enough that he will break rules or hide > important information, cause trouble for Harry in DH? Neri: As a massage that might come out even worse. Lupin's betrayal as a result of him getting close to the other werewolves would brand the whole minority, not just Lupin the lone werewolf, as bad. Lupin the good person who betrays the good guys because of his weakness would suggest that werewolves can never be trusted, even when they are good people, because in the end their werewolf side would betray them. Neri From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 29 01:14:28 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:14:28 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius Charm again (Was: Apparition & Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168040 Carol: > Carol, who doesn't think that Harry will have any difficulty finding > or seeing the ruins of his parents' house Kvapost: I wonder whether there *are* any ruins anymore, it's been what, 15- 16 years since? According to Hagrid, Muggles could see the ruins, but I'm not sure if local authorities would just leave the ruins intact or if there would be some investigation as to whose house is this, who owns the land, etc. And if the land belongs to a wizard/a muggle other that Potters, I wonder if he/she is still alive or not. If yes, I would assume she or he would rebuild or at least clear the space from ruins and rubbish, otherwise local authorities should have done it and would have claimed the land ownership if there are no heirs? JKR has not told us readers who the owner of the house in GH was, I wonder if Harry actually asked anyone about it...but hang on, it can't be Potters' house as he'd get it in their will along with the gold that he has access to already. Speaking of which, who is his legal guardian in the wizarding world, I mean, is anyone who has the key for Gringotts vault automatically able to open it legally? I mean, with Gringotts high security, it does seem a bit odd. Kvapost From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Apr 29 01:18:52 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:18:52 -0000 Subject: Conjuring food/Merope's situation (Re: Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168041 Carol: > I've asked myself both questions and can only conclude that JKR is > placing limitations on magic, just as she does when she makes real > money and real food necessities in the WW. (I still think > it's unfair to poor Merope to think that she could have kept > herself alive using magic when she couldn't conjure food or money.) > va32h: > I do agree with you except - we have seen Molly conjure food. She's > made sauce come out of her wand when cooking. And Harry has > conjured water from his wand. In general, my understanding of magic > is that conjured items do not last... Maybe conjured food and > water is not filling. Jen: I thought of the sauce Molly conjured as the magical equivalent of stretching a pot of soup by adding more water because you don't have anything else to put in it. So the sauce added to the appearance and flavor without adding anything of substance. And the point about Merope not lifting her wand seemed more about the avenues open to her as a magical person, like unlocking the door of a store when no one was around to get some food or using a trick like the one DD used on Mrs. Cole to convince a bank teller she had a legitimate withdrawl form instead of a worthless piece of paper. Not exactly on the up-and-up but something to show Merope was fighting for her own survival. Riddle seemed to be born healthy; I guess she got enough nutrition to support his growth if not her own. Jen From djmitt at pa.net Sun Apr 29 00:33:00 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:33:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's Sacred (Hallowed) relics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168042 Ok I figure LV has his Horcruxes or Deathly Hallows to fight Harry. What would Harry's sacred relics or objects be to fight LV? I'll get you started: The sorcerer's stone: Harry had this sacred stone in his pocket in book one. Godric Gryffindor's sword: Harry used this to kill Slytherin's basilisk. Can you think of any more? Maybe these relics will play a part in Book seven. Donna From intoweddings at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 00:36:22 2007 From: intoweddings at yahoo.com (intoweddings) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:36:22 -0000 Subject: The Inconsistency of Magic (was Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's si Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168043 What actually gets me about this whole subject is why did Peter Pettigrew need a wand to change back to a rat, but Sirius didn't need one to turn back into a dog? And also since Sirus was eating rats...good thing Peter wasn't hanging out spying on Sirius as a rat, he would be dinner. And also, Muggle hater was named Morfin. intoweddings From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 01:37:28 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:37:28 EDT Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168044 >Jen: I agree it could be related to Merope's choice. JKR spent some time on the event and the consequence in HBP, having Riddle reach the conclusion that his mother couldn't have been magical if she died and then finding out she *was* magical (which also relates very much to his quest for immortality)his quest for immortality). Har happened to Merope and Harry even brought up the comparison with Lily. Plus there are so many mother characters who play a pivotal role at crucial moments--Lily of course, Narcissa with the UV, Petunia taking Harry in, Barty Crouch Jr's mom taking his place at Azkaban--it'Azkaban--it's a recurring plotline (theme? A moth Petunia's case, Lily's love). >Montavilla47: >I just have to ask this, because I've run into this on other forums and it kind of bugs me. I know that Harry gets angry that Merope didn't do more to keep herself healthy and that Dumbledore then makes a comparison, saying the Merope didn't have Lily's courage. But can we really say that Merope didn't choose her child's life over her own? If there really is any choice about dying in childbirth. : >va32h >Harry expresses his surprise in response to Dumbledore's statement that Merope didn't even lift her wand to save her own life - which suggests to me that witch could use magic to protect her health or at least Dumbledore thought that Merope could have. Niikkalmati I have always thought it unfair, even appalling, to blame Merope for her own death or to conclude (as DD says LV has done) that she didn't love her son. Yes, she did die in childbirth - or so shortly thereafter as to make no difference. It happens even today in the RW to young and healthy women. I can't imagine she didn't want to live. Merope, as we have seen, was physically and psychologically abused all of her life. She was magical but her treatment by her father, the humiliation and ridicule we see in the Pensieve, prevented her from expressing her magic and she may have had only a little magic to begin with. Then she was abandoned and friendless in an alien Muggle world. By the time she came to B&B, she was in desperate straits. I think it was her love for her son that kept her hanging on until he could be born. She was probably drained of all her magic just trying to stay alive. I give her high praise for finding a place that he could stay. I do not believe she is meant to be a contrast to the other mothers in the series, who love their children, but another one who gave her all so her son could live. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 01:49:08 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:49:08 EDT Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168045 >wynnleaf . >I'm always amazed that readers overlook so much about Lupin when we are given two very clear examples of Lupin's willingness to put his own personal benefit -- for the more trivial desire to keep his friend's goodwill -- above the lives of children and townspeople. If this was a one-time occurance it would be one thing, but in both cases -- Lupin's jeopardizing the safety of the community in order to keep the goodwill of his Marauder friends, as well as his jeopardizing the lives of his students in order to keep Dumbledore's goodwill -- Lupin consciously makes these decisions over and over again. He repeatedly and knowingly jeopardized the lives of the community for literally *years.* And he repeatedly withheld information and jeopardized the safety of his students for an entire school year. This isn't just a "mistake." This, imo, is indicative of huge character flaws. Nikkalmati Now that Lupin is living with and spying on the werewolves, does this mean he is transforming with them? Is he living as a werewolf and biting children and eating up poor lost homeless victims? Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 01:06:38 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:06:38 -0000 Subject: Muggle-borns Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168046 Is there an explanation anywhere as to why or how Muggleborns come to be? I'm not sure I worded that right but basically if you have no magic parents why do they have kids that are magical? Also is it a hereditary thing? If one child is will they all be? In the case of the Creeveys it seems so. So that would lead us to believe that Petunia has possible powers but refuses to use or acknowledge them? Any opinions or just information for me that I might not have? Thx :-) Tandra From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 02:10:06 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:10:06 -0000 Subject: The Inconsistency of Magic (was Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's si In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "intoweddings" wrote: > > What actually gets me about this whole subject is why did Peter > Pettigrew need a wand to change back to a rat, but Sirius didn't need > one to turn back into a dog? zanooda: Why do you belive that PP needed a wand to change? He didn't have a wand when he turned into a rat and escaped in PoA, IIRC. When Lupin transformed and dropped his wand, PP took it and cursed Ron, but then Harry disarmed him with Expelliarmus. After this PP transformed, without any wand. That's how I remember it, anyway :-). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 02:18:53 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:18:53 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168048 > Neri: > The point is that if Lupin proves a traitor and Snape > proves loyal, Snape will not be regarded as a stopped clock, he'll be > regarded as a hero for being the one who has always warned us against > Lupin (at least this is how I understood Ceridwen's point that I > responded to). Being a hero *because* you're a bigot isn't a good > message in a book. zgirnius: But I don't think the text makes clear that Snape would be right *because* he is a bigot. I don't think Snape's issue with Remus, the individual, is that he is a werewolf, but rather, for the things Snape believes he did and failed to do while they were students together. (Notably, sharing the secret of the Whomping Willow with Sirius, who used it to set up a situation that could have led to Snape's death; and being around in the SWM and possible other incidents). Just as, in the portion I snipped, Harry's dislike for Snape is for things peculiar to Snape, not to the classes of greasy haired people, or hook-nosed people, or Slytherins. I don't buy ESE!Lupin - I agree with Alla that Rowling would not want ESE!Anyone teaching her kids. But I could certainly imagine some scenario of the sort wynnleaf proposes coming to light. In a way it would be like SWM. We had been told, repeatedly, that James was arrogant and thought he could get away with breaking rules. Nonsense, we said, that's just Snape foaming at the mouth again (without wondering where, exactly, all this feeling was *coming* from, duh moment for me when it happened...) Except really, I doubt it because Lupin, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, has *already* caused problems through his desire to be liked. If he's not ESE, it's just sort of repetitive. I would not expect to learn any more dirt on James as a student in DH either, for similar reasons. > Neri: > I didn't disagree that plotwise this would be a nice trick for JKR to > pull. I'm just saying that the price she'd have to pay for it would be > in endorsing Snape's bigotry in the Shrieking Shack. zgirnius: If you don't acknowledge the personal content of Snape's dislike for Lupin, it's really the same argument as why Snape can't be ESE either. Harry and other characters have expressed bigotry against students Sorted into Slytherin House. > Neri: > Note that no good guy got credit for exposing or stopping Kreacher, > certainly not those that could appear even remotely as prejudiced > against house-elves, like Sirius or Ron. The only good guy who might > be able to claim some credit, namely Dumbledore, is the one who says > upfront that Kreacher is not to be blamed. JKR took extra care not to > appear as endorsing anti-house-elves bigotry. zgirnius: It seems to me she would need to take extra care to arrange for someone other than Dumbledore to expose him. The time window was rather narrow. Kreacher had to be unsuspected when Harry Flooed, and he did nothing else suspicious. Dumbledore had to learn what happened from him because noone stayed behind. Noone stayed behind for the far more important story reason that the logical someone would be Sirius, fugitive from justice, and he had to go so he could die. It could have been discovered later, but then the information would not have been available in the "Dumbeldore explains it all" chapters following the battle at the Ministry. These seem to me far more significant considerations that force the outcome we got. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 29 02:28:06 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:28:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) References: Message-ID: <013201c78a06$06688b20$229e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168050 > Niikkalmati > > I have always thought it unfair, even appalling, to blame Merope for her > own > death or to conclude (as DD says LV has done) that she didn't love her > son. > Yes, she did die in childbirth - or so shortly thereafter as to make no > difference. It happens even today in the RW to young and healthy women. > I can't > imagine she didn't want to live. Magpie: I couldn't believe that either. What Dumbledore says is that Merope "lacked Harry's mother's courage" which is just...obnoxious. Maybe you could say someone died from lack of courage if they were afraid to take a risk that would have saved their life, but judging Merope's death after having her baby as a lack of courage comes uncomfortably close to saying that a) dying is a character flaw and b) depression is a lack of courage. I'm sure JKR believes neither of those things, but it's not one of Dumbledore's better moments. -m From va32h at comcast.net Sun Apr 29 02:54:41 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:54:41 -0000 Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: <013201c78a06$06688b20$229e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: What Dumbledore says is that Merope "lacked Harry's mother's courage" which is just...obnoxious. Maybe you could say someone died from lack of courage if they were afraid to take a risk that would have saved their life, but judging Merope's death after having her baby as a lack of courage comes uncomfortably close to saying that a) dying is a character flaw and b) depression is a lack of courage. I'm sure JKR believes neither of those things, but it's not one of Dumbledore's better moments. va32h: Well I would definitely agree that JKR does not feel that way about depression, since she has had her own bout with it. I wonder if Dumbledore meant that Merope did not have the courage to go on without the love of her life, as Lily apparently did. Lily did not let her grief over James' death stop her from thinking of her son and protecting him. Although to be fair, Lily didn't have much time to dwell on said grief. Still, the scene at Godric's Hollow could have played out differently if Lily put James before Harry - in other words, hearing/seeing James fall, run to him, instead of protecting Harry. Merope seems to have allowed her despair over the loss of Tom Sr. to overshadow her devotion to Tom Jr. Although again to be fair, had Tom Jr. already been born when Tom Sr. left, we might have had a very different story. Which is not to say that Merope did not love Tom in the womb, but I think it is...not easier...but - it's just different with a child that is already there, that you've been attached to for some time. Once, when I was pregnant with my third child, my then-2 year old son wandered away from me in a store parking lot, and was nearly struck by a car. I jumped in front of him instinctively, although had I been hit I could have injured my unborn baby. But maybe that's just me. I don't know what Dumbledore was thinking - he's never been a mother, so in that sense, no matter how wise he may be, he doesn't know how a mother thinks. It would certainly be par for the course with Voldemort though - if he completely misunderstood his mother's love. If he assumed she did not love him enough because she died - perhaps she loved him enough to hang on to life just long enough to give birth. It's characteristic of Voldemort to not understand anything about love. va32h From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 03:04:32 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:04:32 EDT Subject: Sirius /food Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168052 >Debi >As to Sirius eating rats, he didn't have a wand. If he had stolen one I'm sure it would have been reported, just as I'm sure wands are somehow magically registered with the ministry. Nikkalmati I am just using this quote as a stepping off point for a minor thought. It sounds awful for Sirius to have been surviving on rats, but remember he was spending a lot of his time in dog form. Eating a nice fat rat is not so bad for a dog. Yum. :>) Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 29 03:27:18 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:27:18 -0000 Subject: Scholomance/LuciusKnew?/Nick/SnapeLoved?/MWPPnitwit/persecution/teacher/psyc Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168053 Eric Oppen wrote in : << the "Scholomance." Wikipedia says that it's a legendary school of dark magic, near Sibiu in Romania, attended by ten scholars at a time, and that when nine of them are released on the world, the Devil takes the tenth scholar as his due to serve as his adjutant.>> School o' Mancy? A friend recently told me what she insists is a real medieval legend of the Black School of Paris, which took 12 students a year for a 6 year course of study. At the end of their studies, the 12 students ran away very fast, as 'the Devil took the hindmost'. To eat, not as an servant. To bring this back on topic -- I understand how Muggles could assume that even the Lightest of magic schools was a Dark Arts school personally associated with the Devil, and that its students were kidnapped, or sold by their parents, rather than being invited and offered scholarships, but why is the motif of the Devil taking one student a year so common? To my mind, it should be specified as either the best or the worst student in the year, not the slowest runner. Death or some other unpleasant punishment for the worst student might be viewed by wizards as a motivational technique to encourage all students to try their best. And to cheat, and to sabotage their classmates, so I don't think it's a very good idea. There wasn't a Ministry of Magic yet in those days, and I doubt its precursor, the wizards' Council (according to QTTA), employed many bureaucrats, or we could suggest a guaranteed job at the Ministry for the best student in each class as explanation for his/her disappearance. (The stories have all the students being boys, but surely that is another erroneous Muggle assumption.) It would even agree with Eric's version, that the student is taken to be the Devil's adjutant, not his dinner. I'm left with suggesting that the best student in each class is guaranteed further education, and none ever refused it. Even if one year's best student is not as good as some other year's fifth-best student... Jen wrote in : << I wonder if the information won't come from Lucius (snip) he figured out Riddle's origins after the diary was left in his care. The fact that it came from a Muggle shop would the clue he built on to have something against the Dark Lord should LV ever return. >> I like to think that Lucius always knew that LV was Tom Marvolo Riddle, a half-blood, from his father (pesumably Abraxas Malfoy, known as Draco's grandfather from HBP), who surely must have been one of Riddle's useful 'friends' from school who became the first Death Eaters, even tho' 'Malfoy' is not in the list of Death Eaters waiting for LV at the Hog's Head while he applied for the DADA Professorship: "Nott, Rosier, Mulciber, Dolohov". Or, if wizards have those loooong lives which appear in canon only for Dumbledore and Professor Marchbanks, the OWL examiner, maybe the Malfoy at school with Riddle was Lucius's much older brother rather than his father. There are all kinds of ways an older brother of Lucius could have died childless -- it isn't necessary that Lucius murdered him for the inheritance. Goddlefrood wrote in : << Why had Nick upset Henry VII or some other powerful leader and why did he choose to become a ghost, >> According to JKR in , Sir Nicholas explained in song why he was executed. The first two verses of many: <> I gather elsewhere that her mental image of Sir Nicholas is wearing an Elizabethan ruff, which would work better with a 1592 than a 1492 death date. Juli wrote in : << If the person Snape loved wasn't Lily, then perhaps it was Remus--okay, kidding (probably!). >> That *would* work for explaining *why* Severus followed Sirius's advice to go down the tunnel under the Whomping Willow -- if he were secretly in love with the quiet, studious boy who hung out with the evil bullies James and Sirius, he might well form an impression that the evil bullies were doing something terrible to poor Remus, from which he could rescue him, thus gaining his 'friendship'. But then we'd need an explanation for Snape's current intense dislike of Lupin -- could it be only that he rejected Severus's affections and remained friends with Severus's enemies? Love that turns to hate when not reciprocated is a cliche, but is not the kind of love that Rowling goes on about. Maybe Severus has an entrenched prejudice against werewolves strong enough to turn love to hate when he found out that Remus is a werewolf. Goddlefrood wrote in : << Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak. Messrs. Moony, Worntail, Padfoot and Prongs? Curious :-? I'm not about to get into that further, but it was a preliminary thought I had about the Marauders. This makes Lupin the nitwit. >> Dumbledore didn't know then about the Map, so if "nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak" referred to the Marauders, it could have been in any sequence. Some listies used to suggest that Nitwit, Blubber, Oddment, Tweak were the nicknames of Albus's own boyhood Marauders-like group, but how that information would connect to winning the war against Voldemort, I can't imagine. Another theory was that those words are parts of a spell that Harry will need in a crisis. It occurs to me that if it were a spell for the protection of Hogwarts, that would be relevant for a Welcoming Feast and for a Battle of Hogwarts. And further occurs to me that such a spell might use the childhood nicknames of the Founders... I suppose Nitwit wouod be Albus or Rowena depending on which century it was, Blubber would be Godric, and Tweak would be Helga, leaving Oddment as Salazar... Ann wrote in <>: << I don't think the foundation of Hogwarts had anything to do with persecution from outside. >> I don't know if it had anything to do with their decision to found a school together instead of taking apprentices separately, but it DID influence the LOCATION of the school. As Professor Binns said in CoS, "You all know, of course, that Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago - the precise date is uncertain - by the four greatest witches and wizards of the age. The four school Houses are named after them: Godric Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena Ravenclaw, and Salazar Slytherin. They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." Let me repeat: "witches and wizards suffered much persecution." Alla wrote in : << I think it is a safe guess Pippin that none of her teachers serve evil overlord or even killed anybody, but I can be wrong >> If any of the teachers had formerly been a combat soldier or a police officer, he (usually he) might have killed someone in the line of duty. My friend once killed someone -- she was driving legally on a main artery at 45 mph when an old woman ran into the street right in front of her. My friend slammed on the brakes, but still hit the old woman, who died. Then there are hunting accidents... Bart wrote in : << Psychopaths tend to be inconsistent, and often unable to see a plan through to the end. Voldemort, on the other hand, is capable of spending years in planning and executing >> As some listie once pointed out long ago, Diary!Tom shows typical sociopathic inconsistency: he begins with the intention of finish[ing] Salazar Slytherin's noble work" but "Haven't I already told you," said Riddle quietly, "that killing Mudbloods doesn't matter to me anymore? For many months now, my new target has been -- you." From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 03:43:47 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:43:47 EDT Subject: Theme of HP (was Notes on Literary uses of magic) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168054 >Betsy Hp: >They all (and I'm including both Order members and Harry's group of friends here) have an intrinsic loyalty to Dumbledore that they use to define themselves. That loyalty does get transferred to Harry, but even Harry defines himself as Dumbledore's man. The two stand as one but with Harry as subservient (Dumbledore doesn't use Harry to define himself). .>Betsy Hp: >I agree. Really, Harry and friends weren't going up against the MoM *because* it was the MoM. They opposed it because it first opposed Dumbledore. They follow Dumbledore's "rules", and they understand that Dumbledore's authority trumps the authority of the MoM. If the two powers come into conflict, they go with Dumbledore. They're not about the individual, they're about absolute and unquestioning loyalty to their Man. Nikkalmati This post touches on what appear IMHO to be the main theme of the series - loyalty and of course its opposite - treachery. We hear a lot about love, but we don't see a great deal of it. We assume Lily and James loved each other and we do see the actions of mothers who love their children, but not many characters are inspired by love. DD may love Harry, but we don't see that on the page either. The romantic love of the teenagers is not very deep. What we do see over and over is the importance of loyalty. In the past, the Marauders are loyal to each other but Peter betrays them in a supreme act of treachery, which is central to the books. The Trio are loyal to each other, to the school, to their House and to DD. The other students are loyal to their houses and the school. Draco is loyal to his family and to some extent so is Bella. Dobby is loyal to Harry but not to the Malfoys, Kreacher is supposed to be loyal to Harry, but he betrays Harry and Sirius. Harry is deeply loyal to DD and expresses himself in COS to Tom, and later to Fudge and to Scrimgeour. The OOP is run on personal loyalty - to the Order and to DD. Snape, of course, is either the supreme loyalist or the great betrayer. Sirius' feelings for Harry, even if they become love, start out as loyalty to James. These are not all of the possible examples. The ties that bind the characters and motivate them are much better understood as loyalty than love. If this is the case, I am not sure how Love in the abstract can help Harry defeat LV. As human beings we love individuals, just as Harry's love for Sirius drove out LV. It is much more difficult to love in the abstract so, it is very hard to visualize what is behind the Love door in the MOM. Therefore, I expect in some way it will be a more personal form of love, and one based on loyalty, that is used to destroy LV in DH. That means to me that the bonds between the Trio (and perhaps Ginny) will play a bigger role than, say, Lily's love for Harry. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 05:22:44 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:22:44 -0000 Subject: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168055 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167975 > > Alla: > > > > I am sorry, but **I** saw nothing of Lupin's arranging for Snape > > to be publicly humiliated in PoA. I saw Lupin trying his best to > > restore Neville's self confidence after **Snape** publicly > > humiliated him. > > Pippin: > So you are saying the *only* way for Neville's confidence to be > restored was for Snape to be humiliated? It would speak > poorly of Neville, IMO, if the only way he could be built up > was to see Snape run down. Mike: I know Carol answered part of this line of reasoning but I'd like to throw in my 2 knuts, making it 4 I guess. ;) The way I understood that Boggart lesson, Lupin was trying to teach the kids how to force the Boggart to assume a shape that they (kids) would find funny. Now knowing that the kids are not that advanced yet, he realizes that the kids will have to deal with their most frightening form as is. That is, he can't expect them to be able to completely change the Boggart's form, but rather to change something smaller that will lessen the frightfulness of the form. Notice how Pavarti's mummy became unravelled, Dean's hand caught in a mouse-trap, Seamus' Banshee lost her voice, Ron's spider lost his legs, etc. None of them were expected to be able to completely change the form, just make a minor adjustment. The same was going to be true for Neville. He would have to have a way to make his Boggart (Snape) become comical. He cannot be expected to be able to change the form any more than the other kids would be able to. Lupin did not pick Neville's form (Snape), but he did come up with a way to make that form become comical. Is there another way to do it (make Snape!Boggart comical) without it seeming to humiliate the real Snape? Try to think of one yourself, see if anything fits the bill and works for the story. I submit that making Snape!Boggart comical in any way is going to be demeaning to the real Snape. And I don't buy that once Neville announced that Snape frightens him most, and all the other kids laugh, that Lupin should say, "Sorry Neville, we'll have to work on yours in private. Next!" What a cruel way that would be to treat Neville, all because his potions teacher is a scary, mean bastard that treats him like s**t. Added incentive for Lupin and Neville; Snape took an uncalled for shot at Neville before leaving the teacher's lounge. As Alla says, Snape deserved this treatment and much worse. Just the fact that a kid whose parents were tortured into insanity finds his potions teacher the most frightening thing on earth, speaks volumes to me. (Although I do admit that the Boggart would have to have a definite form to assume, not some nebulious torturer. But that doesn't obviate what *Neville* finds most frightening). > Pippin: > We can contrast the way that McGonagall dealt with Harry's > experience with Trelawney. Harry was terrified by the prediction > of his death, but McGonagall did not find it necessary to terrify > Trelawney in order to restore Harry's confidence. Mike: Somehow Snape was terrified by Lupin's lesson? And McGonagall clearly spoke ill of Trelawney, without saying the actual words. It screams out of the page. Even Harry gets the implied "she's an old fraud" if he doesn't actually realize it at this time, only realizing that things aren't as bad as they felt up in Trelawney's smoke filled room. > Pippin: > Lupin might have dealt with Neville's loss of confidence in > a similar way, and arranged for Neville to deal with his > boggart privately, as he did for Harry (but not for Hermione, > who flubs her exam thereby.) Mike: I already addressed Neville. As for Hermione, not everyone got a shot at the Boggart, they had but one and he went poof after Neville's second foray. We didn't see Lavender's Boggart either and I assume there were more than just Gryffindors in the class. And Harry's private lesson was more than just dealing with Boggarts, wasn't it? It was both Lupin thinking that a Voldemort!Boggart would scare the bejeezus out of everyone, and later, teaching Harry the Patronus Charm, not the Ridikulus for Boggarts. I say "no fair" to call Lupin for this. ************************** In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167961 Pippin: I can't speak for Wynnleaf, but Lupin speaks for himself: "Soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the school grounds and the village by night." "And there were near misses, many of them." "I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust, of course...he had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other Headmaster would have done so, and he had no idea that I was breaking the rules he had set down for my own and others' safety." -PoA ch 18 .... Lupin would not have had to rat out his friends-- he only had to tell them that he didn't want them to let him out of the Shrieking Shack any more. But, as he says he always managed to forget his guilty feelings when it came time to plan the next adventure. Mike: This may be hard to say without sounding arrogant, so feel free to call me such after I'm done. ;) Pre-adult boys of a certain caliber have a burning desire to not only get into mischief but to up the ante of said mischief to the point of dangerous or illegal stunts. It's a deep rooted desire to impress their mates, outdo the previous generation, and acquire that adrenaline rush one gets from defying danger. Add to that, they are immortal at that age, just ask them. How does JKR portray this amongst wizards, who are literally immune from the kind of dangers that muggles would find deadly? Well, they run with werewolves. I ran with the same type of crowd in high school. It included the football star, the most popular boy, the good looking guy, the hangers-on type of guys, etc. If a werewolf was around, we would have invited him along. ;D James, Sirius, Remus and even Peter would have fit right in. And *nobody* could have convinced us we were doing anything wrong. It would have to come from within the group which eventually does. The Marauders were acting according to their nature, imo. You might just as well try to convince a male lion not to try to take over a rival lion's pride as to try to convince the Marauders that they can't go out on their monthly jaunts. It wasn't just a rite of passage to them, it was their right as heir to the throne, the future kings of the pride. JKR said that she has noticed how many adults have forgotten what it was like to be young and powerless. She could also have added how many adults have forgotten what young males will do in the name of excitement. Does that mean they're acting irresponsibly? Hell yes, but that's the point. And the more trouble they could get in if they were caught, the better the chance that they will continue or ratchet up the ante. And I would wager that Fred and George had done a lot worse things than sneaking off to the kitchens or into Hogsmeade after hours. I remember Hagrid complaining about having to chase them out of the FF numerous times. What do you suppose they were doing in there? One last thing. Lupin claims he "led" his friends to become Animagi and implies it was also his fault for their werewolf explorations. Does anyone buy this mea culpa? I don't see how Lupin should be the one to shoulder the blame, nor do I think he is solely responsible for putting a stop to them. In fact, I would definitely place much more of the responsibility on James and Sirius, not that it would matter to them. Mike From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 05:36:56 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:36:56 -0000 Subject: An Analysis of the Skirmish at Hogwarts with some Potentially Surprises Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168056 Goddlefrood presents what's in the title ;-): All quotes throughout are from the Bloomsbury Hardback Edition of HBP. I will give page numbers only and those will only change where pages change, otherwise accept that the page number is the same as the one that immediately precedes any quote. The Chapters involved are 27, 28, 29 and 30. This account will just involve the action inside the school building, not the portion in the grounds, which is relatively straightforward to follow, IMO, and is all from Harry's PoV. The implications of some of the things that happen in the grounds are not straightforward, but will not concern me in this post. It also would add nothing to my account as what I want to try to discern is how many DEs may have been involved altogether (I will exclude Snape from the tally when I get to it, but only randomly and for no better reason than he has been discussed quite a little lately ;)). Also I hope it makes some sense of who did what and when. The numbers in brackets throughout are points in the narrative where other witness testimony is to be given, and will be after the skirmish from Harry's PoV between leaving Hogsmeade and exiting Hogwarts Castle building has been gone through. Also I will add in the beginning of the skirmish, which is the arrival of the DEs through the cabinets after Harry's PoV has been dealt with. I will not attempt to name each of the Death Eaters, that has been discussed by me and many others here before (if interested, though Ludovic Bagman, Goyle Snr. and Otto Bagman have been suggested and argued for as the blond Death Eater [there may be other candidates or it could be someone we have not met], while many think Alecto and Amycus are the Carrows and brutal face is Yaxley). If asked on these points in brackets I'll dig out the thread and relevant posts of both myself and several others and note it in a response, if any is thought needed :). The stated reasons for this post are above. ----------------------- As Harry and Dumbledore arrive back in Hogsmeade Madam Rosmerta points out the Dark Mark above the school. They immediately set off on brooms, taking just a matter of a few minutes, maybe 3 or 4 to get to the top of the Astronomy Tower and dismount. (1) Draco comes up the staircase at the same moment Harry had been sent for help, disarms DD, who in turn freezes Harry, as Harry posits. This might be a further 30 seconds or less. They talk for say 2 or 3 minutes until Harry hears a muffled yell from below, which causes Draco to pause and look round and to remain silent listening to the kerfuffle below for some moments (p. 547). (2) When the conversation between Draco and DD resumes and after a brief exchange relative to other matters Draco gives us some information as to how the Death Eaters came to Hogwarts, he says: 'I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's used for years. The one Montague got lost in last year.' (p. 548) The pair of which is in Borgin and Burkes, and through which the Death Eaters arrived at Hogwarts in the Room of Requirement. (3) Two pages later, so perhaps 1 or 2 minutes, there is 'another yell from below, rather louder than the last' (p. 550), and again after a similar period 'There was a bang and shouts from below, louder than ever, it sounded as though people were fighting on the actual spiral staircase ' (p. 552), another 1 or 2 minutes. (4) + (5) On p. 553 the Death Eaters, brutal face, Alecto and Amycus and Greyback appear, another minute, if the page a minute analogy is thought apt. (6) These four engage with Dumbledore and then on p. 555 yet another sound of scuffling is noted from below and someone shouts 'They've blocked the stairs - Reducto! REDUCTO!'. The barrier is assumed by Harry to have been put in place by one of the four new arrivals to prevent Order members or DA members following them. 1 or 2 more minutes there. (7) Brutal-face prevents Greyback from killing DD and blasts him out of the way with a spell that emits a flash of light, no colour given :(. Snape then appears and does what he does very soon thereafter and then the chapter ends (p. 556). This might all be about a further minute. (8) I'm taking about 30 seconds to 1 minute per page at this point due to the amount of continuous narrative and conversation during Chapter 27, when evidence from the other two relevant chapters is presented then this will change :). The next chapter continues the narrative; the evidence of what all the above noted matters are about is a little way off. I'll wrap this account of the skirmish from Harry's PoV up and then try to fit the statements about what was going on before and after Harry arrived on the tower with DD to that. Snape says 'Out of here, quickly,' (p. 557) and he, Draco and the 4 DEs proceed away. The brutal-faced one is at the back, is petrified by Harry and later picked up by the MoM (one good thing they do, mop up ;) [p. 604] ). Harry then follows, stepping over the prone figure. (9) Once he reaches the bottom of the staircase he is surrounded by confusion 'a battle was raging before him' (p. 558). There is no time from Harry's PoV to immediately discern what is going on and he is, in any event, focused on Snape, who he sees rounding a corner ahead. Before he can catch up he is accosted by Greyback but Greyback is then stunned and Harry pushes off the limp werewolf and carries on his chase of Snape. Immediately he encounters two bodies (one not dead :)). (10) + (11) He does not stop to investigate as Ginny catches his eye (if she hadn't earlier ;)). She is noted to be in combat with Amycus. Harry casts Impedimenta at Amycus who slams into the wall and slides down it :-?, falling out of sight. Ron, McGonagall and Lupin are then seen in combat, 'each of whom was battling a separate Death Eater', and Tonks is noted as fighting the 'enormous blond wizard'. (12) Ginny queries Harry, but Harry does not respond, thinking only of his belief that he must not let Snape escape. At this point it seems clear that the DE with whom McGonagall was duelling was Alecto (p. 559), who sprints :-? off down the corridor, 'her brother right behind her'. As Harry begins to chase again Neville is met and Harry, after a reassurance from Neville, casts a hex at the enormous blond DE, which has the effect of making this DE howl in pain and starts to run away (hoorah!). It's Harry's turn to sprint now ;), but there are noted as being 'bangs issuing from behind him, the yells of the others to come back, and the mute call of the figures on the ground' (13) Harry's next thought is that Snape et al are heading back to the Room of Requirement, but he soon realises, based on a bloody footprint, that the escapees are heading to the front door and not to the RoR. A curse is noted as flying past him, but whether from in front or from behind is not stated. His intuition re the bloody footprint is now confirmed when he sees Alecto and Amycus running down the staircase ahead. Harry takes a shortcut, the same staircase that played a large part in "The Egg and The Eye" in GoF, and reaches the second floor before yelling 'Out of the way!' (p. 560) to some Hufflepuffs and going on down the marble staircase from where he notes the entrance doors have been blasted open. (For what it may be worth I believe the blasting open of the door would have been the matter that awoke all the other students, they may have sprinted to where they are noted as having been ;)). It could equally well have been the blast that unblocked the staircase to the tower. Harry exits the castle after the escapees have already done so ahead of him while causing some injuries to other students, some of whom had congregated in the Entrance Hall. This whole action from Harry leaving the tower to his exiting the front doors takes perhaps a total of 10 minutes, certainly no more. End of this portion, as stated above. Altogether then from Hogsmeade to exiting the castle would be between 19 minutes and 25 minutes. The skirmish lasted probably 5 more minutes before the events Harry noted as happening, so I'll round it out at 30 minutes from the DEs arrival in the RoR to the time Harry exits the front door. It could be up to 10 minutes less, but the timing is not crucial to this post, important, but not crucial. --------------------------- I'll resume from the point where the narrative reaches Harry getting taken to the hospital wing by Ginny to hear accounts from others of what was going on, after that I will give my explanation for points 1-13 above :). First this earlier evidence from Malfoy (p. 551): 'Someone's dead,' said Malfoy and his voice seemed to go up an octave as he said it. 'One of your people I don't know who, it was dark I stepped over the body I was supposed to be waiting up here when you got back, only your Phoenix lot got in the way ' Ginny confirms that this supposed dead body was Bill Weasley (p. 571), who is alive but scarred, and that will be of interest for divination students to ascertain what those cursed scars may do to Bill, I personally believe dittany will be involved ;) (Madam Pomfrey appears sadly unaware of this miracle herb (p. 572). Neville and Professor Filius Flitwick are noted as being on the road to recovery and Harry is reassured that no one from either the Order or DA has been killed. At this point we also get confirmation that a DE is dead from a Killing Curse cast by the 'huge blond one'. At the point before the DEs arrive Ron, Ginny and Neville are outside the RoR and Hermione with Luna proximate to Snape's dungeon office. Order members were patrolling corridors on DD's orders; they were Minerva, Remus, Bill and Nymphadora in Minerva's words 'Every secret passageway out of the school was covered' (p. 575) The evidence from the other witnesses to the skirmish itself also begins on p. 575 with Minerva again (but actually earlier than the above) who says she 'sent Filius to fetch Snape tonight' she goes on to say she didn't think Snape 'knew why they were coming' (Tut, tut Minerva ;)). Back to Ginny on p. 576, after Ron admits Draco got past himself and the other two (but Draco may have been there already) she says 'He came out of the Room about an hour after we started keeping watch he was on his own, clutching that awful shrivelled arm -'. He throws Peruvian Darkness Powder to obscure things and the three guards only are able to hear people rushing past them. Lupin picks up the story and says 'we found the Death Eaters minutes later, heading in the direction of the Astronomy Tower.' A short exchange then occurred and Gibbon ran up the Tower to cast the Dark Mark that is later seen by Harry and DD from Hogsmeade, but in an earlier chapter. Almost as soon as Gibbon came back down a Killing Curse hit him that Remus says 'just missed me.' (p. 577). Hermione is the next pertinent witness, she mentions it's being 'nearly midnight when Professor Flitwick came sprinting :) to the dungeons.'. Some talk and a loud thump are heard and Snape comes out of his office to ask Hermione and Luna to attend to Filius, these two young ladies take no part in the skirmish above them. Nymphadora is my next witness (p. 578) she admits to the skirmish not going in favour of the Order and DA, Gibbon was dead and Bill was down, savaged by Greyback. Malfoy had got past and gone up the tower without Tonks noting exactly when. She also corroborates Harry's intuition that one of the 4 DEs to go up the tower cast the blockade on the bottom of the staircase on their way up. Neville had run at this blockade and 'got thrown up into the air -' Ron now, he says the massive DE was still in the fray by the staircase entrance 'firing off jinxes all over the place'. Tonks by what she says shows that Snape went straight through the fray and up the staircase without hindrance. Back to Remus (p. 579), he says the big DE 'had just fired off a hex that caused half the ceiling to fall in, and also broke the curse blocking the stairs' shortly after which 'Snape and the boy emerged out of the dust - obviously none of us attacked them -' (Tut, tut, Remus ;)) Tonks confirms the other DEs and Greyback (suggestive perhaps of his not being one in her opinion?) from the tower came very soon after and rejoined the melee. These above statements appear to me to be relevant for my purposes. The next tranche contains some logical conclusions drawn from them and some speculation, but not a great deal ;) ---------------------- (1) Point 1 as noted earlier I believe coincides with the point where the Order members catch up with the DEs. Draco is notably absent, having gone on ahead to the tower. (2) I believe this to be where Bill is being attacked, it would not fit with being Gibbon as that occurred earlier, due to Gibbon's having come back down from the tower some time before Harry and DD arrived. The muffled yell could also just be someone being hit by a curse from the blond DE. The thing about this that struck me as a little odd was that if it is accepted, as many do, that Draco, the 4 DEs and Snape are otherwise engaged, then it doesn't seem likely that only one DE could hold off Minerva, Tonks, Remus, Neville, Ginny and Ron on his own. I'll get back to this shortly :) (3) The point at which the DEs and Draco arrive is clear from the testimony of Ron and Ginny in the previous portion, perhaps about 5 minutes or less before the Dark Mark is seen from Hogsmeade that is. (4) This is unexplained by the testimony, but is probably merely someone being hit by a curse, possibly Neville. (5) This one, IMO, is clearly *not* where the blond Death Eater blasts away the ceiling and removes the blockade from the staircase. The blockade, then, as well as barring entry to non Death Eaters also appears to muffle sound a little :) It must be something else that is not accounted for as at the point where it is noted in the narrative the crew with Draco have not yet reached the top of the tower. Number 5 must, therefore, be one of the other ill aimed hexes or curses cast by the blond one, perhaps an AK that careened into a wall. (6) Tonks, as noted in the previous portion also, confirms the point at which Greyback and the 3 DEs left the fray to go up the staircase. (7) This would be where Neville and others are trying to get through the blockade, quite easy really ;). (8) The skirmish below is continuing, no more nor less. (9) The point at which Snape et al leave the tower is noted in Remus's testimony above. (10) This is simply the point at which Harry reaches the bottom of the stairs, sorry of any revelations were thought to be forthcoming :) (11) The two bodies Harry notes should be Bill and Gibbon I believe. (12) This bit is interesting. Snape and Draco have gone ahead remember, which at that point leaves only Alecto, Amycus and the blond DE standing. There are four fights going on altogether, each with separate pairings. One is McGonagall / Alecto another Tonks / blond DE. Amycus has been Impedimenta (ed) shortly before by Harry. Greyback had been petrified and notably does not fight with a wand anyway, or so we have been led to believe. Who then could be fighting Remus and Ron? There should be two more, who are they? I believe I am right in concluding then, that there were two more DEs present other than those named or described. If correct the total number of crew with Draco would be a total of 7, not coincidentally LV's least favourite number ;) (Alecto, Amycus, Greyback, brutal face, big blond and these two others). This does not include Snape as noted earlier, he certainly was at Hogwarts already but he did not engage in any duelling inside the castle. What could have become of these two? Well, like Greyback, who possibly escaped, they could have gone back through the RoR route when the guard was no longer there, which it seems it was not after the action started. Or they could have got out by another route, or, perhaps bizarrely they could have been at Hogwarts already. Either that or it's another instance of JKR not doing her sums and planning terribly well. What I do know for an absolute certainty is that brutal face and big blond are two separate DEs, unlike certain places I could mention, but won't :) (13) The bangs Harry hears behind him must also, IMO come from these other two or possibly only from Greyback if he had awoken by then, which seems unlikely. Or at a real stretch one of the Order or DA members could have been continuing a fight amongst themselves, as some here would surely speculate (I don't yet :>). The others yelling for him to come back are the remaining Order members and DA members. The moans of people on the ground would be Neville, Bill and maybe Greyback. So there you have it, I hope it makes sense. Goddlefrood who signs out by saying simply, and completely unrelatedly, that the code of the schoolyard is unwritten and informal and applies equally I any kind of school in the UK, afaik. It also means never sneak on anyone, no matter who they may be, if that was unclear, I thought it had been :) From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 29 05:47:19 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:47:19 -0000 Subject: JKR question about Cloak (Was: Concealment - a MAJOR Motif) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168057 --- "rduran1216" wrote: > > Concealment of all sorts of kinds has been an absolute constant in > this series. ... > > (SNIP) > > In the NAQ section, Rowling says that the question she was never > asked was why DD had possession of James Potter's invisibility > cloak? Could James have been involved in some kind of stealthy > career that has not been described? Could part of his assignment > have been hiding Regulus Black? How many of these hidden "events" > will be explained? ... Aussie now: I have looked for theories about the never asked question to JKR ... Why did DD have the Invisibility Cloak if he could be invisible without it? At the time James would have left the cloak with DD (wheather borrowed or confiscated to keep James inside GP), what did the Order want hidden? RAB was one I hadn't thought of. Neville, however, was a very important person to hide. DD was not sure if the Potter's or Longbottom's son was the target, so both would have been hidden. Harry had GP, so did DD ask for the cloak to help the Longbottoms? During the Crucio attack, Neville may have been in a similar position to Harry on the tower ... charmed to keep still and quiet and hidden under the cloak. The main thing against this idea was Neville didn't react the same way Harry did when they first met the Dementors. Not much time left to post theories on a questiong JKR herself pointed to .... what do you think, guys? Aussie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 06:00:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:00:09 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius Charm again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168058 --- "kvapost" wrote: > > > Kvapost: > I wonder whether there *are* any ruins anymore, it's > been what, 15-16 years since? ... I'm not sure if > local authorities would just leave the ruins intact > or if there would be some investigation as to whose > house is this, ... > > JKR has not told us readers who the owner of the house > in GH was, I wonder if Harry actually asked anyone > about it...but hang on, it can't be Potters' house as > he'd get it in their will ... bboyminn: Here's the question, have either you or Harry actually seen the Potter's Will? I don't think so. It is possible that if a Will exists, then it does name Harry are the receiver of the Potter's ancestral home. The Potters seem reasonably well off, and it therefore seems odd that they don't own land. But we have never been told whose house the Potters were staying in. We may find it was the Potter's home, but it could just as easily be Hagrid's father's house, or it could be Dumbledore's house, or it could simply be an available rental property of one of the Order members, or it could be that they thought it best to rent common muggle property to minimize any knowledge by the wizard world. The thing is, we simply don't know, but I do find it odd that we don't know, and I further find it odd that there is no mention of a Potter ancestral home which I'm quite convinced there must have been. Either the Potter's home is completely insignificant to the story, or it is extremely significant and that is why we aren't told. Personally, I think Petunia is holding back a lot of information. I full expect for her to show Harry the letter that Dumbledore left, though I don't see her doing this eagerly. It is also possible that some of Lily and James minor personal affects were left with Petunia since she is that last surviving relative of that family (other than Harry of course). So, that is an additional source of information. I suspect the whole purpose of Harry going to Godrics Hollow is to reveal to use, the readers, the necessary backstory. I am firmly convinced that Harry (Ron, Hermione) will not be wandering the streets of Godrics Hollow alone. Either someone they know will act as a guide or some newly introduced character will do so. > Kvapost: > > Speaking of which, who is his legal guardian in the > wizarding world, I mean, is anyone who has the key > for Gringotts vault automatically able to open it > legally? I mean, with Gringotts high security, it > does seem a bit odd. > bboyminn: Well clearly Sirius Black is Harry's Godfather, and in this context, that also means he is Harry's legal guardian. However, he seems to have been indisposed and therefore unable to fulfill his duties. I suspect that regardless of Sirius being the Godfather, Dumbledore seem to have great authority and control over the situation. Either people, including the Ministry, simply deferred to Dumbledore or the Potter's gave him some level of control. Relative to the Harry's Gringott's Vault, let me remind you of Swiss Numbered Bank Account. He who has the number has the money. I suspect this is true of a Keyed Gringotts vault. Though it seems that it's possible to remove money without the key. Note both Molly and Bill have made withdrawals in Harry name. I suspect for the most part, the Goblins have ways of determining whether a withdrawal or access is legitimate. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 06:08:59 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:08:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's Sacred (Hallowed) relics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168059 --- "Donna" wrote: > > Ok I figure LV has his Horcruxes or Deathly Hallows to > fight Harry. What would Harry's sacred relics or > objects be to fight LV? I'll get you started: > > The sorcerer's stone: Harry had this sacred stone in > his pocket in book one. > > Godric Gryffindor's sword: Harry used this to kill > Slytherin's basilisk. > > Can you think of any more? Maybe these relics will > play a part in Book seven. > > Donna > bboyminn: I have a theory which I have titled 'Objects of Power'. We have the concept of uniting the House, along with the concept of sacred magicaly powerful objects (horcruxes). I suspect that Harry's power will come from uniting the four scared objects belonging to the four founders. It just so happens that some of the founder's objects are also Horcruxes, though I don't think Voldemort realizes the power of bringing those object together. So, this make thing interesting. Harrying bring together the four founders objects and by combining them, he thereby inherits an unforeseen power to destroy the Dark Lord. One small problem, Voldemort is using a couple of those objects as his source of power, or at least, his source of 'immortality'. How, this conflict of powerful object will resolve is anyone's guess. And for the record, while the Stone was significant to the first story, I don't think it is significant as an Object of Power in the context we are referencing here. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 06:59:20 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:59:20 -0000 Subject: JKR question about Cloak (Was: Concealment - a MAJOR Motif) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168060 > > --- "rduran1216" wrote: > > > > Concealment of all sorts of kinds has been an absolute constant in > > this series. ... > > > > (SNIP) > > > > In the NAQ section, Rowling says that the question she was never > > asked was why DD had possession of James Potter's invisibility > > cloak? Could James have been involved in some kind of stealthy > > career that has not been described? Could part of his assignment > > have been hiding Regulus Black? How many of these hidden "events" > > will be explained? ... > > Aussie now: > > I have looked for theories about the never asked question to JKR ... > Why did DD have the Invisibility Cloak if he could be invisible > without it? > > At the time James would have left the cloak with DD (wheather > borrowed or confiscated to keep James inside GP), what did the Order > want hidden? > RAB was one I hadn't thought of. > Neville, however, was a very important person to hide. > > DD was not sure if the Potter's or Longbottom's son was the target, > so both would have been hidden. > Harry had GP, so did DD ask for the cloak to help the Longbottoms? > During the Crucio attack, Neville may have been in a similar > position to Harry on the tower ... charmed to keep still and quiet > and hidden under the cloak. > > The main thing against this idea was Neville didn't react the same > way Harry did when they first met the Dementors. > > Not much time left to post theories on a questiong JKR herself > pointed to .... what do you think, guys? Julie: Although I haven't come up with any good theory on why DD had the Invisiblity Cloak, I'm actually more bothered by another question. Why DIDN'T James have it? Here is the father of a boy targeted by Voldemort, in hiding with his wife and child, and what could be *more* useful than that Invisibility Cloak? Especially when there was already suspicion (at least from Snape and Dumbledore) that there was a spy in the Order, and that the Potters might be betrayed? If it was even a remote possibility, the Invisibility Cloak might have been their salvation. If or when Voldemort found their hiding place they could hide under the cloak (or if it's not large enough for all three, at least Lily and Harry). Unless Voldemort has the power to see through the cloak (which I don't recall reading), then he'd assume the Potters had moved on to a new hiding place. I can only assume Dumbledore thought the Fidelius Charm and Secret Keeper were so reliable that the Invisibility Cloak wasn't needed. Or whatever reason Dumbledore had possession of the Cloak will explain this seeming lack of foresight on the parts of everyone involved. (And while the IC could have been used to protect Neville, why wouldn't the Longbottoms also be in a safe house with a Secret Keeper--Dumbledore perhaps--protecting its location?) Julie, who can't recall any canon about why the Potters couldn't Apparate away either. Or why they just didn't stay at Hogwarts! From hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk Sun Apr 29 02:06:52 2007 From: hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk (Mark Hyder Yahoo) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:06:52 +0100 Subject: Muggle Related Matters (Was Re: Muggle-borns) References: Message-ID: <007d01c78a03$16a53810$4001a8c0@YOURDB72CAD53B> No: HPFGUIDX 168061 > Tandra: > Is there an explanation anywhere as to why or how Muggleborns > come to be? Mark Hyder Yahoo Muggle-borns are the occasional witches and wizards born to Muggle parents, or at least have Muggle grandparents. According to J.K. Rowling, in order to be considered pure-blood, one's parents and grandparents must be wizards. If both of a wizard's or witch's parents are Muggle-born, it might give that person Muggle-born status. Their magical abilities do not seem to be significantly affected by their parentage -in fact, many Muggle-borns have been among the most powerful witches and wizards of their time. Blood purity fanatics despise Muggle-borns above all other groups (even more than Muggles themselves), considering them insults to everything wizards stand for, or as Muggles seeking to rise above their station. Pure-blood fanatics use the derogatory term Mudblood to refer to Muggle-born wizards, which is analogous to foul racial and ethnic slurs found in the real world. The proportion of the wizarding population that is Muggle-born seems to be on the rise as the pure-blood families shrink in size and number (according to Rowling, of the annual Hogwarts intake, 25% are Muggle-born and 25% are pure-bloods), and the number of wizard births among Muggles could conceivably be increasing.[not specific enough to verify] Notable Muggle-born characters include Hermione Granger and Harry's mother, Lily Potter (Lily Evans), both of whom are exceptional witches despite coming from all-Muggle families. Muggles who know about magic Also on the border between the magic and non-magic worlds are Muggles who are aware of wizards and may take some advantage of magic cast by others in their lives. These include Muggles who marry wizards (like Seamus Finnigan's father) and Muggles with a relative who is a wizard (like Hermione's parents, the Dursley family, and the Evans family into which Lily Potter was born). Another notable Muggle who is notified of the existence of the wizarding world due to his leadership role is the British Prime Minister. Blood-purity fanatics have a total disdain for Muggles. During Voldemort's rise to power, his followers frequently murdered Muggles simply for pleasure. The Death Eaters that attacked after the Quidditch World Cup levitated a Muggle groundskeeper and his family and twirled them around in the air for their own amusement. Mark Hyder Yahoo From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 07:09:24 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:09:24 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168062 > zgirnius: > But I don't think the text makes clear that Snape would be right > *because* he is a bigot. I don't think Snape's issue with Remus, the > individual, is that he is a werewolf, but rather, for the things > Snape believes he did and failed to do while they were students > together. Neri: The connection between bigotry and hate may not be that of a direct cause here, but IMO it's still too close a connection for comfort. We see Snape in the Shrieking Shack making several comments about Lupin and werewolves that just smell of bigotry. Then after reading DH (going by Ceridwen's speculation upthread) we are going to read the Shrieking Shack scene again and think "the hero DDM!Snape was warning us again Lupin and he turned out to be right, well maybe he was also a bit right in warning us against werewolves in general". The connection is there and isn't denied by the Author. Thinking: "well, Snape was right about warning us against Lupin, but his words against werewolves *in general* were just bigotry, and it isn't clear that the first was a direct result of the second, so it's really OK, we can continue thinking about Snape the bigot as the hero in this scene" is IMO too complicated a message. And JKR could have easily avoided this whole complication simply by wording Snape's comments so they only refer to Lupin and not to werewolves in general. As you say Snape has enough reasons to hate Lupin personally. The fact that JKR did bother to word Snape's comments as derogatory suggests to me that Snape will not turn out to be the hero of this scene. > zgirnius: > If you don't acknowledge the personal content of Snape's dislike for > Lupin, it's really the same argument as why Snape can't be ESE > either. Harry and other characters have expressed bigotry against > students Sorted into Slytherin House. > Neri: I'm not going to go again into the old argument whether the way Harry and his friends think about the Slytherins is bigotry (I don't think it is, I think it's defense against bigotry) but I'll say this much: if, in any dramatic confrontation between Harry and Snape in the series, Harry would have referred to Snape several times as "the Slytherin" and "a Slytherin", using this word as a derogatory term the way Snape uses "a werewolf" in the Shack, I'd personally be *certain* that Snape is going to turn out DDM. I'd also be certain that JKR would make Harry pay dearly for his words. > > Neri: > > Note that no good guy got credit for exposing or stopping Kreacher, > > certainly not those that could appear even remotely as prejudiced > > against house-elves, like Sirius or Ron. > zgirnius: > It seems to me she would need to take extra care to arrange for > someone other than Dumbledore to expose him. Neri: She still could make somebody suspect him before that and the others not listening to him, the same way that DDM!Snape is supposed to suspect Lupin in the Shack. In fact, Harry himself indeed suspected Kreacher had left 10GP when Sirius shouted "out!" and he even warned Sirius about it. Now this was fine because Harry isn't suspected of bigotry towards house-elves. But suppose Ron would have been the one to warn people against Kreacher, adding that house-elves can never be trusted, then you'd get an equivalent situation. In retrospect Ron would have got the credit for warning us against Kreacher, when the warning was a result of (or at least closely coupled with) bigotry against house-elves in general. Neri From cute_janers at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 05:51:49 2007 From: cute_janers at yahoo.com (Liz S.) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:51:49 -0000 Subject: Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168063 > Tandra: > Is there an explanation anywhere as to why or how Muggleborns > come to be? Liz: I remember reading that apparently, if you go back far enough, most (if not all) Muggle-borns have magical ancestors. > Tandra: > So that would lead us to believe that Petunia has possible powers > but refuses to use or acknowledge them? Liz: Also, I guess that Petunia could have hidden magical powers, but on JK Rowling's website (http://www.jkrowling.com), she does mention that Petunia has not and will not be able to perform magic. From cute_janers at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 05:59:14 2007 From: cute_janers at yahoo.com (Liz S.) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:59:14 -0000 Subject: The Inconsistency of Magic (was Moaning Myrtle is Harry's aunt on James's si In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168064 > zanooda: > He didn't have a wand when he turned into a rat and escaped in PoA, IIRC. > After this PP transformed, without any wand. That's how I remember it, anyway :-). Liz: I can see why you would say that. In PoA, Sirius and Lupin both use their wand to turn Peter turn back into himself, but I think that's just forcing him. I don't think he needs a wand to change into a rat or vise versa. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 09:38:51 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:38:51 -0000 Subject: I finally realized why I do not believe ESE LUPIN... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168065 I truly like the ESE Lupin theories, really, I do! However, I cannot make it fit cannon nor characters...IMHO.. So if not Lupin, then who? I'd argue that it would have to be Dobby... It would make sense... Dobby tries to save Harry yet fails miserably..(on purpose?) Harry's initial response to Dobby is one of mistrust. Harry gains Dobby's trust by setting him free..(there has to be a reason why there are such tight restrictions on houseelves) In the end Dobby ends up in enduring the same fate with the "other house elves"... Given how no clear explanation of the "house elf" plight is apparent in the text...I'm beginning to wonder if JBE(just being an elf) may have a more significant meaning than most of us realize. I believe that if anyone will betray Harry in the final book....it will be Dobby, not Lupin.. Doddie, (who seems to remember that Harry seldom shares his elf experience with Hermione who has done much research on elves, unlike Harry and the rest of us.) From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 10:08:49 2007 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl--now meropes psychic?) In-Reply-To: <013201c78a06$06688b20$229e400c@Spot> Message-ID: <191096.35745.qm@web39503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168066 > Magpie: > I couldn't believe that either. What Dumbledore says > is that Merope "lacked > Harry's mother's courage" which is just...obnoxious. > Maybe you could say > someone died from lack of courage if they were > afraid to take a risk that > would have saved their life, but judging Merope's > death after having her > baby as a lack of courage comes uncomfortably close > to saying that a) dying > is a character flaw and b) depression is a lack of > courage. > > I'm sure JKR believes neither of those things, but > it's not one of > Dumbledore's better moments. > > -m parisfan writes: I do agree with magpie. It does seem presumptuous to say she had a 'lack of courage'. From what little we have seen of Merope's life, she has been given very *few* chances to be out there on her own making choices good or bad. It was certainly a bold (maybe not brave) but bold none the less to go after Tom Sr. when her father and brother were out of the way. And i am sure it was crushing for her to find out that it really *did* take a potion to keep the man of her dreams and to find this out after she took a chance and gave Tom Sr a choice of being with her or not. For me the courage lies in the fact she TRIED leaving an abusive situation and making it on her own along with instead of keeping the 'man of her dreams' through forced or artificial means allowing him to decide weather or not he'd stay through his own free will and end up leaving her in the end. IMHO it was probably one too many blows for her psychic to deal with that lead her to die in childbirth. I am guessing in real life this can happen as well. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Apr 29 13:32:15 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:32:15 -0000 Subject: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168067 > ************************** > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167961 > > Pippin: > I can't speak for Wynnleaf, but Lupin speaks for himself: > > "Soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the > school grounds and the village by night." > > "And there were near misses, many of them." > > "I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust, > of course...he had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other > Headmaster would have done so, and he had no idea that > I was breaking the rules he had set down for my own and > others' safety." -PoA ch 18 > > .... > > Lupin would not have had to rat out his friends-- he > only had to tell them that he didn't want them to let him > out of the Shrieking Shack any more. But, as he says > he always managed to forget his guilty feelings when it > came time to plan the next adventure. > > Mike: > This may be hard to say without sounding arrogant, so feel free to > call me such after I'm done. ;) > > Pre-adult boys of a certain caliber have a burning desire to not only > get into mischief but to up the ante of said mischief to the point of > dangerous or illegal stunts. It's a deep rooted desire to impress > their mates, outdo the previous generation, and acquire that > adrenaline rush one gets from defying danger. Add to that, they are > immortal at that age, just ask them. How does JKR portray this > amongst wizards, who are literally immune from the kind of dangers > that muggles would find deadly? Well, they run with werewolves. wynnleaf I've heard this argument many times. Yes, it is common for adolescent boys to want to "get into mischief but to up the ante of said mischief to the point of dangerous or illegal stunts." It is common for a *lot* of boys to get into very *personally* risky behavior. But that is not the same a intentional, premeditated behavior where the primary risk is in killing another person. And remember, Lupin is *very* well aware that his condition makes him deadly. When I try and compare what Lupin was doing to the risks taken by lots of teenage guys, it's hard to come up with a comparison amongst the normal things guys do, because *most* of those risky activities are primarily a risk for the people doing it, rather than primarily or even solely a risk of killing innocent people. I've compared it to a gang of boys that might decide to drive around our small town randomly firing off guns -- but that is *not* normal teenage risk-taking behavior. And I've compared it to guys getting drunk and driving around risking an accident. But the problem there is that most guys who drive while thoroughly intoxicated decide to drive drunk *after* their decision making ability is impaired. They don't start off before drinking with the primary intent, made prior to getting intoxicated, to drive while extremely drunk. Lupin's behavior -- because of the extreme risk to others -- is not typical teenage guy behavior. Typical teenage boys commonly develop plans that risk their own lives and typical teenage boys may make decisions while their reasoning ability is impaired through alcohol to engage in behaviors that risk the lives of others. But it's *not* typical to regularly plan activities that seriously risk the lives of others. wynnleaf From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 13:33:41 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:33:41 EDT Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168068 > > Alla: > > > > What I said was that I saw nothing of Lupin **arranging* What Snape > > to be publicly humiliated and I stand by this intepretation. > > Pippin: > Lupin suggested the means by which boggart Snape could be ridiculed, > and then had Neville demonstrate this for the class. Sounds like an > arrangement to me. You might as well say that Bella didn't arrange > to attack Sirius, she just thought it was the best way to get the > prophecy. >Alla: >Eh, no, that is not a fact that this is what Lupin did. I believe that he was helping Neville first and foremost. Would it be clearer if I say that Lupin did not **plan** to humiliate Snape? That this is just unexpected consequence of him helping Neville? >Of course I am not arguing that Snape was **not** humiliated, sure he was ( not nearly enough if you ask me), I am just saying that this was not Lupin intent ( This is only my belief obviously that those are Lupin's thoughts). : Nikkalmati Yes, Lupin knew exactly what he was doing to Snape and that it would be all over school in a couple of hours. Very unprofessional of him. There were other ways to help Neville, but, of course, Alla thinks Snape deserves it, so it is no problem for her. What intrigues me about the Boggart is what happens at Christmas dinner. The faculty and students are sitting together because there are so few of them. DD invites SS to pull a cracker. A witch's hat with a vulture on it falls out, DD puts it on and wears it for the next 2 hours all during dinner. (Scholastic POA at 227-8). What does this tell us about the relationship between DD and SS? Is DD humiliating SS further? Why doesn't SS remark on this or even leave, if that is the case? It would be petty of DD just to make a joke at SS's expense. Is that in character? Wouldn't SS add that to his list of grievances against DD? OTH is it an indication of a close relationship in which DD is gently pulling SS's leg or reassuring him that wearing a hat with a vulture on it is no big deal and that DD is fine with doing it.? Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 29 15:03:50 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:03:50 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168069 > Neri: > It's not a situation of being right twice a day. Had we seen Snape > showing bigotry towards 24 werewolves, and in the end only two of them > proved traitors, then you'd have a point. But this isn't the > situation. The point is that if Lupin proves a traitor and Snape > proves loyal, Snape will not be regarded as a stopped clock, he'll be > regarded as a hero for being the one who has always warned us against > Lupin (at least this is how I understood Ceridwen's point that I > responded to). Being a hero *because* you're a bigot isn't a good > message in a book. Pippin: In the first place, Snape will never be the hero. Harry is the hero. Snape at best can only be an anti-hero. If HP were strictly for adults, he might chainsmoke and be hostile to women. We would be expected to understand that the author's depiction of these things was by no means an endorsement, especially if the hostility was shown to be counter-productive -- if, for example, it resulted in a criminal escaping justice for a while because the hero felt sorry for her. Although of course such a story could end with the hero thinking that the anti-hero was right and he was a chump to ever trust a woman, it's more likely that the hero will show his hero chops by resisting the temptation. I think JKR presumes her all ages audiences will get it. And I do expect she'll show us enough of the appalling conditions that werewolves experience to keep our sympathies no matter what Lupin turns out to have done. I too see him as a tragic figure, but tragedy does not preclude murder -- look at Othello. He too came under a bad influence and it was that, not being black, that made him into a murderer. He was weak --but that doesn't make the killing of Desdemona less evil. Rowling's no Shakespeare, but I don't think she'd have any trouble getting a message like that across. > > Neri: > As a massage that might come out even worse. Lupin's betrayal as a > result of him getting close to the other werewolves would brand the > whole minority, not just Lupin the lone werewolf, as bad. Lupin the > good person who betrays the good guys because of his weakness would > suggest that werewolves can never be trusted, even when they are good > people, because in the end their werewolf side would betray them. > Pippin: What I expect JKR to make crystal clear is that it's the werewolves' *human* side that betrayed them. Being a werewolf has nothing to do with the reasons for their fall except that it exposed them to treatment that no human should have to endure. What would be tragic to me is if Lupin could have been the voice that called them back to reason, only he let himself be shut up because his particular brand of argument wasn't making much headway, and he feared losing their trust. And it gets worse, because once evil *has* triumphed, doing nothing is no longer an option. It's a lifetime of service or death. Pippin who would pick Lupin for teaching her children, but would like Snape to watch their backs just in case. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 15:16:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:16:06 -0000 Subject: Theme of HP (was Notes on Literary uses of magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168070 --- puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > >Betsy Hp: > > > They all (and I'm including both Order members and > > Harry's group of friends here) have an intrinsic > > loyalty to Dumbledore that they use to define > > themselves. That loyalty does get transferred to > > Harry, ... > > > .>Betsy Hp: > >I agree. Really, Harry and friends weren't going up > against the MoM *because* it was the MoM. They opposed > it because it first opposed Dumbledore. They follow > Dumbledore's "rules", and they understand that > Dumbledore's authority trumps the authority of the > MoM. ... > > Nikkalmati > > This post touches on what appear IMHO to be the main > theme of the series - loyalty and of course its opposite > - treachery. > ... > > I expect in some way it will be a more personal form of > love, and one based on loyalty, that is used to destroy > LV in DH. That means to me that the bonds between the > Trio (and perhaps Ginny) will play a bigger role than, > say, Lily's love for Harry. > > Nikkalmati bboyminn: Absolutely a great series of insightful comments by all. I however am going back to my previous comment about what is morally right vs what is legally right, and how sometimes those two conflict. Let us as /why/ Harry is loyal to Dumbledore? Is it blind loyalty or are there very real underlying factor to justify that loyalty? I think there is a reason why Dumbledore doesn't want a government job, especially the role of Minister of Magic. I think it is because Dumbledore understands how political office corrupts everyone it touches. If you care enough to want the office, then you care enough to do what is necessary to get it and keep it, and that means engaging in some form of moral, legal, or ethical corruption when it serves your best interests. Dumbledore conveniently insulates himself from that corruption by choosing to serve at the school, a job that doesn't care the potential demand for self-serving corruption. True a headmaster can be corrupt, but it is usually in much smaller and more localized ways than that of the top office in the land. So, Harry and everyone else side with Dumbledore because Dumbledore, while a flawed human being, still has the luxury and the will to choose the moral high ground. Fudge and other members of government are in much more self-serving positions, therefore they are more likely to give the public impression of moral high ground, but less likely to have taken it when their actions are examined at depth. Now, the various offices of the government have the legal authority, as we see from Fudge's many changes in the laws and his Educational Decrees, his word, becomes law by virtue of the fact that he is the Minister of Magic. Dumbledore's word is not law, to a more general extent, but he does choose what is right over what is easy and over what is immensely self-serving. So, in choosing Dumbledore, Harry and friends are choosing what they know and see in their hearts as the morally right choice, even though that morally right choice goes against the government and against documented laws. So, again, I assert that /they/ have chosen Dumbledore are the object of their loyalty because Dumbledore deserves that loyalty and the Minister of Magic does not. When the new Minister appears, he is different that Fudge but we still see he is driven by creating a false public preception rather than creating genuine results. Dumbledore, on the otherhand, seems to have a 'do what is right and the consequences be damned' attitude. My final point is that in choosing Dumbledore, Harry is chosing someone who is deserving of his loyalty, and in rejecting the Minister, he is rejecting some one who is corrupt and not deserving of loyalty. However, I seriously doubt that this is an indication that Harry rejects all government. I think in his idealistic youth, he intends to hold government officials to a higher moral standard, and he further expects them to execute the duties of the office they are sworn to uphold. He expects them to do their job for the greater good, not for personal gain. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 29 17:00:03 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 29 Apr 2007 17:00:03 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/29/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1177866003.14.89335.m49@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168071 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 29, 2007 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 All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://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 Apr 29 17:21:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:21:01 -0000 Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: <013201c78a06$06688b20$229e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168072 > Magpie: > I couldn't believe that either. What Dumbledore says is that Merope "lacked > Harry's mother's courage" which is just...obnoxious. Pippin: Fortunately he didn't say that. He said, "Yes, Merope Riddle chose death in spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering, and she never had your mother's courage." "Lack" implies inadequacy, "never had" does not. Dumbledore says clearly that Merope should not be judged harshly even if Lily would have chosen differently. Harry himself once said that if you only have a half life, a cursed life, then death is better. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Apr 29 17:40:23 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:40:23 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168073 Nikkalmati: > OTH is it an indication of a close relationship in which > DD is gently pulling SS's leg or reassuring him that wearing > a hat with a vulture on it is no big deal and that DD is > fine with doing it.? houyhnhnm: If that's the case, let him put on the long green dress, the fox fur, and the big red handbag as well. This scene bothered me the first time I read it. It still does. The interpretation depends on whether the cracker hat just happened to be a witch's hat with a vulture on top, or if it was a set-up by DD. As an American I'm not even that familiar with Muggle crackers, let alone Wizard ones, so I don't know if witch's hats with vultures on top commonly fall out of them or not. If Dumbledore set it up, it was hardly a *gentle* leg-pulling it seems to me. He may have been taking too much for granted and making an old man's mistake in failing to realize how deeply Snape was humiliated. DD is pretty much hands-off with regards to the feelings of his staff members. He leaves Hagrid to get over the publicity from Rita's article on his own, for example. It would not have been out of character for Snape, however, to have complained to Dumbledore about Lupin's lesson. Dumbledore doesn't like people coming to him with complaints, if his reaction to Trelawney is anything to go by. On the other hand, the vulture hat could have been just an unlucky coincidence. In that case Dumbledore was taking the humiliation upon himself and the gesture was a compassionate one. Overall, at least until the end of GoF, the impression I get is that DD is kind of patronizing towards Snape, from inviting Snape to come and sample a custard tart when Snape is furious over Harry and Ron's joy ride in the Ford Anglia to sighing that he could have made the conncection (Voldemort growing stronger) himself. All that changes dramatically, though, in HBP. Dumbledore not only seems to rely more on Snape in HBP, he also seems to refer to him more without the undertone of exasperation. "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus," said Dumbledore quietly, in PoA. Some have taken this to mean that DD remembers some details of the Prank that Snape would prefer to forget. But it also suggests to me the possibility that Dumbledore really does feel guilty for what happened to Snape twenty-some years before and that Snape is in the habit of throwing it up to him. Their relationship has always struck me as having the feel of a dysfunctional parent-child relationship, one in which the parent really was guilty of neglect or mistreatment and knows it, but where the child, as an adult, cannot let it go. One thing I've been wondering about lately: From all we know of Albus Dumbledore, even if he was never attracted by Darkness, it seems he did have a very great drive to push the frontiers of magical knowledge. Wouldn't he have seen the same thing in young Severus and been drawn to him from the time he first came to Hogwarts? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Apr 29 19:45:40 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:45:40 -0000 Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: <013201c78a06$06688b20$229e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168074 Magpie: > I couldn't believe that either. What Dumbledore says is that > Merope "lacked Harry's mother's courage" which is just...obnoxious. > Maybe you could say someone died from lack of courage if they were > afraid to take a risk that would have saved their life, but judging > Merope's death after having her baby as a lack of courage comes > uncomfortably close to saying that a) dying is a character flaw and > b) depression is a lack of courage. > I'm sure JKR believes neither of those things, but it's not one of > Dumbledore's better moments. Jen: I didn't read childbirth as the cause of death so much as starvation and exposure from wandering the streets of London in the dead of winter. The focus of the conversation between Dumbledore and Harry was why Merope didn't use magic to save herself prior to the birth since Dumbledore mentioned in 'The House of Gaunt' that Merope 'gave full reign to her abilities' after Marvolo and Morfin were gone. I've thought at times that JKR dismisses Merope's storyline so Dumbledore can impart key information for the rest of HBP and the series as a whole. The fact that Lily had a choice is crucial, and the notion that despair can sap magical powers comes up later with Tonks. Merope's 'choice' to die even though magic supposedly would have saved her is the antithesis of Riddle's assessment that magical people can't die. What's left is the comparison between Merope/Lily and Harry possibly feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort. What could those elements mean for Harry, what conclusions will he draw for himself when he internalizes what happened with Lily? I was surprised to learn Harry didn't realize his mom had a choice given the flashbacks and the other bits and pieces he's heard (maybe I assumed he'd read JKR's interviews ). One thing that might transpire from this passage is Harry rethinking the tower. Whatever happened with Snape, Dumbledore made a choice not to raise *his* wand to save himself from the moment Draco arrived. Harry assumed Dumbledore 'cost him[self] the chance of defending himself' because he took the second to immobilize Harry, but I wonder how that could be the case after seeing Dumbledore in action all these years, even a weakened Dumbledore in the cave. There's the element of Dumbledore needing to be wandless and defenseless for the Draco storyline to work, but that moment might also prove crucial for Harry realizing the same force that drove Lily to sacrifice herself out of love for Harry was also what guided Dumbledore when he made a choice to give up his wand rather than having it taken from him. And that realization is just a step away from Harry understanding he can access that same power and make a similar choice at a crucial moment. Jen From cute_janers at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 17:13:46 2007 From: cute_janers at yahoo.com (Liz S.) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:13:46 -0000 Subject: I finally realized why I do not believe ESE LUPIN... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168075 doddiemoemoe: (SNIP) I truly like the ESE Lupin theories, really, I do! However, I cannot make it fit cannon nor characters...IMHO.. So if not Lupin, then who? I'd argue that it would have to be Dobby... It would make sense... Dobby tries to save Harry yet fails miserably..(on purpose?) Harry's initial response to Dobby is one of mistrust. Harry gains Dobby's trust by setting him free..(there has to be a reason why there are such tight restrictions on houseelves) In the end Dobby ends up in enduring the same fate with the "other house elves"... Liz: That would make sense to me as well. All you have said would definitely make for an interesting twist. However, it would, to me, seem like another "Snape thing." Snape has saved Harry's life many times, and, although he succeeded, he then kills the one person Harry looks up to the most. So, even though Snape may or may not be on Voldemort's side is a different story, I really don't think Dobby will be the one to turn. The other reason I don't think Dobby'll turn is because Dobby worships Harry up and down. He punished himself every time he betrayed the Malfoys, and, probably out of habit, he punishes himself when he betrays someone else. I feel like he could not become "evil" enough to betray Harry and not feel bad about it. I could see Dobby running to Voldemort, then slamming his head a few times against a tree or something. Winky, however... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 29 19:53:25 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:53:25 -0000 Subject: Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168076 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > Is there an explanation anywhere as to why or how Muggleborns come to be? I'm not sure I worded that right but basically if you have no magic parents why do they have kids that are magical? Also is it a hereditary thing? If one child is will they all be? In the case of the Creeveys it seems so. So that would lead us to believe that Petunia has possible powers but refuses to use or acknowledge them? Any opinions or just information for me that I might not have? Thx :-) Geoff: I wonder whether this might be one of those ideas which occurred to JKR as she was developing the stories and which she never fully thought through. On the other hand, if we consider magic to be inherent or genetic, there are real world instances which might be considered as evidence. Happening to be the father of twins and having my non-twin eldest son married to someone who also has twin siblings, there is certainly evidence that the occurence of twins will sometimes skip a generation or so. There is also one of my sons who is 6'2" tall, about 6" taller than any of his siblings or parents. Where did his height come from? There is another reference in canon which might be interesting in the light of the question Tandra has raised. It occurs in the conversation between Professor Trelawney and Dolores Umbridge after the latter's inspection visit: 'Professor Umbridge made another note. "And you are a great-great-granddaughter of the celebrated Seer Cassandra Trelawney?" "Yes," said Professor Trelawney, holding her head a little higher. Another note on the clipboard. "But I think - correct me if I am mistaken - that you are the first in your family since Cassandra to be possessed of Second Sight?" "These things often skip - er - three generations," said Professor Trelawney. Professor Umbridge's toadlike smile widened. "Of course," she said sweetly, making yet another note.' (OOTP "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor" p.281 UK edition) Umbridge's reation - and maybe some of us reading this - is perhaps one of scepticism n believing that Trelawney has got the gift. But, even if she is not being truthful about her own gift, is it maybe the case that this gift and also the occurence of "Muggleism" does skip generations? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 20:08:29 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:08:29 -0000 Subject: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168077 > wynnleaf: > I've heard this argument many times. Mike: Actually, I considered it more of an explanation than argument. :) > wynnleaf: > But that is not the same as intentional, premeditated behavior > where the primary risk is in killing another person. > > And remember, Lupin is *very* well aware that his condition makes > him deadly. Mike: Two thoughts here. One, the Marauders do not think they are risking any *other* lifes, you may even say they aren't thinking. The possible risk to life they see themselves as conquering is their own, running around with a werewolf. Risk to "nameless and faceless" others does not enter the equation. Second, Lupin may be aware that he is deadly in werewolf form, but it would only be hypothetical if or until he actually mauled or killed someone. Until that time, those near misses he spoke of would only fuel the desire to keep going. They would be proof that they had taken the necessary precautions and at the same time added a level of excitement to their explorations. > wynnleaf: > When I try and compare what Lupin was doing to the risks taken by > lots of teenage guys, it's hard to come up with a comparison > amongst the normal things guys do, because *most* of those risky > activities are primarily a risk for the people doing it, rather > than primarily or even solely a risk of killing innocent people. Mike: This is why I used the term "of a certain caliber". Not only are the Marauders out of the ordinary risk takers, they're wizards in a wizardly setting. IMO, JKR doesn't want us to think they are just the predecessors of Fred & George. They are exceptionally talented (at least James and Sirius), Remus has an exceptional condition, and they are in an exceptional setting (Hogwarts, and Hogsmeade being the only all-wizarding village in Britain). How can JKR show us exceptionally talented wizards of a certain caliber? Getting into exceptional mischief. I think it becomes problematic to try to equate the Marauders actions to some parallel in the RW. Further, I think JKR just wanted us to realize how exceptional these young wizards were. The main point or thrust of the story, imo, is that they (specifically Lupin) were defying Dumbledore's rules for attendance in Hogwarts. But also that they got away with it. :D > wynnleaf: > > Lupin's behavior -- because of the extreme risk to others -- is not > typical teenage guy behavior. Typical teenage boys commonly develop > plans that risk their own lives and typical teenage boys may make > decisions while their reasoning ability is impaired through alcohol > to engage in behaviors that risk the lives of others. But it's > *not* typical to regularly plan activities that seriously risk the > lives of others. Mike: Well, I don't think we are suppose to think the Marauders are "typical teenage boys". I think we are to understand they are exceptional teenage wizards. I think we are also meant to understand that while their actions would be deadly serious in the RW, they are far removed from the RW in all aspects. They have powers and abilities which obviate the normal concerns, if one can consider running around town as Animagi with a Werewolf as somehow bringing up *normal* concerns. IMO, the Marauders aren't "typical teenage boys", but they are boys of a certain caliber acting within the context of a wizarding world. Furthermore, I don't think their actions were as reckless as we may assign to some RW equivalent, because there isn't suppose to be a RW equivalent. Mike, who will continue to think the Marauders are *cool* because that is what I think JKR wants me to think of them. ;) From djmitt at pa.net Sun Apr 29 17:44:26 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:44:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's Sacred (Hallowed) relics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168078 > --- "Donna" wrote: > > Ok I figure LV has his Horcruxes or Deathly Hallows to > > fight Harry. What would Harry's sacred relics or > > objects be to fight LV? Steve/bboyminn: > I have a theory which I have titled 'Objects of Power'. > We have the concept of uniting the House, along with > the concept of sacred magicaly powerful objects > (horcruxes). > And for the record, while the Stone was significant > to the first story, I don't think it is significant > as an Object of Power in the context we are referencing > here. The theroy of "Object of Power" is a good one. I like that. My only objection is that LV's "Objects" are different than Harry's "Objects." LV is obsessed with the past and his "lineage." Of course, he has no lineage so he had to make one up. Therefore, he became obsessed with the Hogwarts founders because to him Hogwarts was home. Their relics became his sacred objects, his source of power. Harry on the other hand isn't concerned about his lineage. He is proud to have his mother's eyes and her sense of caring and was upset at his father's arrogant behavior and his sense of superiority. Harry's personal source of power comes from love and caring, not lineage. His friends, mentors, his parent's friends, etc. are his greatest assets in his quest. So his Objects of Power would be real magical objects of the here and now. Not historical relics that have been possessed or tampered with. Just my thoughts and hopes. Donna From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Apr 29 20:21:12 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:21:12 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168079 houyhnhnm: > "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus," said > Dumbledore quietly, in PoA. Some have taken this to mean > that DD remembers some details of the Prank that Snape > would prefer to forget. But it also suggests to me the > possibility that Dumbledore really does feel guilty for > what happened to Snape twenty-some years before and that > Snape is in the habit of throwing it up to him. Their > relationship has always struck me as having the feel of a > dysfunctional parent-child relationship, one in which > the parent really was guilty of neglect or mistreatment > and knows it, but where the child, as an adult, cannot let it go. Dana: Sorry to bud in but you know what I really don't get, why do people feel that Snape's supposed bad childhood would excuse his actions in to adulthood? The guy is not the only one that had it bad and he should have built some character because if it, instead of acting it out on others. Lupin had to overcome a great deal more then Snape ever had to deal with but we don't see him bullying little defenseless children or try to have someone's soul sucked out, because Greyback destroyed his chances for a normal life. Sirius might have acted as an arrogant snob when he was in school but we know by the looks of his mother's portray, the grim look of GP and him even deciding to run away at age 16, that his home life was anything but a breeze and he then spends most of his adult life, in the most depressing place one could imagine while actually being innocent but oh no, dear sweet Snape is so misunderstood and was humiliated so deeply because he was some kid's Boggert and then this Boggert!Snape was dressed in woman's cloths? The outrage, how could they do that to this poor man (well maybe because he was the cause of this kid's fear in the first place). And what does this misunderstood hero do? He bullies the kid even further and fiercer then before and when he isn't able to punish the insulter, in what he considers an appropriate way, he outs him, ruining his already hard life even further. No, really we should have some compassion for Snape because maybe his father hit his mother (and this all just from one image of a man shouting at a woman while not even knowing it indeed was his father at all) And of course let's not forget him not getting over his hatred for James and him allowing himself to take it out on the man's son and even worse, when the kid loses the one person he was more closely connected with then anybody else in his short life, he rubs it in by having the kid re-write their detention cards but for some reason everybody insulting or humiliated Snape is condemned because the guy had such a bad childhood and was hung by his feet a couple of times. If I am not mistaken Snape seemed to be the only one that always gets away with everything, even murder while he is the only one behaving in such a despicable way, it is no wonder, people do not know where his loyalties lie. Of course just my very humble opinion. Dana From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 29 20:03:26 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) References: Message-ID: <011c01c78a99$74ce3950$41ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168080 > >> Magpie: >> I couldn't believe that either. What Dumbledore says is that Merope >> "lacked >> Harry's mother's courage" which is just...obnoxious. > > Pippin: > Fortunately he didn't say that. He said, "Yes, Merope Riddle chose death > in > spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry. > She was greatly weakened by long suffering, and she never had your > mother's courage." > > "Lack" implies inadequacy, "never had" does not. > Dumbledore says clearly that Merope should not be judged harshly > even if Lily would have chosen differently. Harry himself once said that > if you only have a half life, a cursed life, then death is better. Magpie: I admit I don't quite see how "lack" implies inadequacy where "never had" does not. To me it seems like the same distinction, perhaps just stressing that it's been there since birth. Isn't Dumbledore saying to Harry that he can't expect from Merope what he could expect from his own courageous mother, comparing the two? Merope's ultimate despair still seems like something he's saying would not afflict someone with courage. At least I think that's what people react negatively to in the line when they do. It's just hard to hear it for me and not have it sound condescending or judgmental. Being a courageous person doesn't make one immune to depression, and people who kill themselves or want to die due to depression don't do so out of lack of courage, from what I understand about the illness. Merope didn't even kill herself, she just died, and years later Dumbledore's making this judgment. (Ironically Tonks' loss of her powers is not liked by a lot people for the same reasons.) > Jen: > I've thought at times that JKR dismisses Merope's storyline so > Dumbledore can impart key information for the rest of HBP and the > series as a whole. The fact that Lily had a choice is crucial, and > the notion that despair can sap magical powers comes up later with > Tonks. Merope's 'choice' to die even though magic supposedly would > have saved her is the antithesis of Riddle's assessment that magical > people can't die. Magpie: Although ironically for me that line of Dumbledore's actually seemed to validate it in a strange way. Because it was sort of saying that Merope had chosen to die despite magic offering life. Jen: > One thing that might transpire from this passage is Harry rethinking > the tower. Whatever happened with Snape, Dumbledore made a choice > not to raise *his* wand to save himself from the moment Draco > arrived. Harry assumed Dumbledore 'cost him[self] the chance of > > defending himself' because he took the second to immobilize Harry, > but I wonder how that could be the case after seeing Dumbledore in > action all these years, even a weakened Dumbledore in the cave. > > There's the element of Dumbledore needing to be wandless and > defenseless for the Draco storyline to work, but that moment might > also prove crucial for Harry realizing the same force that drove Lily > to sacrifice herself out of love for Harry was also what guided > Dumbledore when he made a choice to give up his wand rather than > having it taken from him. And that realization is just a step away > from Harry understanding he can access that same power and make a > similar choice at a crucial moment. Magpie: That could definitely come into play, I agree. Certainly one of the central themes of the book is that there are worse things than death and choosing to die, even passively, isn't usually a bad thing. Merope's problem isn't even that she chooses not to save herself, but that she's leaving Tom alone. Though given Tom's personality it's hard for me to really connect that to anything. I don't think Tom would have been any less what he is if he'd had a mother. -m From clyomuseofhistory at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 19:13:26 2007 From: clyomuseofhistory at yahoo.com (Leslie Brooks) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <642951.95805.qm@web59010.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168081 Nikkalmati: > I have always thought it unfair, even appalling, to blame Merope > for her own death or to conclude (as DD says LV has done) that she > didn't love her son. Yes, she did die in childbirth - or so > shortly thereafter as to make no difference. It happens even today > in the RW to young and healthy women. I can't imagine she didn't > want to live. I wanted this to be my first post, and I completely agree. It isn't fair to blame Merope at all. I could never imagine being in her situation at all. Her father and brother were overbearing and abusive to her. Her magic was probably drained and understandably so. As for her love for the baby, I think she did or she wouldn't (at least I think so) have had the will to live. Leslie From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Apr 29 20:52:58 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:52:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays References: Message-ID: <014501c78aa0$639bbde0$41ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168082 Mike: > Well, I don't think we are suppose to think the Marauders > are "typical teenage boys". I think we are to understand they are > exceptional teenage wizards. I think we are also meant to understand > that while their actions would be deadly serious in the RW, they are > far removed from the RW in all aspects. They have powers and > abilities which obviate the normal concerns, if one can consider > running around town as Animagi with a Werewolf as somehow bringing up > *normal* concerns. > > IMO, the Marauders aren't "typical teenage boys", but they are boys > of a certain caliber acting within the context of a wizarding world. > Furthermore, I don't think their actions were as reckless as we may > assign to some RW equivalent, because there isn't suppose to be a RW > equivalent. Magpie: Maybe I'm not understanding, because it seems like you're wanting it both ways. You're explaining their behavior through RW ideas (they're a certain calibre of guy), but drawing the line at assuming that the consequences of their behavior are the same as in the RW. But as far as I can see, werewolves are taken very seriously in the RW. They may be removed from the RW, but not from the deadly seriousness of the situation. One bite ruins your life or kills you. Everyone takes werewolves very seriously, and they've only gotten more serious as the books progress. Snape may, in his typical Snape way, expect his own brush with a werewolf to be taken even more seriously and make it all about him him him, but then, that also links back to how the nameless faces and enemies who deserve it rarely see themselves that way. It's true that the Marauders perhaps just weren't thinking--they're not risking anything themselves since they're animagi. (If they were taking a risk themselves they would have to try to run with Remus as humans, not become animagi so they can go along for the ride under protection--their monthly jaunts seem more about freedom than risking their own lives. The only danger they seem to be knowingly risking is that they'll get caught or hurt other people.) But I believe Remus when he says that he understood the danger, since he's lived with the consequences of being a werewolf most of his life. I think MWPP's behavior is perfectly understandable given who they are, but that in this case it's reflecting things that are genuinely bad about them. In this regard, unexceptional Neville easily outstrips them and they kind of suck.:-) Because their actions *are* deadly in their world. However, this may be getting away from what we're all trying to say about this anyway. I believe this started out just being about Lupin, and Lupin *does* seem to be perfectly aware that he's doing wrong in those early days. He's also shown not acting on what he thinks is right because he doesn't want to interrupt his friend's fun, so as far as Lupin is concerned, I think wynnleaf's point stands the same as ever and is backed up by canon. JKR has shown us Lupin doing the wrong thing, even in Harry's eyes, and Neville's been praised for doing the opposite. This reading fits in with Lupin's character as we've had it presented to us. (Where as, if we were talking about Sirius I think it fits in with what we know of his character to say that he was just reckless and didn't think.) -m From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Apr 29 21:22:54 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:22:54 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168083 Dana: > Sorry to bud in but you know what I really don't get, > why do people feel that Snape's supposed bad childhood > would excuse his actions in to adulthood? houyhnhnm: I think you didn't read my post very carefully. I wasn't talking about Snape's actual childhood (before he came to Hogwarts) at all. I said that the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape reminds me of a dysfunctional parent-adult child relationship in which the adult child engages in a kind of emotional blackmail against the parent for past wrongs which truly did happen but which one would expect an adult to be able to put in the past. Of course it could just be an act to disguise the true nature of their relationship, since Harry, with his direct connection to Voldemort, is always around when Snape and Dumbledore are interacting. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 21:34:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:34:23 -0000 Subject: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168084 Mike wrote: > Well, I don't think we are suppose to think the Marauders are "typical teenage boys". I think we are to understand they are exceptional teenage wizards. They have powers and abilities which obviate the normal concerns, if one can consider running around town as Animagi with a Werewolf as somehow bringing up *normal* concerns. > > IMO, the Marauders aren't "typical teenage boys", but they are boys of a certain caliber acting within the context of a wizarding world. Furthermore, I don't think their actions were as reckless as we may assign to some RW equivalent, because there isn't suppose to be a RW equivalent. > > Mike, who will continue to think the Marauders are *cool* because that is what I think JKR wants me to think of them. ;) > Carol responds: Oh, boy. I'm going to regret getting caught in this thread. Let me just say that, code or no code, what the Marauders are doing is very dangerous, and Remus seems to be the one who recognizes this danger most clearly. He, after all, is the werewolf, the one who would do the biting, killing or creating a new werewolf if anything goes wrong. For the other boys, however, it's a great adventure. Note that Sirius says, "I'm bored. Wish it was a full moon" and Remus responds "darkly," "You might." He suggests having Sirius test him on Transfiguration, to which Sirius responds, "I don't need to study that rubbish. I know it all" (OoP Am. ed. 645). I don't know how you would react to a response like that, but I would consider it rude and arrogant. Sirius is bored. Nothing else matters, including Remus's feelings. It's not a full moon and studying is beneath him, as is helping his non-Animagus friend to study for Transfiguration. (I won't mention the antidote for boredom that arises later since I'm focusing on Remus, not Severus, at the moment.) All of the interaction that we see, aside from that little remark, between Moony and his fellow Marauders relates to his being a werewolf. (He might as well not be a Prefect since he hides behind a book when his friends act in a way he disapproves of.) To begin with, there's his nickname. Then there's Sirius's and James's reaction to the DADA exam, which focuses solely on the werewolf question. Lupin joins in the joking, but "implores" James to keep his voice down when James says, "How thick are you, Wormtail? You run with a werewolf once a month?" (643). Sirius and James brag about their performance on the exam. End of exchange. Now Remus may think that his friends became Animagi to keep him company and to lessen his pain, but it seems to me more likely that they did it to show off their talents and because it would be "cool" to run with a werewolf. Remus is in no position to criticize them, in case kindness to him is part of their motive, but he also no doubt feels that if they didn't have the midnight run with him once a month, they might treat him as the do Wormtail (not Sirius's contemptuous remark about Wormtai wetting himself). He doesn't have Wolfsbane potion (it has't been invented yet). Running with his friends is the only thing that makes his transformations bearable. He knows it's dangerous, knows he should tell his friends not to do it, but he can't. he feels that he owes them a debt of gratitude, and he fears to lose their friendship. As far as I can see, they don't know Remus at all. He hasn't shared in their self-taught Animagus lessons (and consequently doesn't share Sirius's attitude that he "knows it all"). What does Remus, a quiet boy who fears the loss of friendship above all else have in common with the egotistical Quidditch star who's always showing off or the arrogant handsome Sirius, who can't be bothered to acknowledge a female classmate's smile? Would he be their friend if he weren't a werewolf? Maybe their friendship fell apart long before the suspicion that Remus was Voldemort's spy. James was a married man with a baby son. I doubt very much that he was still running around on moonlit nights with a werewolf. And if he wasn't, most likely Sirius and Peter weren't, either. Yes, Lupin must have had some talent in Transfiguration to have had a hand in making the Marauder's Map, but even if his talent equalled that of his friends, his confidence didn't, and his talent was not the basis for their friendship. To Sirius and James as much as to Severus once he found out the truth, Remus was first and foremost a werewolf. (I'm not talking about post-Shrieking Shack Sirius and Remus here; I'm talking about the teenagers we see in "Snape's Worst Memory," who are anything but "cool" in my opinion, nor do I think JKR wishes us to see them as being so. Harry's initial shock and disapproval was the right reaction to that scene, IMO. Granted, he was focusing on their arrogance and their bullying, but he certainly didn't think they were "cool." Too bad he didn't retain that attitude and is back to idealizing James, wanting *him* to be the Half-Blood Prince, who was also, evidently, "cool" in Harry's and Ron's view.) Anyway, far from obviating normal concerns, greater power should bring with it greater responsibility--which is why DD wanted Tom Riddle at Hogwarts, after all--to learn to control his powers and use them responsibly. I'm not saying that MWPP's failure to learn responsibility was as great as his, but talent does not excuse the reckless endangerment of fellow wizards any more than it would excuse the reckless endangerment of Muggles. I don't care whether that's the code of the schoolground or not. The Marauders weren't concerned about anyone else's view of them in this instance. They were having "fun," risking the lives of the townspeople--and Remus's exposure as a werewolf. And the same indifference to Remus's feelings and future occurs again when Sirius tricks Severus into entering the Shrieking Shack. Severus wasn't the only one in danger. What would have happened to Remus had he bitten and killed or infected a classmate? Sirius is *using* him, if not to commit murder, as Severus thinks, at least to terrorize him. The risk to *Remus* never enters his mind. Carol, for whom unusual talent does not excuse MWPP's endangering the people of Hogsmeade, not does "boys will be boys" From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 21:46:57 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:46:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Analysis of the Skirmish at Hogwarts with some Potentially Surprises In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40704291446xe569885pd7d43d4c798a1cb4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168085 Goddlefrood: > > >huge snip by me< 'Someone's dead,' said Malfoy and his voice seemed to go up an > octave as he said it. 'One of your people ? I don't know who, > it was dark ? I stepped over the body ? I was supposed to be > waiting up here when you got back, only your Phoenix lot got > in the way ?' >another huge snip< Goddlefrood who signs out by saying simply, and completely > unrelatedly, that the code of the schoolyard is unwritten > and informal and applies equally I any kind of school in > the UK, afaik. It also means never sneak on anyone, no matter > who they may be, if that was unclear, I thought it had been :) montims: in awe at a very thorough explanation of that particular period of time, and leaving detailed analysis to those who are more knowledgeable than I... I just wanted to pose a question and express agreement... The question: I am probably missing something (unlike a lot of you, I am not rereading just now - I will wait till a month before DH, then reread everything in a big rush, leading straight to DH, to get my immediate impression. But I love reading all the theories...) but how does Malfoy know about the Order of the Phoenix? Was this made public after LV's return, or would he have been told by a member of the Order, ie Snape. Or Remus, if the other threads are correct? Or yet another double agent? And as for the school code, I don't know if it is still current - a lot of other values seem to have vanished in the past couple of decades - but it was certainly true when I was at school. And not just regarding pupil's bad actions. I used to hang around with 2 other girls - we were known as a trio in the school. One of them (we were probably about 14) was suffering badly because her parents were in the very unpleasant last throes of their marriage, and in fact separated and later divorced very acrimoniously. Her school work was badly affected, as was ours, as we used to bunk off with her and do a lot of sitting around and commiserating about parents. All three of us got into a fair bit of trouble for this. When the divorce actually happened, she was taken out of school for a while by her mother while she moved them to another house. Our form teacher then sought out me and my other friend to ask us why we had never told her what was happening. We were honestly totally flabbergasted by the question, and in fact got detention for our response, because it would never have occurred to us in a million years to tell the teacher what was happening in our friend's private life. So I understand Harry very well... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Apr 29 21:44:08 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:44:08 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168086 > > Dana: > Sorry to bud in but you know what I really don't get, why do people > feel that Snape's supposed bad childhood would excuse his actions in > to adulthood? wynnleaf I've been searching, but still can't find where any posters *lately* have been saying that his wrong actions in adulthood are "excused." Perhaps you could point me to it. Dana > Lupin had to overcome a great deal more then Snape ever had to deal > with but we don't see him bullying little defenseless children or try > to have someone's soul sucked out, because Greyback destroyed his > chances for a normal life. wynnleaf First, we don't know that Lupin had "a great deal more than Snape" to overcome, because we really don't know enough about either. However, from JKR's comments and what we see in Lupin's actions, his past *did* help shape his weaknesses. His weaknesses are not the same as Snape's. He doesn't act terribly bitter, and insult his students. On the other hand, we haven't seen Snape risking his student's lives in order to keep in Dumbledore's good will. On the contrary, we see him risking his life. So shouldn't we be wondering why Lupin couldn't get over his past rather than allow his weaknesses to endanger the lives of little kids? And which is worse? Willingness to endanger the lives of hundreds of children just so you can keep the goodwill of the headmaster? Or willingness to be sarcastic and insulting? Neither are very admirable. Snape injured the feelings of some of his students, but even Neville didn't seem permenantly hurt by it. Lupin could have gotten his students killed, and then -- well, they wouldn't be hurt, they'd just be dead. Dana > Sirius might have acted as an arrogant snob when he was in school but > we know by the looks of his mother's portray, the grim look of GP and > him even deciding to run away at age 16, that his home life was > anything but a breeze and he then spends most of his adult life, in > the most depressing place one could imagine while actually being > innocent wynnleaf You've just told us the bad stuff he went through, and I agree. But are you trying to say Sirius overcame all that and became an exemplary person? What evidence do we have of his overcoming it? He'd been out of Azkaban for a year when he made the comment *as an adult* that Snape deserved the werewolf prank that almost took his life. He insults Snape when he's visiting in his home -- and yes Snape insults Sirius, too, but in the one example we see, Sirius starts it and is the first person to draw his wand. Sure, Sirius is willing to fight for the Order, but so is Snape. So really, I don't see the evidence that Sirius overcame the problems of his youth. He continues to do some reckless things even into OOTP, some of which (like going to the train station) affect his ability to be of help to the Order. Dana but oh no, dear sweet Snape is so misunderstood and was > humiliated so deeply because he was some kid's Boggert and then this > Boggert!Snape was dressed in woman's cloths? The outrage, how could > they do that to this poor man (well maybe because he was the cause of > this kid's fear in the first place). wynnleaf The question in this case really isn't is it understandable that Neville's boggart was Snape -- it was. Nor is it a question of whether or not Snape "deserved" to be made fun of in Lupin's class. The real question is whether Lupin was doing a responsible thing, as a teacher in the school, to handle such a difficulty between a student and another teacher in such a public way that opened the other teacher to public ridicule. I don't actually think it's any teacher's place to make a judgement call as to whether a fellow teacher should be put up for ridicule in front of the students. Dana > And what does this misunderstood hero do? He bullies the kid even > further and fiercer then before and when he isn't able to punish the > insulter, in what he considers an appropriate way, he outs him, > ruining his already hard life even further. wynnleaf As I outlined in another post recently, Lupin came to POA already having a hard time holding a job because of his condition and the Ministry knew about it as well, so it was hardly a secret. The students and most parents probably didn't know, but obviously many others must have known. Further, Umbridge's restrictions began during POA (we only hear about them in OOTP). Snape "outing" Lupin was only really as regards telling the kids, who would of course tell their parents. And since Lupin *had* put children at deadly risk, don't you think it was the responsible thing to do to blow the whistle? Lupin risked the lives of every kid in that school. But he's so very nice, and of course always sorry (not sorry enough to confess all to Dumbledore, however), that he should just stay on and hopefully never risk kids lives again, right? Besides that, it wouldn't shock me to discover that Dumbledore asked him to resign. Lupin was not very relaxed around Dumbledore later that morning when it was time to leave. And Dumbledore didn't act particularly sorry to see him go. Dana No, really we should have > some compassion for Snape because maybe his father hit his mother > (and this all just from one image of a man shouting at a woman while > not even knowing it indeed was his father at all) wynnleaf Actually, that's not what I tend to think of, although it's possible he did have such an abusive home. What we *know* is that he was bullied for years by a group of four students who tended to work together and had a convenient map so that they could easily target him (or anyone else) unsuspectingly. Although we see lots of evidence of the Marauders getting in trouble (detention records and a few comments by, I believe, McGonagall), we have no evidence that Snape was out trying to attack them other than the "gave as good as he got" (2, 3, or 4 against 1?) excuse that Sirius and Lupin attempt. James, when he needs to give some excuse to Lily, can't come up with *anything* as a reason for attacking Snape, other than "he exists." And we know that things went so far that these bullies (either one or more planning it) almost killed him. Regardless of Sirius' comment that Snape "ran with" a crowd that became Death Eaters, these seem to be people several years older than him, and we see no other evidence that he had any friends to help back him up in the bullying. I think being unmercifully bullied, where you're having to watch your back for years and someone finally tries to kill you is pretty bad. Hard to blame him for wanting them out of Hogwarts. Dana > And of course let's not forget him not getting over his hatred for > James and him allowing himself to take it out on the man's son and > even worse, wynnleaf On this I agree. It is very wrong to take out one's dislike of a father on the son. By the way, notice how Hagrid takes out his dislike of Vernon on Dudley in the first book, even though Hagrid would have had no idea whether Dudley deserved it or not. But Hagrid is loved, so it's okay. But really, it's never okay. We readers don't mind, because we dislike Dudley and love Hagrid. Dana when the kid loses the one person he was more closely > connected with then anybody else in his short life, he rubs it in by > having the kid re-write their detention cards wynnleaf This is pure speculation on your part. It could be that Snape having Harry do the Marauder's era of detention files was in part to point out to Harry the mistake of following down that path -- the indescriminant hexing in the halls stuff, which Harry was beginning to do in HBP. Remember that even Dumbledore, immediately following Sirius' death, had no problem with going over some of Sirius' mistakes with Harry. In fact, I thought it was notible that Snape did *not* mention Sirius to Harry by way of insults, etc. I almost expected it when he met him outside the castle after the Hogwarts Express, but Snape doesn't do this. Dana but for some reason > everybody insulting or humiliated Snape is condemned because the guy > had such a bad childhood and was hung by his feet a couple of times. wynnleaf Lupin's actions aren't right or wrong because of Snape's childhood. But the fact that it was *Lupin* himself who is in part responsible for that childhood *does* make a difference when we see him continuing to take advantage of opportunities to ridicule Snape as an adult. Dana > If I am not mistaken Snape seemed to be the only one that always gets > away with everything wynnleaf I'm not sure what you mean by "gets away with everything." Obviously he doesn't in the books. And it's the rare reader who, even if thinking Snape is loyal and has admirable qualities, thinks that Snape is perfectly fine in insulting students. Hey, even those of us that *like* him think he can be pretty petty and cruel sometimes. Perhaps you could explain what "gets away with" actually means. Dana , even murder while he is the only one behaving > in such a despicable way, it is no wonder, people do not know where > his loyalties lie. wynnleaf I am very hopeful that JKR will ultimately show us that trying to judge someone's loyalties by how nice they are isn't always the best way. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 21:50:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:50:20 -0000 Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: <642951.95805.qm@web59010.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Leslie Brooks wrote: > > Nikkalmati: > > I have always thought it unfair, even appalling, to blame Merope for her own death or to conclude (as DD says LV has done) that she didn't love her son. Yes, she did die in childbirth - or so shortly thereafter as to make no difference. It happens even today in the RW to young and healthy women. I can't imagine she didn't want to live. > > I wanted this to be my first post, and I completely agree. It isn't fair to blame Merope at all. I could never imagine being in her situation at all. Her father and brother were overbearing and abusive to her. Her magic was probably drained and understandably so. As for her love for the baby, I think she did or she wouldn't (at least I think so) have had the will to live. > > Leslie > Carol: Just a sidenote here, as I agree with both posters. Merope's last act was an act of love, giving her son a name that would tie him to the men she loved most, though neither loved her: her father and her husband. She could have allowed him to be nameless or to have a name bestowed on him by the orphanage a la Oliver Twist, but instead she gave him a name that linked him to both his Muggle and his Wizarding heritage so that some day he could find out who he was. (No fault of hers what he did with that knowledge!) And maybe she hoped that the orphanage could care for him better than she could, weak and knutless as she was (the ten galleons couldn't have lasted very long). Even if she hadn't lost her powers, magic can't conjure food and shelter, evidently. Carol, wishing that someone had rescued Merope from her abusive home, but then we'd have no story From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 21:55:17 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:55:17 -0700 Subject: The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born Message-ID: <700201d40704291455m56241d2fm59b2a646c2c300a5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168088 To refresh everyone, the prophecy in three easy to digest part: 1. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... 2a. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have the power the Dark Lord knows not... 2b. and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives.... 3. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies... Back to me (Kemper): What part of the prophecy did Snape over hear? I believe it was 2a. What was Snape doing before he heard 2a? He was /approaching/ the door to eavesdrop. What are parts 2a and 2b about? I believe that sections 'a' and 'b' are about the people prophesied in parts 1 and 3, Snape and Harry. Both are the ones to vanquish the Dark Lord. One of them 'approaches' and one of them 'will be born as the seventh month dies.' Dissecting parts 2a and 2b: 'Born to those who have thrice defied him,' Assuming 'him' is the Dark Lord, will we find out that Snape's parents defied the Dark Lord? Assuming 'him' is Snape, will we find out that that James and Lily defied (went against) Snape (or Snape's advice)? 'born as the seventh month dies...' Most if not all of us assume this is Harry. 'and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal,' Assuming 'him' refers to Harry, we think this is the scar representing a transfer of power to baby Harry through Lily's sacrifice and the subsequent the failed AK. Assuming 'him' refers to Snape, when might this have happened? Or, maybe this part of the prophecy hasn't happened yet. It isn't the Dark Mark on the arm, as that's a mark of servitude and it happened, I assume, prior to the prophecy. The prophecy says 'will mark' as it hasn't occurred yet. Maybe 'the mark' will occur in the next book, as a reward for killing DD. 'But he will have power the Dark Lord knows not...' Assuming 'he' refers to Harry, we think the power is Love. Assuming 'he' refers to Snape, and we take power to mean knowledge (Sir Francis Bacon said, 'Knowledge is Power') then the Dark Lord, through Snape's superb occulemency, knows little of Snape's secrets, the Order's secrets, DD's secrets. And finally the section Snape did not hear: 'and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives....' This one is harder. 'Either' and 'other' can refer to this mix: Harry/the Dark Lord and Snape; Harry/Snape and the Dark Lord; Snape/the Dark Lord and Harry. I can't claim the catylist of this theory which is part 1 referring to Snape. That claim and honor goes to a Mugglecast listener. I merely expanded upon it. Kemper From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Apr 29 22:00:16 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:00:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168089 Carol said: Lupin must have had some talent in Transfiguration to have had a hand in making the Marauder's Map, but even if his talent equalled that of his friends, his confidence didn't, and his talent was not the basis for their friendship. To Sirius and James as much as to Severus once he found out the truth, Remus was first and foremost a werewolf. Sherry now: I totally disagree. As a person with a disability, I take the interaction between Remus and the other marauders as the way friends act. I'm referring only to the comments and attitude about Remus being a werewolf. My friends can tease me about being blind and having other disabilities in ways strangers, acquaintances or employers sure had better not, if they don't want to get an earful or law suit. They have the right to tease me, because they've proved themselves loyal friends, and I know their teasing isn't about my disabilities, even if on the surface it may seem so to an outsider. It's the same as them teasing me about being five feet tall or having brown hair. If it doesn't offend me, why should it offend anyone else. There's nothing in the interactions we see in this scene or any other that makes me feel James and Sirius thought of Remus as *only* a werewolf, or that the whole werewolf thing was their only reason for being his friends. Carol: (I'm not talking about post-Shrieking Shack Sirius and Remus here; I'm talking about the teenagers we see in "Snape's Worst Memory," who are anything but "cool" in my opinion, nor do I think JKR wishes us to see them as being so. Harry's initial shock and disapproval was the right reaction to that scene, IMO. Granted, he was focusing on their arrogance and their bullying, but he certainly didn't think they were "cool." Too bad he didn't retain that attitude and is back to idealizing James, wanting *him* to be the Half-Blood Prince, who was also, evidently, "cool" in Harry's and Ron's view.) Sherry now: I have never understood the view that Harry should have his view of his father ripped apart, for his own good. Harry has never known his father, and I found it terribly cruel--still do in fact--that JKR tore that from him, and especially on Snape's behalf. Harry doesn't need to have his image of his father tarnished, just because that's part of growing up. He will never have the opportunity to know his father, either the good the bad or how the bully became a hero, so why can't he keep his idealism? After all, I expect we will have more stories about his oh so perfect mother, and her image may not be tarnished in the same way. That doesn't seem very fair to me. I know this is utterly idiotic of me, but I've come to resent and dislike Lily, *because* she is so damned perfect and James had to be sacrificed. Personally, I'm glad Harry found his faith in his father again. After all, James did grow up to become the young man worthy to be loved by the Sainted Lily, defied Voldemort three times, was admired by nearly everyone who speaks of him and died trying to give his wife and son time to escape. Seems like a pretty good image to cling to for his orphaned son, in my opinion. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 22:05:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:05:23 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168090 > wynnleaf > As I've tried to point out, I don't necessarily think the idea of > Evil!Lupin fits with what we know. After all, according to JKR, > Lupin's big weakness is in allowing his friends too much latitude, > which just doesn't seem to go along with "cares so little about his > friends that he intentionally betrays them to be killed." > > On the other hand, this argument that JKR likes Lupin, and therefore > she can't possibly use him to betray Harry or the Order has *already* > been proved wrong. JKR has *already* had Lupin, in POA, betray > Dumbledore's trust for many months in a way that risked the lives of > all the school children and in particular Harry. So we know for > certain that JKR can and has made Lupin irresponsible and for purely > his own benefit, risk lives and betray Dumbledore. The notion that > her "liking" Lupin will somehow keep her from having him do this again > makes no sense. > > As I said, JKR liking Lupin, or thinking he's a good teacher does > *not* equate to "he's responsible and trustworthy." JKR has already > *proven* that by making him irresponsible and untrustworthy in POA. Alla: Sorry, but Lupin betraying Dumbledore's trust in PoA, even if Lupin says so, is an interpretation not a fact IMO. I mean, Lupin was putting school at risk ? How? Is there a canon that had Dumbledore known that Sirius was an animagi, he would have been caught that very moment? Is there a moment where anything hinders on that piece of information? And of course there is a fact that Lupin really was not putting anyone at risk by not revealing that information about animagi. Maybe he was really thinking deep down that Sirius was innocent, who knows. After all he believed in Sirius innocent the moment he saw Peter on the map. So, no, I do not think that JKR already made Lupin betray Dumbledore's trust in PoA, despite him saying so. I think Lupin gives himself here way more credit than he should, IMO of course. That is why the fact that JKR likes him and wants him to teach her daughter is a very strong point in favor of Lupin not being evil. > Nikkalmati > > Yes, Lupin knew exactly what he was doing to Snape and that it would be all > over school in a couple of hours. Very unprofessional of him. There were > other ways to help Neville, but, of course, Alla thinks Snape deserves it, so > it is no problem for her. Alla: Of course I think he deserved it, but it is as you said **no problem* for me first and foremost because I think it helped Neville, even if short term. And that is what I think teacher should be concerned with - helping student, not sparing colleague, who just publicly humiliated that student. Mike: > Lupin did not pick Neville's form (Snape), but he did come up with a > way to make that form become comical. Is there another way to do it > (make Snape!Boggart comical) without it seeming to humiliate the real > Snape? Try to think of one yourself, see if anything fits the bill > and works for the story. I submit that making Snape!Boggart comical > in any way is going to be demeaning to the real Snape. And I don't > buy that once Neville announced that Snape frightens him most, and > all the other kids laugh, that Lupin should say, "Sorry Neville, > we'll have to work on yours in private. Next!" What a cruel way that > would be to treat Neville, all because his potions teacher is a > scary, mean bastard that treats him like s**t. Alla: Okay, I could not have put it any better. Thank you :) Pippin: > If JKR is okay with Lupin teaching her daughter even though > he needs someone to prepare wolfsbane potion to keep him > safe one day of the month, why shouldn't she be okay with > him needing a certain amount of social support in order > to keep him safe on all the other days? > > And why wouldn't she want to write about what would happen > to him if he didn't get it? > Alla: Pippin, sorry but that does not answer my question. Do you think JKR would want a killer, even a fictional one to teach her daughter? I know it would never enter my mind to imagine such situation that anybody of the evil characters I read about would teach my kid. Do you think JKR would enjoy imagining such situation? > wynnleaf > First, we don't know that Lupin had "a great deal more than Snape" > to overcome, because we really don't know enough about either. Alla: Well, we know that if Dumbledore did not become the headmaster for example, Lupin would not be able to come to Hogwarts, no? I do not think that we know that Snape faced a threat of not coming to Hogwarts ever. Of course we still can learn about it, but so far it seems to me that this card was stuck up against Remus so much more than against Snape. Wynnleaf: > And which is worse? Willingness to endanger the lives of hundreds > of children just so you can keep the goodwill of the headmaster? Or > willingness to be sarcastic and insulting? Neither are very > admirable. Snape injured the feelings of some of his students, but > even Neville didn't seem permenantly hurt by it. Lupin could have > gotten his students killed, and then -- well, they wouldn't be hurt, > they'd just be dead. Alla: I am sorry when did Lupin **willingly** endangered the lives of hundreds of children? When he forgot about the potion? > wynnleaf > I am very hopeful that JKR will ultimately show us that trying to > judge someone's loyalties by how nice they are isn't always the best > way. > Alla: And I think that this would be the cliche in its own right. The backwards cliche so to speak. IMO of course. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 22:11:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:11:12 -0000 Subject: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168091 > Carol said: To Sirius and James as much as to Severus once he found out the > truth, Remus was first and foremost a werewolf. > > > > Sherry now: > > I totally disagree. As a person with a disability, I take the interaction > between Remus and the other marauders as the way friends act. There's > nothing in the interactions we see in this scene or any other that makes me > feel James and Sirius thought of Remus as *only* a werewolf, or that the > whole werewolf thing was their only reason for being his friends. > Alla: Oh, so well said Sherry :) I am always thinking of how kindly Remus remembers James calling his condition "furry little problem" and Snape's "how werewolf mind works". The first one totally reads to me as friendly teasing and the second as statement of the bigot. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Apr 29 22:12:32 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:12:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168092 wynnleaf I am very hopeful that JKR will ultimately show us that trying to judge someone's loyalties by how nice they are isn't always the best way. Sherry now: I believe she will, through the story of Draco. I am not a fan of Draco, have never liked him. He has never been a nice kid. In fact, he's been a damn mean kid. But I expect, due to the moments on the tower in HBP, that Draco will be the character who is redeemed, if there is one. I don't think he will turn into a nice guy. I think he will remain arrogant and snotty, at least for the foreseeable future. But I believe his choices will show he is not going to follow Voldemort, and I believe he will change the path of his life and will work for the good side to defeat Voldemort. The story is about Harry's generation, and as much as many of we adults would like the adult characters to have the big shining moments, I believe it will all be about the young generation in the end. And I'm someone who loves the marauders, the story of their friendship. I would like to know their story, and I know I will never get all I want, because Harry and his friends and even his age group's enemies, will be the ones to win in the end. Sherry From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 22:19:44 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:19:44 -0000 Subject: An Analysis of the Skirmish at Hogwarts with some Potentially Surprises In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168093 > Goddlefrood presents what's in the title ;-): > > > > Who then could be fighting Remus and Ron? There should be > two more, who are they? I believe I am right in concluding > then, that there were two more DEs present other than those > named or described. If correct the total number of crew with > Draco would be a total of 7, not coincidentally LV's least > favourite number ;) (Alecto, Amycus, Greyback, brutal face, > big blond and these two others). Mike: 8, you forgot to count Gibbon, the dead DE. Note also, out on the lawn Harry only sees Alecto & Amycus & Blondie flee with Draco and Snape. We have dead Gibbon and captured brutal- face (Yaxley?). I tend to think that Greyback was captured, and if he wasn't he should have been. After all he got hit after Yaxley so he should have been down longer and he wasn't off away from the rest on the tower like Yaxley was. What happened to these other 2 unnamed but certainly there DEs? After Alecto, Amycus and Blondie take off and with Yaxley, Greyback and Gibbon down, that left these other 2 against Ron, Ginny, Remus, Tonks and Minerva (Neville and Bill being down). You would think these 5 could have subdued and captured these remaining 2 DEs. If that did indeed happen then LV lost 4 DEs and possibly Greyback to capture or death. ************************** For my own perspective, I don't think Greyback was a wizard and therefore not formally a DE. He falls into the category of LV's allies, as LV expounded upon in the Graveyard scene. It has been noted that he doesn't have a wand, and his 'wizard' robes are noted as ill-fitting, as if they aren't his in the first place. To further tie this into the Nitwit?Lupin thread, wizards seem to understand the dangers present from werewolves on full moon nights. They would of necessity take precautions, seeing as how the werewolves aren't captured or otherwise restrained. But Muggles don't have this same degree of knowledge, although there must be some rumors by now in the Potterverse. So werewolf attacks are much more likely to occur against Muggles than against wizards. The exception being werewolves like Greyback who purposely targets young wizards in his vendetta against the WW. For this reason, I speculate that the majority of werewolves are formerly Muggles with no inherent magical abilities. And I include Greyback in those that were formerly Muggles. Mike From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 23:01:13 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:01:13 -0000 Subject: On the Numbers and Werewolves (again :-<) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168094 > > Goddlefrood: > > (A little more snippage of my own ;)) > > If correct the total number of crew with Draco would be a > > total of 7 > Mike: > 8, you forgot to count Gibbon, the dead DE. Goddlefrood: Whoops, must be overlooking the dead again :)), still 7 DEs though ;), if Greyback is excluded from being one as Mike goes on to suggest ;) > Mike: > I tend to think that Greyback was captured, and if he wasn't > he should have been. Goddlefrood: He may have been captured, but one thought that does occur is that perhaps werewolves recover from being hit by spells a little more quickly than your average bear ;). I do, however, hope he was captured, otherwise it would be a very poor night's work for all those fighting LV. Although if he did escape I'm sure Remus was pleased ;) > Mike: > You would think these 5 could have subdued and captured these > remaining 2 DEs. Goddlefrood: It would seem likely, but they are mysterious figures, my thoughts on that are in my earlier post. > Mike: > ************************** > For my own perspective, I don't think Greyback was a wizard and > therefore not formally a DE. Goddlefrood: This is a viewpoint I now share having had some support from Nymphadora, as set out in the original post on this matter. An ally, yes, but a DE, no, so essentially I agree. I do also think Greyback was either a full muggle originally or a muggle-born and would add that many of the werewolves in the WW as we know it are not only fictional but also created by Fenrir. This would increase the bond of loyalty between the subordinates and the leader, somewhat like a twisting of the various versions of the vampire legend, who do exist in our world ;). They are a constant nuisance. One other point to add, but unrelated to the above is that Snape when nearly killed by the rampaging and totally under control of himself Remus during the prank was clearly labouring under the misapprehension that somehow he had been wronged. Sirius would, quite sensibly, have a little to say on this matter: "He deserved it" Goddlefrood, who once hung a friend by his legs over a bridge for the terrible crime of sneaking ;) From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Apr 29 23:31:55 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:31:55 -0700 Subject: "When life gives you lemons..." In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <409045374.20070429163155@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168095 Dumbledore has already drawn our attention (HBP, Ch. 23) to LV's remark in the graveyard (GoF, Ch. 33): "I who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality...", which refers to the Horcruxes. But in his next breath LV said, of the rebounded AK, "It appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked, for I had not been killed..." If we assume that "experiments" is a euphemism for the Horcruxes, does this remark mean that LV has no guarantee that all of the Horcruxes were created successfully, and, if indeed one or more of the Horcruxes is in fact a "lemon", that Harry won't have to destroy it/them at all? Dave From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 00:00:42 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:42 -0000 Subject: Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168097 >Tandra: So that would lead us to believe that Petunia has possible > powers but refuses to use or acknowledge them? Any opinions or just information for me > that I might not have? Thx :-) JW: To paraphrase JKR in interview: Petunia has never done magic, never will do magic... She is a muggle. There is no reference to suggest that Petunia might have a choice in the matter. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 30 00:17:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:17:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic as a Virus? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40704281020i51e657b0p7d39a95d7dc6114@mail.gmail.com> References: <956920.6241.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8ee758b40704281020i51e657b0p7d39a95d7dc6114@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463535A3.6030102@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168098 Janette wrote: montims: > Why need it be a virus? Why not an evolutionary trait, such as music for > example? Some people are born natural musicians, some have an ability but > need to be trained, and others are tone deaf. The same with artists, poets, > and other seemingly unnecessary human traits which nevertheless are > essential to the human condition. Because those traits are not closely connected to genes. Magic is. And it doesn't follow normal genetics: W + W = almost always W W + M = W, as often as W + W (or not significantly different) M + M = very, very, rarely W (but note this is an extremely low percentage; in absolute numbers, there appear to be more M-born W's than squibs). The virus explanation works if the resistance to the virus is a recessive gene. This means that a squib is a W-born with a mutation. It is quite possible that many, if not all, the muggle-born have squib blood on both sides of their families, and the recessive just showed up. And if the virus is very difficult to get (like HIV, for example), there may be many with magical potential who never realize it. For example, there are even babies born of HIV positive mothers who are HIV negative. This would explain, for example, a squib who suddenly shows magical ability, especially if they had a blood->blood contact with a wizard or an immune muggle. Bart Bart From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 00:25:59 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:25:59 -0000 Subject: An Oddity - Dumbledore and Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168099 > > Goddlefrood: > > In respect of Fawkes my ridiculous suggestion for the > > evening is that somehow Fawkes is a transformed part of > > Dumbledore. > Jen: > You mean a partial transformation of some sort that Dumbledore > understands how to do because of his vast knowledge of > transfiguration? It's not that I don't think JKR could make > something like this work, it's more that the transfiguration > skills seem poised to explain how Dumbledore can make himself > invisible. Goddlefrood: Along that line indeed. As I said in a later post on this subject I do think there may be a corresponding light magic for each piece of dark magic. While these boundaries of light and dark magic are not yet entiely clear, and may never be :), the Horcrux is certainly dark and it would be good to think that there were something opposite to it. I there is then there is no doubt in my mind that DD knew of it. Of course, your thought may also be correct, perhaps he was able to transform himself into a variety of animals and creatures, including, but not necessarily limited to a wasp, a phoemnix and a lethifold :) I do often state that of course I could be wrong, I like theorising in a speculative way as it gives me pleasure. No helpings of humble pie will be ingested should this particular ridiculous suggestion as in my initial post be wrong ;) I also compliment Jen on her thoughts, which were of interest. Goddlefrood, who clarifies that when he said Dumbledore is the only wizard of his age he simply meant that he was the only wizard of "exactly" his age ;), while acknowledging that at least two wizards we have met are older than he, but both of whom seem to be in awe of DD's skills :) From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Apr 30 00:34:14 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:34:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic as a Virus? In-Reply-To: <463535A3.6030102@sprynet.com> References: <956920.6241.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8ee758b40704281020i51e657b0p7d39a95d7dc6114@mail.gmail.com> <463535A3.6030102@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40704291734m417dc970u91d7455bcccfb173@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168100 Bart wrote: > > > Why need it be a virus? Why not an evolutionary trait, such as music > for > > example? Some people are born natural musicians, some have an ability > but > > need to be trained, and others are tone deaf. The same with artists, > poets, > > and other seemingly unnecessary human traits which nevertheless are > > essential to the human condition. > > Because those traits are not closely connected to genes. Magic is. > And > it doesn't follow normal genetics: montims: and yet they may be - One possible alternative approach is *comparative genomics*. Even just assuming that music is uniquely human and that it serves some biological purpose for which it has been selected for, we can deduce that there will exist regions in the human genome which "encode" for music, and the genes or genetic variation in these regions will be unique to humans, and different even when compared to the genomes of our closest relatives (the chimpanzees and other apes). Neither of these assumptions can be made with any degree of certainty, but the strength of the human desire for music does argue in favour of some there being a musical *instinct*, and non-human animals show little sign of behaviour determined by any similar kind of instinct. and The FOXP2 gene is particularly interesting because it appears related to the development of speech in the human species. This has a bearing on music: I've already mentioned that music is a candidate for accelerated evolution just on the assumption that it is a unique human capacity which relates to some (possibly unknown) biological function, but given that music appears to be related in some way to speech, if there are regions of accelerated evolution related to speech, then we have even more reason to expect that there might be regions of accelerated evolution related to music.In the fullness of time, all human genes will be identified with the human characteristics that they encode for and which have been selected for accordingly by natural selection. And no doubt "musical genes" will be discovered which account for our response to music. http://www.1729.com/blog/MusicalGenomics.html So maybe magic is another evolutionary development... But ah - this is a fictional world we're discussing, so I concede your virus theory! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cute_janers at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 00:17:50 2007 From: cute_janers at yahoo.com (Liz S.) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:17:50 -0000 Subject: Did Peter used Harry's wand to transform into a rat in the book? WAS: Movie Confusion In-Reply-To: <463514D4.000009.03056@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168101 > > > wrote: > > > What actually gets me about this whole subject is why did Peter > > Pettigrew need a wand to change back to a rat, but Sirius didn't > > need one to turn back into a dog? Debi: > It's a case of movie vs book, He used a wand in the movie but not > in the book. I would suppose the screen writer assumed it would be > more consistent that because Peter was turned into a man by wand he should turn back into a rat by wand. Liz: In the book, didn't Petter steal Harry's wand to turn back into a rat? If not, then sorry, I'm mistaken. But I was just thinking that even though he was tied up, he could have turned into a rat at anytime to get away. So if that's true, then maybe if you force someone to come out, then they need a wand to turn back. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. =) From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Apr 30 02:00:31 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:00:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin References: Message-ID: <025c01c78acb$62fe5de0$41ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168102 > Alla: > > Sorry, but Lupin betraying Dumbledore's trust in PoA, even if Lupin > says so, is an interpretation not a fact IMO. > > I mean, Lupin was putting school at risk ? How? Is there a canon that > had Dumbledore known that Sirius was an animagi, he would have been > caught that very moment? Is there a moment where anything hinders on > that piece of information? Magpie: In this case I'm going to have to say I think it's as close as something can be to canon, interpretation or not. If Sirius is thought to be attacking the school the information Remus is concealing is very important--it's the single most important piece of information we have. We can't know if Dumbledore would have caught Sirius immediately, no, but it's no stretch to say that things do hinge on those pieces of information. How could it not be important that Sirius might sometimes be a big black dog instead of a man? (Perhaps Harry might have wondered why Sirius didn't kill him that first time they saw each other.) In the end it was, of course, good that Remus didn't tell because Sirius being a dog is what got him out of Azkaban and kept him hidden all that time. But given the information he knew then, especially after Sirius snuck into the dorm once, I don't see how it can be considered anything but betraying Dumbledore's trust by claiming he wants Harry protected. All the teachers are expected to be doing all they can to keep Sirius out of the school and catch him, and Lupin is concealing Sirius' main weapon. After all, wouldn't things have been different in PoA if everyone knew Peter was the bad guy and was a rat? That's the form in which Sirius recognizes him in the picture and it's how Peter is able to escape to begin with. Now that we know what we know, we know Remus wasn't really putting anyone at risk by not telling about Sirius being an Animagus, but based on what he knew at the time, I think he considered himself absolutely putting them at risk by not telling. Even if he hoped deep down Sirius was innocent, he'd still be working against the efforts of Dumbledore by helping Sirius stay free and get around the school. But of course he never claims to have thought he was innocent. It seemed more like, just like in the Pensieve, he hoped the right thing would happen without him having to stick his neck out for it. Alla: > So, no, I do not think that JKR already made Lupin betray Dumbledore's > trust in PoA, despite him saying so. I think Lupin gives himself here > way more credit than he should, IMO of course. > > That is why the fact that JKR likes him and wants him to teach her > daughter is a very strong point in favor of Lupin not being evil. Magpie: She does say she'd want him to teach her daughter, but she also says his flaw comes down to wanting to be liked, doesn't she? Seems to me she's validated Lupin's own views about what he did in PoA. Also, Lupin gives his reasons for what he did, and they're not about thinking Sirius was innocent but about not wanting to talk about his own past. (At that point there was really no one else for Lupin to protect with his information--Peter was dead and Sirius was a murderer and a traitor.) If he thought Sirius was innocent I'd think he'd be doing something more to help him prove it. > Alla: > > I am sorry when did Lupin **willingly** endangered the lives of > hundreds of children? When he forgot about the potion? Magpie: I think when he forgot about the Potion he endangered them through carelessness and not through willingness. In PoA, I assume, is where he's doing it willingly by covering up what he knows about how Sirius could be sneaking into the school--thinking that Sirius is the bad guy there. I might mention that I love that Lupin does this, and I like him doing it for himself. (I tend to add something to his not wanting Dumbledore to think badly of him, myself. It's not canonical, but I like to imagine Lupin as very protective of that time in his life and the friends he had.) But I do still think he's obviously doing the wrong thing and knows it. It's one of the things that's so cool about Lupin as a character, imo. He genuinely is kind and nice and a good teacher JKR can have him blatantly do something majorly bad and still have it be in character. Imagine how you'd think out this plot? You have the DADA teacher who's an old friend of the guy who's supposed to be a murderer who's out to murder the hero. You need him to conceal important inforamation about catching him. So you give him personal reasons for wanting to do it for his own sake. I wonder how many writers would have also made him ultmately a good guy, especially if the writer worshipped courage! -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 02:34:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:34:54 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: <025c01c78acb$62fe5de0$41ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168103 > > Alla: > > > > Sorry, but Lupin betraying Dumbledore's trust in PoA, even if Lupin > > says so, is an interpretation not a fact IMO. > > > > I mean, Lupin was putting school at risk ? How? Is there a canon that > > had Dumbledore known that Sirius was an animagi, he would have been > > caught that very moment? Is there a moment where anything hinders on > > that piece of information? > > Magpie: > In this case I'm going to have to say I think it's as close as something can > be to canon, interpretation or not. If Sirius is thought to be attacking the > school the information Remus is concealing is very important--it's the > single most important piece of information we have. We can't know if > Dumbledore would have caught Sirius immediately, no, but it's no stretch to > say that things do hinge on those pieces of information. How could it not be > important that Sirius might sometimes be a big black dog instead of a man? > (Perhaps Harry might have wondered why Sirius didn't kill him that first > time they saw each other.) > > In the end it was, of course, good that Remus didn't tell because Sirius > being a dog is what got him out of Azkaban and kept him hidden all that > time. But given the information he knew then, especially after Sirius snuck > into the dorm once, I don't see how it can be considered anything but > betraying Dumbledore's trust by claiming he wants Harry protected. All the > teachers are expected to be doing all they can to keep Sirius out of the > school and catch him, and Lupin is concealing Sirius' main weapon. Alla: Well, I was arguing and still am against the argument that since Remus already betrayed Dumbledore's trust once, he can do it again, and that is why the quotes that JKR likes him and wants him to teach his daughter make no sense as support for Lupin being, should I say DD!M? I guess it would be appropriate here. So, yes, I am saying that Lupin concealing Sirius being an animagi does not equal betraying Dumbledore's trust as canonical fact. Interpretaion? Sure, I can see that. Fact? No, sorry, I do not see it. I mean, twelve years passed and Remus believes Sirius the moment he saw Peter on the map. So, yes, I do think it was possible, totally that he believed deep inside in Sirius innocence. No convincing was needed from Sirius that he is innocent, at all, to me it means something. So, if you are for example saying that Remus concealing Sirius being animagi led to Ron and Fat Lady being hurt, sure, I will grant you that. But I am not buying the generalisation of Remus not telling the secret equals willingly putting hundreds of lives at risk. There is also IMO very important moment why I am not buying that Dumbledore's trust had been betrayed. It is because Dumbledore himself does not seem to think so ( I mean, if you think that Lupin is a liar, that is a different story, but I am proceeding that he is telling the truth here) "Why?" said Harry. "The Ministry of Magic don't think you were helping Sirius, do they?" Lupin crossed to the door and closed it behind Harry. "No. Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was trying to save your lives." He signed" - PoA, p.309, paperback, british edition. I don't know Dumbledore really does not sound to me like someone whose trust had been betrayed here. Of course it is quite possible that he gave Remus a mouthful in private, but since I did not read it, I will think that it did not happen for now. And of course that famous quote. "sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night," said Dumbledore, smiling. "An extraordinary achievement - not least keeping that quiet from me" - p.312, PoA. Dumbledore does not sound too upset to me here either after learning this information. If his trust had been betrayed, shouldn't he had been more upset? Magpie: > After all, wouldn't things have been different in PoA if everyone knew Peter > was the bad guy and was a rat? That's the form in which Sirius recognizes > him in the picture and it's how Peter is able to escape to begin with. Now > that we know what we know, we know Remus wasn't really putting anyone at > risk by not telling about Sirius being an Animagus, but based on what he > knew at the time, I think he considered himself absolutely putting them at > risk by not telling. Alla: Oh, I have no doubts that Remus was absolutely considering himself putting kids lifes at risk. It is just I am not buying that at least not completely. Just as I have no doubts that Snape believes that Sirius Black tried to kill him. I more often than not believe in Snape sincerity here, I just do not buy that as fact. Magpie: Even if he hoped deep down Sirius was innocent, he'd > still be working against the efforts of Dumbledore by helping Sirius stay > free and get around the school. But of course he never claims to have > thought he was innocent. It seemed more like, just like in the Pensieve, he > hoped the right thing would happen without him having to stick his neck out > for it. Alla: See, we differ here. If Remus believed in Sirius innocence, which of course is not a fact, just I believe that there is a hint of support for it, I think he would have been doing a good deed. No, he never claims it of course, I believe he would rather take a blame than not. > Alla: > > So, no, I do not think that JKR already made Lupin betray Dumbledore's > > trust in PoA, despite him saying so. I think Lupin gives himself here > > way more credit than he should, IMO of course. > > > > That is why the fact that JKR likes him and wants him to teach her > > daughter is a very strong point in favor of Lupin not being evil. > > Magpie: > She does say she'd want him to teach her daughter, but she also says his > flaw comes down to wanting to be liked, doesn't she? Seems to me she's > validated Lupin's own views about what he did in PoA. Alla: Sure she does.But how does wanting to be liked translates in Lupin being the killer, you know? Because that is what I was ultimately arguing about and still find it rather mind boggling how from this quote it can be inferred that Lupin is Evil ( but that is of course in relation to Pippin's argument, not yours) JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Apr 30 03:19:09 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:19:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin References: Message-ID: <026b01c78ad6$52536520$41ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 168104 > Alla: > > Well, I was arguing and still am against the argument that since > Remus already betrayed Dumbledore's trust once, he can do it again, > and that is why the quotes that JKR likes him and wants him to teach > his daughter make no sense as support for Lupin being, should I say > DD!M? I guess it would be appropriate here. Magpie: I agree--the fact that Remus betrayed a trust once (twice if you count his running with the Animagi in the past, but then the two are sort of connected together anyway) doesn't mean he'd betray it again. Perhaps it could even weigh against the idea, because Remus did what he did under very specific conditions. If those conditions aren't present again, there's no reason to think he'd betray anyone again. Pippin has considered possibilities where he would have the same situation arise again, so it's not like she doesn't know about those conditions. We just don't know yet that Lupin is in the same bind as he was back then. Alla: > So, yes, I am saying that Lupin concealing Sirius being an animagi > does not equal betraying Dumbledore's trust as canonical fact. > Interpretaion? Sure, I can see that. Fact? No, sorry, I do not see > it. > > I mean, twelve years passed and Remus believes Sirius the moment he > saw Peter on the map. So, yes, I do think it was possible, totally > that he believed deep inside in Sirius innocence. No convincing was > needed from Sirius that he is innocent, at all, to me it means > something. Magpie: I don't see how the two things have to relate at all. Once he saw Peter on the map he had the facts to back him up. Sirius didn't kill Peter, which meant all that everyone knew could be wrong. There's no reason, imo, to think that Remus ever *wanted* Sirius to be guilty, even back then. He's not resistant to the facts the way Snape is, for instance. But I don't see how that means we can add different motivations to the story than are ever introduced by anyone else. I think we can think of Remus as wanting Sirius to be innocent and maybe not wanting to turn him in. But it doesn't seem like Remus is *actively* working against Dumbledore in PoA, as he would be if he thought Sirius was innocent. He's just passively not giving information. I don't see why he'd have any reason to lie to Dumbledore and Sirius about that motivation and instead make one up about not wanting to out himself. Alla: > So, if you are for example saying that Remus concealing Sirius being > animagi led to Ron and Fat Lady being hurt, sure, I will grant you > that. But I am not buying the generalisation of Remus not telling > the secret equals willingly putting hundreds of lives at risk. > > There is also IMO very important moment why I am not buying that > Dumbledore's trust had been betrayed. It is because Dumbledore > himself does not seem to think so ( I mean, if you think that Lupin > is a liar, that is a different story, but I am proceeding that he is > telling the truth here) > > "Why?" said Harry. "The Ministry of Magic don't think you were > helping Sirius, do they?" > Lupin crossed to the door and closed it behind Harry. > "No. Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was > trying to save your lives." He signed" - PoA, p.309, paperback, > british edition. > > I don't know Dumbledore really does not sound to me like someone > whose trust had been betrayed here. Of course it is quite possible > that he gave Remus a mouthful in private, but since I did not read > it, I will think that it did not happen for now. Magpie: I think Dumbledore, being Dumbledore, is supposed to see Remus' motives for what they are and so understands his personality. He doesn't think Remus was actively working against him because he wasn't. He seems to get that Remus was really just keeping his own personal secret, and everything's turned out well and he can deal with that. But I still wouldn't say it was uncanonical for someone to say that Remus had betrayed Dumbledore's trust if they meant that very same thing. For instance, I don't think it's uncanonical to say that Snape let Dumbledore down in OotP by not continuing the Occlumency lessons, even though Dumbledore obviously doesn't consider Snape a traitor for doing it. Or that Hagrid let him down by spilling the beans about Fluffy. I think when people talk about Remus betraying trust--and this is just how it comes across to me in what other people say, so I could be misinterpreting--I think they're just saying that it's canon that Remus has this very clear limit that we're aware of. He, Hagrid and Snape all have these limits we've seen. I'm not explaining this well, but that's more what I think it's about, is mapping out the weak spots and limits of the characer. Neither Lupin nor Snape are perfectly in step with Dumbledore. He's aware of their weak spots and he doesn't think they're reason enough to consider them traitors, but they're there. I don't think Dumbledore being upset or not is why people describe their actions this way. It's more about what makes Snape and Lupin tick than Dumbledore. Alla: > Dumbledore does not sound too upset to me here either after learning > this information. If his trust had been betrayed, shouldn't he had > been more upset? Magpie: Not necessarily. He's just admitted his trust was betrayed. He gave Lupin a chance at school and Lupin did betray it by taking risks as a werewolf. All these years he never knew about it (he always seems a bit pleased when kids put one over on him). He's just not angry about it. Similarly, DD tells Harry in OotP that he thought Snape could get over his issues and teach Harry Occlumency but he was wrong. So he's saying that Snape let him down there, but he's also not angry at him. Dumbledore may not always be successful but he tries to deal with people as individuals with flaws rather than robots. > Alla: > > Oh, I have no doubts that Remus was absolutely considering himself > putting kids lifes at risk. It is just I am not buying that at least > not completely. > > Just as I have no doubts that Snape believes that Sirius Black tried > to kill him. I more often than not believe in Snape sincerity here, > I just do not buy that as fact. Magpie: I don't think it matters if it's a fact that Remus was putting kids at risk in this context if Remus was, as far as he knew, faced with a situation where witholding information because it was better for himself was dangerous to the students (or at least one student) and going against what Dumbledore was trying to do. It turned out he wasn't putting anyone at risk by not telling on Sirius at all, but he was willing to do so. As far as everyone knew, they were looking for a murderer out to kill again, and Remus had information but witheld it because he didn't want to incriminate himself in other ways. > Alla: > > See, we differ here. If Remus believed in Sirius innocence, which of > course is not a fact, just I believe that there is a hint of support > for it, I think he would have been doing a good deed. No, he never > claims it of course, I believe he would rather take a blame than not. Magpie: But Remus not doing the right thing because it makes things smoother for him is given to us as a fundamental aspect of his character while Remus believing Sirius is innocent is not given as a motivation for the character. Remus has no reason I can see to want Sirius to be guilty at all, and I can imagine part of him rooting for Sirius in his own way. But it still seems like what Remus says he's doing (and has no reason to lie about that I can see) is an important part of the character. If he thought Sirius was innocent and was motivated by that I think we could track it in the text. > Alla: > > Sure she does.But how does wanting to be liked translates in Lupin > being the killer, you know? > > Because that is what I was ultimately arguing about and still find > it rather mind boggling how from this quote it can be inferred that > Lupin is Evil ( but that is of course in relation to Pippin's > argument, not yours) Magpie: I'm not touching that one.:-) That is, I don't think wanting to be liked makes him a murderer--though I think it could be done, of course. I don't think anything I've said here makes Remus any more or less likely to turn out to be evil. It just says if he was evil he'd probably be an interesting kind of evil.:-) -m From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 30 03:30:46 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:30:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: <700201d40704291455m56241d2fm59b2a646c2c300a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40704291455m56241d2fm59b2a646c2c300a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463562E6.30406@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168105 Kemper wrote: > To refresh everyone, the prophecy in three easy to digest part: > > 1. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... > > 2a. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh > month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he > will have the power the Dark Lord knows not... > > 2b. and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live > while the other survives.... > > 3. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as > the seventh month dies... > > Back to me (Kemper): > What part of the prophecy did Snape over hear? Bart: Yeesh! There was one part of the prophecy, in particular, that puzzled me, but I think you have solved the puzzle. What you list as "3" is redundant. Why is it important? And the answer is because there are choices. And the very action of Snape eavesdropping, being found, and being thrown out CHANGES the prophecy midway. But the series of the events re-affirms the prophecy, hence the next statement. Bart From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 30 03:32:59 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:32:59 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168106 > Alla: > > Sorry, but Lupin betraying Dumbledore's trust in PoA, even if Lupin > says so, is an interpretation not a fact IMO. wynnleaf It may be your opinion that it's not canon, but that does not mean it's not. It's canon. Lupin did not know Sirius wasn't a crazed mass murderer and death eater. All the evidence pointed to that and Lupin either believed it, or was a terrible "friend" in making zero attempt to prove any differently. Anyway, what in the world do you think Lupin assumed Sirius was doing with that knife if he thought Sirius was innocent? Lupin didn't know Peter was alive, right? Now, given that Lupin thought a mass murderer was trying to get in the school and *had* gotten into the school, brandishing a knife over a student, or slashing up a portrait entrance, he was endangering the school whenever he did not share important information for protecting the school. A lot has been said about Lupin not sharing about Sirius' animagi status. But that is by *no* means all. Lupin also knew secret passages in and out of the castle which he knew that Sirius was aware of. Staff were obviously not aware of those passages, as we see in POA when Snape isn't aware of the passage to Honeydukes. Lupin could have shared his knowledge that Sirius knew secret passages unknown to Hogwarts staff. He could have shared this info without divulging anything about the Marauder's becoming animagi. But does he? No. So he leaves open secret passages into the castle, without bothering to make sure they are guarded, even though he knows that a supposedly crazed murderer is probably getting in by those passages. If that's not risking the lives of the kids, I can't imagine what else would be. Alla > I mean, Lupin was putting school at risk ? How? Is there a canon that > had Dumbledore known that Sirius was an animagi, he would have been > caught that very moment? Is there a moment where anything hinders on > that piece of information? wynnleaf Since we only follow Harry's viewpoint, we don't know. But all those times searching the castle and Lupin never told anyone "be on the lookout for a dog, because Sirius can transform into one," he was helping Sirius to escape. Since Lupin didn't know Sirius wasn't a crazed murderer, he was withholding vital information that would help in protecting children. Alla > And of course there is a fact that Lupin really was not putting anyone > at risk by not revealing that information about animagi. Maybe he was > really thinking deep down that Sirius was innocent, who knows. wynnleaf Even if he wondered if Sirius was innocent, he certainly didn't know and could have had zero proof other than some possible gut feeling. And on that it's okay to risk kid's lives? The fact that Sirius was not guilty has *nothing* to do with Lupin's betrayal, since as far as Lupin actually knew, Sirius was trying to murder people in the castle. I could repeat, what *else* would Lupin think Sirius was doing with the knife? > > wynnleaf > > First, we don't know that Lupin had "a great deal more than Snape" > > to overcome, because we really don't know enough about either. > > > > Alla: > > Well, we know that if Dumbledore did not become the headmaster for > example, Lupin would not be able to come to Hogwarts, no? I do not > think that we know that Snape faced a threat of not coming to Hogwarts > ever. wynnleaf, You seem to equate "may not have been able to attend Hogwarts" as some sort of major hardship which can shape one's life. Well, to an extent, but since Lupin *was* able to go, he didn't suffer that hardship at all. Similarly, we're told that werewolves are shunned. Yes. But while Lupin was at Hogwarts, none of the kids except the Marauders knew he was a werewolf, so Lupin didn't suffer *any* shunning at Hogwarts. We can be sure that muggle kids weren't shunning him for being a werewolf prior to coming to Hogwarts, nor did wizarding kids know he was one, so there was no pre-Hogwarts shunning by children of Lupin either. I'm sure being a werewolf very much affected the way his parents raised him and his feelings about making and keeping friends, but let's not imagine young Lupin being shunned by kids, because it almost certainly didn't happen. So the major active hardship that Lupin went through was the personal hardship of his transformation. I don't want to make light of that. It would be tough and especially to realize it would be chronic and life-long. But Lupin appears to have been loved by parents (who seem to have done the best they could for him), and liked by his peers. He does well in school and is honored by his school as a prefect. He had a lot to go through, but let's not make it out to be even worse than it actually was. > > Alla: > > I am sorry when did Lupin **willingly** endangered the lives of > hundreds of children? When he forgot about the potion? wynnleaf Of course not! Every time the staff was searching the castle and Lupin knew that a big black dog might be out there which staff might run across, but he never told them that such a dog would be Sirius the supposedly crazed murderer. Every time the staff worried over searching for how the supposedly crazed murderer entered the castle and Lupin *didn't* say "Sirius knows about a secret passage into Hogwarts. Let me show you were it is." That's willing endangerment, because Lupin had a conscious choice and chose to not tell his vital information. Alla There is also IMO very important moment why I am not buying that Dumbledore's trust had been betrayed. It is because Dumbledore himself does not seem to think so ( I mean, if you think that Lupin is a liar, that is a different story, but I am proceeding that he is telling the truth here) "Why?" said Harry. "The Ministry of Magic don't think you were helping Sirius, do they?" Lupin crossed to the door and closed it behind Harry. "No. Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was trying to save your lives." He signed" - PoA, p.309, paperback, british edition. wynnleaf It's perfectly easy for Dumbledore to believe that Lupin ran out to the Shrieking Shack to save their lives, and yet still be quite aware that Lupin broke trust with Dumbledore and the school during the preceding nine months when he didn't give info that only he was privy to. "sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night," said Dumbledore, smiling. "An extraordinary achievement - not least keeping that quiet from me" - p.312, PoA. Alla Dumbledore does not sound too upset to me here either after learning this information. If his trust had been betrayed, shouldn't he had been more upset? wynnleaf Dumbledore wasn't upset at *Sirius* whose conversation he was discussing. If you'll note, Dumbledore didn't say a single thing about Lupin during his talk with Harry, even though he was just present when Lupin was saying sad farewells to Harry. Dumbledore offers no regrets that Lupin left. No comment pro or con about Lupin. It's not Harry's business if Dumbledore had a problem with Lupin's actions as an employee. But Dumbledore makes *no* positive comment about Lupin to Harry. In fact, no comment. And Dumbledore's demeanor when saying goodbye to Lupin had only been described as "soberly," which is pretty ambiguous. While Lupin was obviously tense around Dumbledore and wanted to leave quickly as soon as Dumbledore came through the door, even going so far as to ask Dumbledore not to accompany him to his carriage. I don't think Dumbledore and Lupin had a pleasant meeting earlier that morning. Alla: If Remus believed in Sirius innocence, which of course is not a fact, just I believe that there is a hint of support for it, I think he would have been doing a good deed. wynnleaf No, it would *not* be doing a good deed to assume that whatever gut instinct he may have had that Sirius was innocent was enough to *assume* that Sirius was innocent and not offer vital information that could still help protect the castle. After all, offering up some of that info -- such as the secret passages that Sirius knew of -- would have cost Lupin nothing whatsoever. > > wynnleaf > > I am very hopeful that JKR will ultimately show us that trying to > > judge someone's loyalties by how nice they are isn't always the best > > way. > > > > Alla: > > And I think that this would be the cliche in its own right. The > backwards cliche so to speak. IMO of course. > wynnleaf Is there such a cliche? "You *can* judge a book by it's cover." Something like that, eh? Pleasant people can be counted on to be good. Unpleasant people can be counted on to be bad. I don't think I ever heard cliches like that. Or a literary cliche like, the mean nasty guy in the story always turns out to be the villian. Like a melodrama. wynnleaf (repeated) < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168107 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168082 > > Magpie: > Maybe I'm not understanding, because it seems like you're wanting > it both ways. You're explaining their behavior through RW ideas > (they're a certain calibre of guy), but drawing the line at > assuming that the consequences of their behavior are the same as in > the RW. Mike: Sorry to confuse y'all. ;) I'm not really *wanting* anything. I'm endeavoring to explain the *psyche* of these teenage wizards, and sorry, but I don't have anything other than the RW to base my interpretation upon. At the same time, their *actions* are so far removed from the RW that it is hard to draw a parallel to the RW and still keep them in context of the WW. Does that make sense? > Magpie: > But as far as I can see, werewolves are taken very seriously in > the RW [you mean WW here, right?]. They may be removed from the RW, > but not from the deadly seriousness of the situation. One bite > ruins your life or kills you. Everyone takes werewolves very > seriously, and they've only gotten more serious as the books > progress. Mike: Yes, but at the same time the WW has obviously come up with a way to deal with the werewolves or they would all be werewolves themselves by now, wouldn't they? Werewolves may be terrifying to the Muggles, but in the WW Dumbledore has invited one to attend his school. Then for good measure, he invited one back to teach. All I'm suggesting is that werewolves are not as terrifying as a group to wizards as people in the RW would naturally assume them to be. Sure, we have a few rogue werewolves like Greyback. But I speculate that Death Eaters scare your average wizard more than werewolves do. > Magpie: > But I believe Remus when he says that he understood the danger, > since he's lived with the consequences of being a werewolf most of > his life. I think MWPP's behavior is perfectly understandable given > who they are, but that in this case it's reflecting things that are > genuinely bad about them. In this regard, unexceptional Neville > easily outstrips them and they kind of suck.:-) Because their > actions *are* deadly in their world. Mike: Let me quote some of Remus from PoA: "Before the Wolfsbane Potion was invented, however, I became a fully fledged monster once a month." (p.353) "My transformation in those days were - were terrible. It is very painful to turn into a werewolf. I was seperated from humans to bite, so I bit and scratched myself instead. The villagers heard the noise and the screaming..." (p.353) Can you imagine Remus having to go through that month after month for five years (not counting the time before Hogwarts), before his friends became Animagi and changed his life? "Under their [Marauders] influence, I became less dangerous. My body was still wolfish, but my mind seemed to become less so while was with them." (p.355) Glorious reprieve! He doesn't have to scratch and bite himself to the point of screaming out in so much pain that the villagers think there are particularly nasty spirits in the Shack. Is it any wonder that he chose this life, including the marauding, over the previous? It kind of makes calling their marauding "bad" a little more subjective, doesn't it? And I would like to add one more quote that we seem to forget: "Sirius and James transformed into such large animals, they were able to keep a werewolf in check." (p. 355) And it did work, didn't it? Sirius alone, in a weakened condition after 12 years of Azkaban, stopped and drove off the Werewolf!Lupin, didn't he? In hindsight, even Lupin admits their actions were foolish and dangerous, but as teenagers they still had some contingencies in place. They weren't *completely* reckless. Lastly, Neville standing up to the trio does not prove that the Marauders "suck", imo. ;) I've snipped out the rest to add that I agree, Lupin has shown a distinct lack of courage to stand up and be counted. Never my intention to deny this point. ********************************************* In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168084 Carol responds: Oh, boy. I'm going to regret getting caught in this thread. Mike: No, come on in Carol, the waters just fine. ;D Carol: Now Remus may think that his friends became Animagi to keep him company and to lessen his pain, but it seems to me more likely that they did it to show off their talents and because it would be "cool" to run with a werewolf... but he also no doubt feels that if they didn't have the midnight run with him once a month, they might treat him as they do Wormtail (note Sirius's contemptuous remark about Wormtail wetting himself). Mike: Even if that was James and Sirius' motivation, look what it did for Remus' life, as noted above. I think it's being too negative to only ascribe personal and otherwise derogatory motivations to James and Sirius. They were friends first, Marauders only when they reached their 5th year. I have serious "doubt" that Remus thinks his friends are in it only for the "midnight runs". He is grateful, yes, for their companionship once a month, who wouldn't be in his position? But I don't see how one can extrapolate so far as to believe that James and Sirius are such callous people. Based on what, their treatment of Snape, they are suppose to be heartless towards their friends? I think people read waaaay to much into SWM, and thereby extrapolate way too much. Carol: I'm talking about the teenagers we see in "Snape's Worst Memory," who are anything but "cool" in my opinion, nor do I think JKR wishes us to see them as being so. Mike: Too bad, I still think they are *cool* ;)) OK, maybe "cool" is the wrong word here. How about unique? Extrordinary? Talanted? Whatever you want to call them, I don't think JKR spent 5 years having all these people tell Harry how wonderful his parents were, to have the entire good side of James' ledger cut and pasted onto the bad side of the ledger. One nasty treatment of Snape, while showing off for his erstwhile girlfriend is not the sum total of their existance. And Snape shoving a box of Harry's dad's and Sirius' detentions under his nose is so far out of context that I don't think it's worth responding to. Sirius admits they were berks some times, admits they spent a lot of time in detention. Were they the only ones? Was Snape as pure as the driven snow and not have any detentions himself? Oh, and did Snape only invent "Levicorpus" but never use it himself? Not sure how it became so popular, but there you are. Carol: Anyway, far from obviating normal concerns, greater power should bring with it greater responsibility.... but talent does not excuse the reckless endangerment of fellow wizards any more than it would excuse the reckless endangerment of Muggles. Mike: First off - thank you Uncle Ben (Spiderman)LOL. I stated my views on the degree of recklessness that applies to the Marauder's escapades above. Won't repeat em. My comment on "normal concerns" was my way of saying these aren't *normal* conditions. Trying to draw parallels between their escapades and the RW fall flat, imo. ***************************************** In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168086 wynnleaf: What we *know* is that he was bullied for years by a group of four students who tended to work together and had a convenient map so that they could easily target him (or anyone else) unsuspectingly. Mike: Do we *know* this? Based on one Pensieve scene, that admittedly (or supposedly) Snape's **Worst** Memory? We know that Snape had older Slytherins that took an interest in him. One of them, Lucius Malfoy, continued to take an interest in him well after school. Do we *know* that MWPP weren't on the losing end of many skirmishes in their first few years of school, when Snape still had those older Slytherins around? The Marauder's Map didn't come about until after they had figured out how to become Animagi in their 5th year and after they had time to do a great deal of exploring. And if one believes, as I do, that their marauding ended after the Prank, and that the Prank happened at the end of their 5th year, there doesn't seem to be a lot of time for the map to come into play vis-a-vis Snape. Sorry, but I don't get the feeling that Snape spent 7 years getting bullied. Even while admitting to Harry that James didn't stop with Snape, Sirius told us that Snape didn't miss his chances to hex James either. I seriously doubt that one Pensieve scene defined the entire 7 years of school. wynnleaf: ....we have no evidence that Snape was out trying to attack them other than the "gave as good as he got" (2, 3, or 4 against 1?) excuse that Sirius and Lupin attempt. Mike: Conversely, we have no evidence of the 4 to 1 other than Snape's claim on the lawn in HBP. All we have is one scene, one that is supposed to be Snape's worst. And that scene was mostly one on one, James vs. Severus, until Lily joined in and James got distracted. Which is when Sirius actually did something (casting one Petrificus Totalus) other than jeer. So if that was Snape's Worst, what do you think would comprise Snape's best? I'm having a hard time seeing Snape as being only put upon and not doing some of the putting upon himself. Especially after experiencing him as an adult. Dana: > when the kid loses the one person he was more closely connected > with then anybody else in his short life, he rubs it in by > having the kid re-write their detention cards wynnleaf This is pure speculation on your part. It could be that Snape having Harry do the Marauder's era of detention files was in part to point out to Harry the mistake of following down that path -- the indescriminant hexing in the halls stuff, which Harry was beginning to do in HBP. Mike: How is that speculation on Dana's part? You would seriously have us believe that Snape picked those files for Harry's own good? Snape is described as having "a malicious smile on his lips". His reading of one of the cards is described as "sneered". His last comment was,"It must be such a comfort to think that, though they are gone, a record of their great achievements remains." (HBP, p.532) Oh yeah, Snape is just trying to steer Harry in the right direction. That would be ascribing to Snape a quality he has heretofore not shown, especially with regards to Harry. And I doubt that Harry, or for that matter James and Sirius in their time, were the only ones doing a little hexing in the halls. I seem to recall a fair few folks going to Madam Pomfrey throughout the books after getting hexed in the halls. So I don't buy that as a legitimate attempt to correct of Snape's. **************************************** It is quite hard for James and Sirius to defend themselves when they're dead. And we have been fed a 6 year diet of Snape's position on their relationship without much counterpunching from the likes of Lupin. The few times that Sirius had with Harry were mostly spent on more important concerns, not Snape. Or they included Sirius trying to explain himself and James after a particularly egregious event from their school days. I hope that JKR restores some of the lustre on James armor in DH. Or I'll be feeling like Sherry, that JKR has pulled the rug out from under Harry and killed his father all over again. Mike From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 04:04:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:04:39 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: <026b01c78ad6$52536520$41ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168108 Magpie: I think we can think of Remus as wanting Sirius > to be innocent and maybe not wanting to turn him in. But it doesn't seem > like Remus is *actively* working against Dumbledore in PoA, as he would be > if he thought Sirius was innocent. He's just passively not giving > information. I don't see why he'd have any reason to lie to Dumbledore and > Sirius about that motivation and instead make one up about not wanting to > out himself. Alla: I did not say anything about actively working against Dumbledore, I did not even say that Remus was actively thinking that Sirius was innocent, lol. Because if he was actively thinking that, he is rather rotten friend, if you ask me. He should have done something to try and free Sirius, if he actively believed in his innocence. I believe that Remus may have thought deep inside that Sirius is innocent, that's all. Sort of on subsconscious level. But to me it is enough to consider the possibility that Remus may have had another reason to conceal information besides what he says. > Magpie: > I think Dumbledore, being Dumbledore, is supposed to see Remus' motives for > what they are and so understands his personality. He doesn't think Remus was > actively working against him because he wasn't. He seems to get that Remus > was really just keeping his own personal secret, and everything's turned out > well and he can deal with that. Alla: Let's agree to disagree on whether Remus only motivation was to keep his personal secret, ok? Let's pretend that I am agreeing with it. So, here we have exactly what you described here, agreed. Magpie: > But I still wouldn't say it was uncanonical for someone to say that Remus > had betrayed Dumbledore's trust if they meant that very same thing. For > instance, I don't think it's uncanonical to say that Snape let Dumbledore > down in OotP by not continuing the Occlumency lessons, even though > Dumbledore obviously doesn't consider Snape a traitor for doing it. Or that > Hagrid let him down by spilling the beans about Fluffy. I think when people > talk about Remus betraying trust--and this is just how it comes across to me > in what other people say, so I could be misinterpreting--I think they're > just saying that it's canon that Remus has this very clear limit that we're > aware of. He, Hagrid and Snape all have these limits we've seen. Alla: Let me make sure I understand. When you are talking about betraying DD trust, do you just mean these characters not doing what Dumbledore expected them to do? Or are you also including those characters willingness to endanger other people? Because if you are stopping short on my first sentence, then I can sorta agree, if I forget about my doubts of Remus and Sirius innocence, but if you are including second sentence and then we are back to Remus willingly putting hundreds of kids at risk, then I just do not see it. Magpie: > I'm not explaining this well, but that's more what I think it's about, is > mapping out the weak spots and limits of the characer. Neither Lupin nor > Snape are perfectly in step with Dumbledore. He's aware of their weak spots > and he doesn't think they're reason enough to consider them traitors, but > they're there. I don't think Dumbledore being upset or not is why people > describe their actions this way. It's more about what makes Snape and Lupin > tick than Dumbledore. Alla: But but when we are talking about Snape being a good guy, Dumbledore's unwavering trust in him is given as iron clad reason for Snape to be such a guy, but when I am bring Dumbledore talking about piece of info what Remus concealed and not being upset and telling Fudge that Remus saved lives, isn't it supposed to mean the same thing? That Remus really did not betray DD trust, since DD does not think so. I mean, believe me I get what you are sayiung, it is just I believe that betrayal is not the word I choose here, sorry. To me Peter is the traytor, not Remus who did not tell Dumbledore about them being animagi, which did not lead to anybody's death, you know? > Alla: > > Dumbledore does not sound too upset to me here either after learning > > this information. If his trust had been betrayed, shouldn't he had > > been more upset? > > Magpie: > Not necessarily. He's just admitted his trust was betrayed. He gave Lupin a > chance at school and Lupin did betray it by taking risks as a werewolf. Alla: Where did he admit that his trust was betrayed? I thought he said nothing like that. Magpie: All > these years he never knew about it (he always seems a bit pleased when kids > put one over on him). He's just not angry about it. Similarly, DD tells > Harry in OotP that he thought Snape could get over his issues and teach > Harry Occlumency but he was wrong. So he's saying that Snape let him down > there, but he's also not angry at him. Dumbledore may not always be > successful but he tries to deal with people as individuals with flaws rather > than robots. Alla: He is not just not **angry**. He seemed awfully pleased to me with that "extraordinary achievement". And you know, I wish nothing more for Snape but die painful death or suffer in Azkaban forever. Nevertheless if this is the Snape we are getting who was so painfully hurt and mental that he could not continue Occlumency lessons, so crasy that he cannot distinguish between two Potters, etc, it would not even enter my mind to call it betrayal of trust, you know. I would call such Snape mentally incapacitated and blamed DD for letting him teach, but that is about it. The thing is - I do not think that this is the Snape we are getting, I think Dumbledore exaggerates his mental hurts here, I think Snape executes a cold blooded revenge on James Potter through his son. In any event, I hope I am clear enough :) Let me know if I am not. Mike: > It is quite hard for James and Sirius to defend themselves when > they're dead. And we have been fed a 6 year diet of Snape's position > on their relationship without much counterpunching from the likes of > Lupin. The few times that Sirius had with Harry were mostly spent on > more important concerns, not Snape. Or they included Sirius trying to > explain himself and James after a particularly egregious event from > their school days. I hope that JKR restores some of the lustre on > James armor in DH. Or I'll be feeling like Sherry, that JKR has > pulled the rug out from under Harry and killed his father all over > again. Alla: Okay, just sticking it in another post to say how much I loved every word Mike, I so did :) From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Apr 30 02:53:58 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:53:58 -0400 Subject: Muggle-borns Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168109 My opinion has been that being a wizard is not controlled by a single gene, but by a set of genes. One grants the ability to sense magical energies; another grants the ability to manipulate them; some others, in conjunction with the first two, grant specialized wizardling abilities, such as animagism or seerage--things that not all wizardlings can do. People who have the ability to sense magical energy, but not manipulate them, when born in wizardling families are called 'squibs.' When they are born in muggle families, they are what we call 'mediums', 'psychics', 'clairvoyants', and the like. 'Squibs' could also be in wizardling families people who could manipulate magical energies but cannot sense them; muggle families who produce children with those abilities are the 'lucky' ones--people who narrowly avoid lethal accidents, or who have things turn out well in unlikely circumstances. People who have the third group of genes but neither of the first two are just carriers. Many Squibs, I am sure, leave the wizardling world and marry Muggles. If one were to search the genealogy of most Muggleborns, one could doubtless find a Squib ancestor if one looked hard enough. Remember how Slughorn wondered if Hermione were descended from the famous potioneer with the same surname and she said that she didn't know? If that potioneer had a Squib son, he could easily have been her great-great-grandfather. We don't know Mrs. Granger's maiden name, but if it had been the same as any of the wizards/witches we have met (not a major character, or Hermione would have remarked on it and investigated the matter), we could be fairly sure that there was wizardling blood on both sides. I've also said that it would be a wonderful kick in the pants if Vernon were the person who 'did magic late in life''; to find that he, himself had wizardling blood. . . well, lets just say that he'd be examining the genealogies of any of Dudley's girlfriends very, very carefully. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 05:10:36 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:10:36 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Forays / Snape v James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168110 > Mike: > Glorious reprieve! He doesn't have to scratch and bite himself to the > point of screaming out in so much pain that the villagers think there > are particularly nasty spirits in the Shack. Is it any wonder that he > chose this life, including the marauding, over the previous? It kind > of makes calling their marauding "bad" a little more subjective, > doesn't it? zgirnius: It is not clear to me that the beneficial effect was from being outside. The text suggests the beneficial effect was having their company, which could be achieved without venturing to locations where 'near misses' occured. > Mike: > Too bad, I still think they are *cool* ;)) OK, maybe "cool" is the > wrong word here. How about unique? Extrordinary? Talanted? zgirnius: They are all those things, but none of them are particualrly in evidence in that scene, that I could see. So for that matter, is Snape, and ditto (except that we now know he invented one or two of the spells in use). > Mike: > One nasty treatment of Snape, while showing off for his > erstwhile girlfriend is not the sum total of their existance. zgirnius: It seems, however, to be the consensus that it is a reasonable summation of James throughout much of his school days. Until his head deflated, and he started dating Lily in his seventh year. Aside from his school friends, his other admirers may well be remembering a courageous and active Order member who died trying to protect his wife and son. Something else he did/was after he grew up. > wynnleaf: > What we *know* is that he was bullied for years by a group of four > students who tended to work together and had a convenient map so that > they could easily target him (or anyone else) unsuspectingly. > > Mike: > Do we *know* this? Based on one Pensieve scene, that admittedly (or > supposedly) Snape's **Worst** Memory? We know that Snape had older > Slytherins that took an interest in him. One of them, Lucius Malfoy, > continued to take an interest in him well after school. Do we *know* > that MWPP weren't on the losing end of many skirmishes in their first > few years of school, when Snape still had those older Slytherins > around? zgirnius: We don't know it. But the ongoing nature of the problem is suggested by a couple of different points within the memory, and additional evidence from elsewhere. >From within the memory - Snape's twitchiness and quick reaction to being accosted verbally suggest he knew what might be coming. (Sorry, I don't buy that he tried to attack James and Sirius by himself. Our boy Sev may be brave, but he's not stupid.) And secondly, Lily's comment. James makes her sick, she claims, and she explains why. She does not limit herself to his actions against Snape within the memory itself, she is discussing things she has observed over the course of time. It could be that Snape was only ever a target twice, but given the levels of animosity on both sides, that seems unlikely. Outside the memory, we know of another incident of great seriousness involving Snape and the Marauders. Everyone seems to have agreed that in the course of that incident, James saved Snape's life. It follows, that someone endangered it. Unless a member of the staff told Snape how to get in, the source of the information that Snape should never have gotten was a Marauder. Also outside the memory, we have conversations about Snape and why he was disliked/deserving of bad treatment on occasions in PoA, GoF, and OotP. That he employed his precocious knowledge of the Dark Arts, or his older Slyth pals picked un Gryff underclassmen at his behest, is never metioned. If that were the history, I would expect to have heard about it. > Mike: > And if one believes, as I do, that their > marauding ended after the Prank, and that the Prank happened at the > end of their 5th year, there doesn't seem to be a lot of time for the > map to come into play vis-a-vis Snape. zgirnius: Sorry - do you believe the Prank was before or after the Worst Memory? And by 'Marauding' do you mean picking on Snape? > Mike: > It is quite hard for James and Sirius to defend themselves when > they're dead. And we have been fed a 6 year diet of Snape's position > on their relationship without much counterpunching from the likes of > Lupin. zgirnius: You are exaggerating a bit. Snape does not say a thing about a Marauder to Harry until PoA. We learn that Snape and James were anything but pals from Dumbledore, who does not present Snape's side of the story. If anything, it is closer to James's, since Snape seems to believe James got cold feet after being involved in the planning of the Prank, and Dumbledore suggests nothing of the kind. (To be clear, I believe James was not involved. I make the point only to show that in PS/SS we were decidedly not fed Snape's position.) In PoA Snape for the first time presents his view of James, and unless I am atypical of readers of that book, he gets disregarded in favor of the more reasonable-sounding Lupin, especially since we have already heard so much about James's fine qualities from Hagrid, Dumbledore, and probably other sources that escape me at present. In GoF Snape never once mentions the Marauders, again. Sirius mentions him - we learn about his Slytherin gang and supposed fascination with the Dark Arts. In OotP Snape does, finally, get his day. We see his memory of a schoolday incident and we realize there was a little something noone told us about the Marauders. Well, Snape did. In HBP, Snape again presents his side, through the detentions and the comments he makes to Harry in "The Flight of the Prince". I would not call mentions in three books being "fed a 6 year diet of Snape's position on their relationship". Mike: > I hope that JKR restores some of the lustre on James armor in DH. Or I'll be feeling like Sherry, that JKR has pulled the rug out from under Harry and killed his father all over again. zgirnius: I am afraid I do not understand your position. Is it not that James was a fine human being? And if it is, why does his armor need polishing? From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Apr 30 05:40:34 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:40:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: <463562E6.30406@sprynet.com> References: <700201d40704291455m56241d2fm59b2a646c2c300a5@mail.gmail.com> <463562E6.30406@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <700201d40704292240od6f1e2ducf7408005dbf79ce@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168111 > Kemper wrote earlier: > > To refresh everyone, the prophecy in three easy to digest part: > > > > 1. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... > > > > 2a. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh > > month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he > > will have the power the Dark Lord knows not... > > > > 2b. and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live > > while the other survives.... > > > > 3. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as > > the seventh month dies... > > > > Back to me (Kemper): > > What part of the prophecy did Snape over hear? > > Bart replied: > Yeesh! There was one part of the prophecy, in particular, that puzzled > me, but I think you have solved the puzzle. What you list as "3" is > redundant. Why is it important? > > And the answer is because there are choices. And the very action of > Snape eavesdropping, being found, and being thrown out CHANGES the > prophecy midway. But the series of the events re-affirms the prophecy, > hence the next statement. Kemper now: How is 3 redundant? I don't understand your question nor your corresponding answer, please clarify. Kemper, returning to topic: I'll just use this post as a springboard to address those who might seek to poke holes in this theory. Hole Poker: But Kemper, Dumbledore tells Harry in HBP that Snape 'heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy.' Kemper now: Hole Poker you are right. I believe I was wrong when I asked and answered earlier: > What part of the prophecy did Snape over hear? > I believe it was 2a. I now believe Snape only heard part 3. But I remind you, Hole Poker, that Dumbledore also admits to Harry, 'In fact, being - forgive me - rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger.' So what's DD's huge mistake in this instance? To answer that I have to challenge how DD came to know Snape only heard 'the first half' of the prophecy. The only logical answer is that Aberforth told him what had happened. So Aberforth may have heard the part of the prophecy as well, the last part which sounds suspiciously like the first part. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies... My imaginings of what was going on: DE!Snape is assigned to track DD. DE!Snape is good at sneaking. He already has info that DD's meeting someone at the Hogshead, so he gets there a bit ahead of time orders a drink from Aberforth and sits where he has a good view of the pub. DE!Snape looks at all the the pub's patrons and wonders which one Snape is meeting or if the person is there yet. After a bit of time, DD walks in, but instead of sitting at any table occupied or not, DD walks to where the cheap rooms are. DE!Snape can handle the unanticipated. He waits for a few moments before getting up to learn where and with whom DD is. It is then, when DE!Snape gets up, that he /approaches/ DD and Trelawney. Aberforth notices DE!Snapes absence almost immediately and knows that he did not leave as a lone barkeep has to keep an eye and ear on the entrance/exit. Aberforth knows in these dark times that his brother maybe a target, so he heads to the room where his brother is meeting that kooky witch. Aberforth sees DE!Snape just getting to Trelawney's door and rushes up on him. They both heard part of the prophecy told in 'harsh, horse tones': The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies... DD stops to chat with Aberforth telling him something about losing a lodger the next night, Aberforth tells DD what happened. Mentions the part he and Snape had heard. It sounds suspiciously like the first part of the prophecy. DD mistakes that DE!Snape heard the first part when he only heard the last. DD assumes he heard the part about being 'born to parents who thrice defied him' because DD also assumes, as we did/do, that part 1 and part 3 are referring to the same person. Again, part 1 can refer to Snape as part 3 refers to Harry. Kemper, who's excited about this theory and filling any holes as fast and effectively as he can From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Apr 30 05:40:13 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:40:13 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168112 wynnleaf > I've been searching, but still can't find where any posters > *lately* have been saying that his wrong actions in adulthood > are "excused." Perhaps you could point me to it. Dana: Explaining Snape's behavior by pointing out he might have come from an abusive home, is still excusing his behavior in my book and saying it is disturbing to read him being made fun off because he was so deeply humiliated by the Boggart lesson while he was the cause of that fear in the first place is still excusing his actions. Lupin had every right to let Neville confront his fear even if it was Snape, the boggart would turn in to, it was Snape own actions that let Lupin pick Neville and it were his own actions that caused Neville to fear him above anything else. His humiliation was brought onto himself not by what anyone else did. By the way I have seen people excuse him being a former DE because he had such a bad childhood, that is giving the man excuses for his own choices too. > > wynnleaf > First, we don't know that Lupin had "a great deal more than Snape" > to overcome, because we really don't know enough about either. > However, from JKR's comments and what we see in Lupin's actions, his > past *did* help shape his weaknesses. His weaknesses are not the > same as Snape's. He doesn't act terribly bitter, and insult his > students. On the other hand, we haven't seen Snape risking his > student's lives in order to keep in Dumbledore's good will. On the > contrary, we see him risking his life. So shouldn't we be wondering > why Lupin couldn't get over his past rather than allow his > weaknesses to endanger the lives of little kids? Dana: To me there is a big difference between not being able to get over the past and the past still being very much part of the present. Lupin has no choice to still be confronted by the same problems he was afraid off in his young life, while Snape pretty much chooses to not let go of the past because he never was able to successfully pay them back for it. He doesn't bully his students because he has been bullied or because he had such a bad home life, he bullies his students because it makes him feel all powerful and that is sickening enough to me. He doesn't just insult his students, he installs fear in them. That is not just out of bitterness. We see him gloat about his actions on more then one occasion. He truly enjoys doing it. He endangered the lives of the students in HBP by not actively preventing Draco working out his task. He might have helped Kathy but he actually did nothing that we see on page to prevent Draco from trying and kill DD and yes, we know why because he can't because he will die himself. And many wishful thinkers might actually believe all his actions were out of the goodness of his heart and that he tried to get the DEs out as fast as he could, he did nothing to prevent them to enter the castle in the first place. He could have put the kid into detention the rest of the year; he was his head of house. Oh yes I forgot it was all planned of course to serve the greater good. So I'm sorry but Snape actually did put the students at risk by taking a vow that prevented him from actively acting out against Draco. And this action actually made it possible for a werewolf that feeds on children to roam free within the castle walls. I even am of the opinion he risked the lives of 6 students in OotP to remain his cover and to not take the situation that presented itself more seriously. He risked the lives of students throughout the books come to think of it, when he did not inform DD about Quirrell in book one, he risks the lives of the students by allowing Lockhart to take the lead in CoS and not debating this decision, he risked the lives of the students by not bringing Lupin's potion to the shack and then wanting to drag the werewolf up to the castle while mocking Lupin about forgetting to take it. He risked the lives of the students by not going to DD instead of running after Lupin himself. He risked the lives of the students in GoF by not telling DD that polyjuice potion herbs went missing from his office while this might have been critical information that could have exposed Barty Crouch Jr earlier on. So sorry I do see Snape's actions put many people at risk and he even claims to be responsible for the death of two and we also see that his previous actions of wanting to serve his master have put the lives of many more in danger. He might not have willingly have chosen who LV was going to kill but he surely knew that someone would get killed by bringing LV the prophecy information. He wanted to cause mortal peril to an innocent man because he felt his revenge was more important then to take a moment to listen. He even doesn't want DD to mess with his chance for ultimate revenge and this is a man he was supposedly risking his own life for. He doesn't even blinks and thinks twice about exposing Lupin after being disappointed. Even his treatment of Harry became quite worrisome after Sirius escape but no really the man's actions are not that bad right? wynnleaf > You've just told us the bad stuff he went through, and I agree. But > are you trying to say Sirius overcame all that and became an > exemplary person? What evidence do we have of his overcoming it? > He'd been out of Azkaban for a year when he made the comment *as an > adult* that Snape deserved the werewolf prank that almost took his > life. He insults Snape when he's visiting in his home -- and yes > Snape insults Sirius, too, but in the one example we see, Sirius > starts it and is the first person to draw his wand. Sure, Sirius is > willing to fight for the Order, but so is Snape. So really, I don't > see the evidence that Sirius overcame the problems of his youth. He > continues to do some reckless things even into OOTP, some of which > (like going to the train station) affect his ability to be of help > to the Order. Dana: Yes, Sirius had serious problems with the past because he had been reliving the worst of it for 12 years not considering his life worthy of anything and he is only there to serve Harry and he cares pretty much about nothing else. He replaced his own family with a new one that died the night of LV's down fall. He did not have a life in between the time James died and his escape from Azkaban so he actually is still stuck in the same loop but what is Snape's excuse, he has been a teacher for 14 years and no Voldemort to worry about. Maybe he was right maybe Snape did deserve it because we actually do not know what Snape contribution was in it. And unless Sirius dragged him and dropped him in front of Lupin the werewolf then it was pretty much Snape's own responsibility. Personally I do believe Sirius when he says Snape was always trying to get them expelled and that it played a part in them even being able to play a trick on Snape and if he had gotten more then he could chew because of it then he actually brought it on to himself. Sorry you might disagree but I would not change my mind about someone deserving it either if he got himself into it. I even would not be surprised if all the marauders where in it and Sirius just took the fall for it single handily. I think wanting to help the Order what Snape concerns is still debatable. Snape insults Sirius from the moment he brings his so- called reports and Snape had his hand on his wand before Sirius pulled out his. It is Snape that should have shown some respect, Sirius is not in that situation by choice, he can't proof to the MoM that he is innocent as long as they do not want to accept LV has returned. It is also Harry that Sirius reacts to and not Snape, it only escalates when Snape insults both Harry and James. > wynnleaf > The question in this case really isn't is it understandable that > Neville's boggart was Snape -- it was. Nor is it a question of > whether or not Snape "deserved" to be made fun of in Lupin's class. > The real question is whether Lupin was doing a responsible thing, as > a teacher in the school, to handle such a difficulty between a > student and another teacher in such a public way that opened the > other teacher to public ridicule. I don't actually think it's any > teacher's place to make a judgement call as to whether a fellow > teacher should be put up for ridicule in front of the students. Dana: Yes, but Lupin could not know Neville's Boggart would be Snape and if he had said well Neville can't deal with your fear now then he would put Neville down again in front of the whole class. It had nothing to do with wanting to humiliate Snape and if Snape would have been nicer to Neville he wouldn't have ended up being his Boggart, now would he. And Snape did not show Lupin any respect either by telling him how to run his class and calling him by his last name. Snape made a fool out of himself and Lupin merely wanted to stand up for Neville being degraded in front of the whole class and a new teacher. I do think Lupin made a responsible choice by not putting Neville down again because his fear would not be morally appropriate to address, what would that have told Neville? Well Neville to bad you have to face you fear in private because we do not want to humiliate Snape while he can put you down when ever he wants? The thing Neville fears most wasn't Lupin's choice nor his responsibility but addressing that fear was part of the lesson and would help Neville beyond that lesson as well because now, even though Snape bullied him even more, he would never have the same impact on the kid. He only had to picture Snape in his grandmother's dress to relieve his anxiety and Snape bullying is nothing Lupin can do about, it is Snape personal choice to treat his students that way. wynnleaf > As I outlined in another post recently, Lupin came to POA already > having a hard time holding a job because of his condition and the > Ministry knew about it as well, so it was hardly a secret. The > students and most parents probably didn't know, but obviously many > others must have known. Further, Umbridge's restrictions began > during POA (we only hear about them in OOTP) Dana: I believe JKR inserted these restrictions as a direct result of the Sirius Black incident and Lupin's involvement and the social pressure of having a werewolf as a teacher. It was Snape that caused these restrictions by telling his house as most are against anything that isn't pure blood. It might have been a direct result of Draco complaining about it to his dad as we see him being so very social with Umbridge and Fudge too. Still it was childish of Snape to out Lupin like that just because he didn't get his way and it did make Lupin resign his job. What Lupin did had nothing to do with Snape but what Snape did had everything to do with Lupin. wynnleaf > Actually, that's not what I tend to think of, although it's possible > he did have such an abusive home. What we *know* is that he was > bullied for years by a group of four students who tended to work > together and had a convenient map so that they could easily target > him (or anyone else) unsuspectingly. Although we see lots of > evidence of the Marauders getting in trouble (detention records and > a few comments by, I believe, McGonagall), we have no evidence that > Snape was out trying to attack them other than the "gave as good as > he got" (2, 3, or 4 against 1?) excuse that Sirius and Lupin > attempt. Dana We also hear that he ran with a gang of Slytherins and we see most of them are much older then Snape and thus it is not hard to imagine they terrorized the school before the marauders got the chance to do so. We hear Umbridge tell Snape, Lucius speaks so highly of him. Snape is a Slytherin and one of their characteristics is being very cunning just because Sirius and James made no secrets of their pranking doesn't mean Snape did nothing, he was just sneaky about it or sniveled his way out of it. He is still slithering out of action and never taking the heat face on. We also see Snape's own spells being used by Lucius at the World Cup and he gets angry about his own spells being used against him by Harry just as his filthy father. I think Snape would have practiced his spells to see if they worked for others to copy them unless of course you believe someone stole his book, which I do not. What I actually witnessed in the pensieve scene is Snape losing from James regardless of Sirius presents. After Snape cuts James cheek he had his wand in hand and Sirius does nothing but within a few flashes of light he is hanging up side down. Of course he would say he could not win from them because they were with more but I actually think he just couldn't win because James reflexes were better even if he faced him alone and this is why Lupin says Snape cursed James at every chance he got, probably when James had his back turned. And we actually see Snape lied because Wormtail and Lupin did not participate at all. And I believe it was always just Sirius and James, either together or separate. wynnleaf > This is pure speculation on your part. It could be that Snape > having Harry do the Marauder's era of detention files was in part to > point out to Harry the mistake of following down that path -- the > indescriminant hexing in the halls stuff, which Harry was beginning > to do in HBP. Remember that even Dumbledore, immediately following > Sirius' death, had no problem with going over some of Sirius' > mistakes with Harry. Dana: Speculation on my part? Let's see pg 497/498 UKed HBP, `It must be such a comfort to think that, though they are both gone, a record of their great achievements remains ' End quote canon. Yes, Snape is such a great teacher, lets teach the kid some manners by having him reminded his great idols in life are both DEAD. And have him go over and over it by copying their names a few times while Harry doesn't want to talk about Sirius through out the book. And what does Harry learn, right to hate Snape even more and to use his spells again this time against the man himself. Dumbledore was wrong and I believe we will see how wrong he was in DH. His version of Sirius treatment of Kreacher does not fit with what we see of Sirius and Kreacher's interactions. Sirius did not treat Kreacher indifferently, we see him actively hate him and visa versa. It looked more like sibling rivalry then Sirius treating Kreacher as a slave. Harry was right Dumbledore is very illogical about Snape's hate for Harry being somehow different then Sirius hate for Kreacher. Sirius doesn't even let go of Kreacher because he thinks having him leave the house would kill the poor thing not just because he knows too much. wynnleaf > Lupin's actions aren't right or wrong because of Snape's childhood. > But the fact that it was *Lupin* himself who is in part responsible > for that childhood *does* make a difference when we see him > continuing to take advantage of opportunities to ridicule Snape as > an adult. Dana: You are playing the innocent victim card here while there is absolutely no proof Snape was innocent just because we were able to witness the marauders attacking Snape once. I always find it interesting that in many cases the Harry filter excuse is used to clarify someone's actions if it proofs to be negative like for instance Harry's hate for Snape but when Harry sees Snape reacting fast to James call, it is suddenly proof that Snape was bullied on a regular basis. I think he wasn't he just hated not being able to get them as he would have liked. JMHO If Snape was really bullied on a regular basis why wasn't he more on the alert to see where these guys were? He's walking right after them, apparently not really afraid he might run into them. I think it is ridiculous to think he didn't notice, and if he just followed the people in front of him then he should have ended up with the girls because they were separating him from James and his friends. He looked were he was going otherwise he would not have been able to sit down just a few feet away, he would have passed them if he was so intend on his paper to notice his surroundings. Again JMHO. wynnleaf > I'm not sure what you mean by "gets away with everything." > Obviously he doesn't in the books. And it's the rare reader who, > even if thinking Snape is loyal and has admirable qualities, thinks > that Snape is perfectly fine in insulting students. Hey, even those > of us that *like* him think he can be pretty petty and cruel > sometimes. Perhaps you could explain what "gets away with" actually > means. Qualities of what? Being able to fool two overlords, to one let him live and to the other for not sending him to Azkaban? We see him getting away with being a DE, we see him have a generous time enjoying himself at the expense of his students, we see him out live the people he hates most and actually being responsible for the death of one of them and claiming to be for the other and we see him get away with murder because so many fan's believe he must have done it for the greater good. So yes, I'd say he pretty much gets away with anything because DD trust him. He is never blamed for anything he has done wrong and he has been awarded for it generously, while he takes away as much pleasure he possibly can from others. Where do we see Snape take the heat? (Besides from Harry and Sirius) He is even excused for hating Harry and not wanting to learn the kid occlumency anymore. Oh of course that was Harry's fault because Snape was such a poor kid that couldn't get passed his past. JMHO Dana From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 03:32:14 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:32:14 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168113 > Dana: > Lupin had to overcome a great deal more then Snape ever had > to deal with but we don't see him bullying little defenseless > children or try to have someone's soul sucked out. Montavilla47: No, we don't see Lupin bullying children. We see Lupin endangering children. Snape has his flaws. Lupin has his. > Dana: > Dear sweet Snape is so misunderstood and was humiliated so > deeply because he was some kid's Boggert and then this > Boggert!Snape was dressed in woman's cloths? Montavilla47: I actually agree with you about this. While I'm sure Snape didn't appreciate being the butt of the joke in D.A.D.A. class, I'm sure it isn't the worst thing that ever happened to him. In fact, we know it's not, because his reaction to the vulture hat doesn't come close to his reactions to 1) Dumbledore saying that Snape owed James for saving his life and 2) everything about Sirius in the Shrieking Shack. > Dana: > And what does this misunderstood hero do? He bullies the kid > even further and fiercer than before and when he isn't able > to punish the insulter, in what he considers an appropriate > way, he outs him, ruining his already hard life even further. Montavilla47: I'm not going to disagree with you, Dana. But I would like to offer an alternate reading. Snape outed Lupin after Lupin confessed to holding back information that was truly important-- Sirius being able to assume the form of a dog and that there were several secret passages that led in and out of the castle that he could use. > Dana: > No, really we should have some compassion for Snape because > maybe his father hit his mother Montavilla47: It only seems fair to have some compassion for Snape if we're going to have it for Sirius's home life. At least Sirius had a brother to commiserate with (and once he met James, a very supportive friend and adoptive parents). Snape had to deal with his parents alone, as far as we can tell. > Dana: > And of course let's not forget him not getting over his hatred > for James and him allowing himself to take it out on the man's > son and even worse, when the kid loses the one person he was > more closely connected with than anybody else in his short > life, he rubs it in by having the kid re-write their detention > cards but for some reason everybody insulting or humiliated > Snape is condemned because the guy had such a bad childhood > and was hung by his feet a couple of times. Montavilla47: Again, I don't think we have to tally up score points for all this. I suspect that Snape had some point to the detentions he gave Harry, beyond a desire to see James's son suffer. I think it may have had something to do with the escalation of mischief that the Marauders did, with the escalation of mischief that Harry committed that year. In the world according to Snape, the Marauders nearly killed him for a joke. Then he sees Harry (who has been playing with Snape's old spells for fun throughout the year) nearly kill Draco. Perhaps Snape is hoping that Harry will make the connection between his recklessness and the the Prank. Or maybe he's just being a jerk. Montavilla47 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 04:06:31 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:06:31 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: <026b01c78ad6$52536520$41ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168114 > Alla: > I mean, twelve years passed and Remus believes Sirius the moment > he saw Peter on the map. So, yes, I do think it was possible, > totally that he believed deep inside in Sirius innocence. No > convincing was needed from Sirius that he is innocent, at all, > to me it means something. Montavilla47: I have to disagree with you slightly here. Lupin didn't necessarily believe that Sirius was innocent when he saw Peter on the map. What that did was tell him that something about the whole Peter/Sirius story in the first war was terribly off. So, he went to investigate. It wasn't until he saw Sirius and looked in his face that he realized that Sirius wasn't going to murder Harry. Even then, he didn't understand everything. While he's telling the kids what happened, he's figuring it out for himself. That's why it takes him three chapters to get through the story. Montavilla47 From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Apr 30 10:37:16 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:37:16 -0000 Subject: The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: <700201d40704291455m56241d2fm59b2a646c2c300a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > To refresh everyone, the prophecy in three easy to digest part: > > 1. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... > > 2a. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh > month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he > will have the power the Dark Lord knows not... > > 2b. and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live > while the other survives.... > > 3. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as > the seventh month dies... I think it is most interesting when you put all this together. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have the power the Dark Lord knows not and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies. If you consider the middle sentence, it really doesn't flow i.e. it doesn't sound like one whole sentence. If you compare this prophecy to the prophecy that we have actually heard first hand i.e. Trelawney to Harry, you will find that there are no long pauses (....) between sentences. It is a perfectly constructed paragraph. Therefore, maybe you should be asking yourself exactly which parts of the prophecy DD 'allowed' Harry to hear. And therefore which parts of the prophecy has Snape heard and how does this compare with what Harry has heard. I agree with you that part of the prophecy may have concerned Snape. I do think the bulk of the prophecy concerns Harry, and it is Harry that will ultimately have to finish off LV. However, I do like your theory on marking Snape as equal. If you consider the following part of the prophecy; '... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have the power the Dark Lord knows not...' At both ends it is separated by pauses i.e. IMO we have not heard the full sentence. Let us postulate that this actually refers to one of LV's followers who will assist in his eventual destruction. DD could not allow Harry to hear this piece of information. He is too poor at occlumency and there is a risk that LV would find out. This is why the prophecy is so fragmented - we haven't heard it all. This also suggests that Snape would not have heard this part at first i.e. he only heard up to the bit on 'born to parents who have thrice defied him'. So IMO, Harry is the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord, but the prophecy also implicates an accomplice - one Severus Snape. Brothergib From jamess at climaxgroup.com Mon Apr 30 10:45:24 2007 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:45:24 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Peter used Harry's wand to transform into a rat in the book? WAS: Movie Confusion Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39EAB@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 168116 > > > wrote: > > > What actually gets me about this whole subject is why did Peter > > Pettigrew need a wand to change back to a rat, but Sirius didn't > > need one to turn back into a dog? Debi: > It's a case of movie vs book, He used a wand in the movie but not > in the book. I would suppose the screen writer assumed it would be > more consistent that because Peter was turned into a man by wand he should turn back into a rat by wand. Liz: In the book, didn't Petter steal Harry's wand to turn back into a rat? If not, then sorry, I'm mistaken. But I was just thinking that even though he was tied up, he could have turned into a rat at anytime to get away. So if that's true, then maybe if you force someone to come out, then they need a wand to turn back. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. =) James: That seems like a plausible explanation. The spell cast against peter was some kind of Animagus ability blocker. He used the wand to remove it, not to transform. He was just able to transform naturally afterwards. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Mon Apr 30 10:01:27 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:01:27 -0000 Subject: Persecution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168117 > > Ann wrote earlier: > << I don't think the foundation of Hogwarts had anything to do with persecution from outside. >> > Catlady replied: > It DID influence the LOCATION of the school. As Professor Binns said in CoS, "You all know, of course, that Hogwarts was founded over a thousand > years ago - the precise date is uncertain - by the four greatest witches and wizards of the age. > They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." Ann: Whoops... thanks for the canon... I think it would have been established anyway, though, and that doesn't explicitly say that it was founded in response to a particular persecution. (A problem with the 1692 date for Seclusion is that it's *after* the English witch-hunts, the Civil Wars, and the Glorious Revolution. If anything, Britain should have been safe for wizardkind by then; and if it wasn't, they would surely have hidden themselves earlier. Ann From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 12:15:50 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:15:50 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168118 zgirnius: It seems, however, to be the consensus that it is a reasonable summation of James throughout much of his school days. Until his head deflated, and he started dating Lily in his seventh year. Alla: LOL. Consensus among whom? I think Pensieve scene is going to turn out to so very not a reasonable summation of James' schooldays. I think it will turn out to be one of the episodes in the war between Marauders and Snape and gang of Slytherins he belonged to, not one of the episodes of yearly bullying of dear Severus by Marauders, but we shall see whether I am right or wrong soon, hehhe. Dana: We also see Snape's own spells being used by Lucius at the World Cup and he gets angry about his own spells being used against him by Harry just as his filthy father. I think Snape would have practiced his spells to see if they worked for others to copy them unless of course you believe someone stole his book, which I do not. Alla: Dana, I really loved your post and I also think that there was a reason why half a school knew Levicorpus and that reason may support very much Snape using his spells often, or showing off to his Slytherin pals, etc. But I am wondering if you could remind me what spells of Snape dear Lucius used at the World Cup? Could you give me page? Thanks. From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 30 13:35:17 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:35:17 -0000 Subject: Neville's Boggart / The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168119 > Carol: > He suggests having Sirius test him on Transfiguration, to which Sirius responds, "I don't need to study that rubbish. I know it all" (OoP Am. ed. 645). Kvapost: (in Umbridge's voice) May I just suggest a teeny-tiny correction here. :) And it is indeed teeny tiny. I don't like Sirius at all and he *was* being rude to Remus, but he didn't say he needn't *study* this rubbish. I reckon he did study hard. "'I'm bored', said Sirius. 'Wish it was full moon.' 'You might', said Lupin darkly from behind his book. 'We've still got Transfiguration, if you're bored you could test me. Here...' and he held out his book. But Sirius snorted. 'I don't need to look at that rubbish, I know it all.'" So he's just saying he doesn't need Remus' book to test Remus, he knows Transfiguration well enough to do it without one. Which is still rude and condescending towards Remus (who *does* need the book) but he's just being Sirius. Kvapost From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 13:45:32 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:45:32 -0000 Subject: Greyback's background (was: An Analysis of the Skirmish at Hogwarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168120 > Mike: > > For my own perspective, I don't think Greyback was a wizard and > therefore not formally a DE. He falls into the category of LV's > allies, as LV expounded upon in the Graveyard scene. It has been > noted that he doesn't have a wand, and his 'wizard' robes are noted > as ill-fitting, as if they aren't his in the first place. > Neri: I'm sure this was pointed out before, but perhaps not in this context - the first time we hear Greyback's name is in Spinner's End, when Snape mentions him together with several prominent DEs including Lucius: "You ask why I did not attempt to find him when he vanished. For the same reason that Avery, Yaxley, the Carrows, Greyback, Lucius" ? he inclined his head slightly to Narcissa ? "and many others did not attempt to find him. I believed him finished." It is obvious from this that Greyback was an important figure in Voldemort's first circle already during VW1, whether formally or not. Snape's motivation in this paragraph is showing Bella that he (Snape) isn't guilty of anything that many other distinguished DEs aren't guilty of, so it wouldn't be politic of him to mention someone controversial here, especially not a muggle, which is likely to raise Bella's blood pressure higher. All the two-and-a-half werewolves we know so far in the series appear to be wizards when bitten (Lupin and Bill were, and there's no mention of the man in Arthur's ward in OotP being a muggle). Therefore I tend to think that most or all werewolves were wizards when bitten. Greyback not using a wand could be a result of him not attending Hogwarts, if he was also bitten in his early childhood. It appears that Lupin attending Hogwarts was an unheard-of precedent. Also, I suspect that Greyback despises using a wand as a part of his anti-wizard ideology, and it might actually prove effective in battle as a terror tactics. Normal wizards are used to fighting against other wand-carrying wizards since their school days, and most jinxes they normally employ aren't lethal or even very long lasting. From their point of view a werewolf bite is the unconventional weapon. It has the added horror effect that in the muggle world anthrax has over just plain old gunshots. Neri From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 30 13:51:42 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:51:42 -0000 Subject: DH info on the Marauders and Snape was Nitwit Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168121 >Dana > Maybe he was right maybe Snape did deserve it because we actually do > not know what Snape contribution was in it. wynnleaf You know, I don't think there's much argument that I can make that will do much good when the perspective is that a 16 year old might be the victim of attempted murder and "deserve it." We have no real evidence that Snape ever did *anything* to the Marauders other than defend himself and not even James can come up with any reason to have attacked Snape when Lily -- the girl he wants to look good for - - asks him why. Yet you *still* want to suppose that perhaps Snape "deserved" attempted murder. If Snape wanted to get the Marauders expelled, one can hardly blame him. Who *wouldn't* want a group of bullies out of there, when they targeted him so much? Sorry, but 16 year Snape didn't "deserve" attempted murder, even if it would not have been premeditated (which it was, even if murder was not the intent. But it's almost pointless to argue the finer details if that's your opinion. Dana Personally I do believe Sirius when > he says Snape was always trying to get them expelled and that it > played a part in them even being able to play a trick on Snape and if > he had gotten more then he could chew because of it then he actually > brought it on to himself. Sorry you might disagree but I would not > change my mind about someone deserving it either if he got himself > into it. wynnleaf Well, there you go. A kid is being bullied. He sees a chance to get some proof of wrongdoing that could get the bullies expelled. He breaks the rules and goes out at night (Oh! how horrible! the Marauders would *never* do such a thing!), and if he "got himself" into that trouble, he "deserved it." He deserved what?? To die? Honestly! Mean Snape was trying to get those sweet Marauders who weren't doing anything to hurt anyone -- just boys being boys putting the whole community's lives in danger -- but who cares? They're the good guys. Anyone trying to get them caught in their rulebreaking and get them expelled, so they can't bully anyone anymore, deserves it if one of the Marauders tricked him into a deadly situation. Right. Good grief. Another comment that applies to several arguments of Dana's and Alla's. There is an idea that we're going to learn some new information in DH that shows how bad Snape was as a student -- something that will show how culpable he was during that time that those much maligned Marauders (huh?) were getting detentions right and left, chasing around the countryside endangering the community, and bullying people. There's two problems with this. 1. JKR is not writing, nor going to write, "The Exhaustive History of the Marauders and Snape" which covers their day-to-day activities throughout school. So whatever she actually puts down on the page, that's all we'll have to go by. No amount of suppositions ("Snape could have been hexing people constantly. Just because we're not told doesn't mean he wasn't," is no argument at all once the 7th book is published. It's hardly any argument now. Because all we have to go on is what we're told. And if we're given no evidence or hint of a thing, we can't just suppose it to be true. 2. All readers expect revelations in Book 7. But apparently many readers do not really expect surprise twists. And surprise twists is what JKR likes best (yes, she's said so), so we *should* expect them. Not just new info and revelations, but things that create surprise twists. Surprise twists are surprises for the protagonist. This is important, because typically, the reader is supposed to be following the protagonist's path. After 6 books, the die-hard fans have theories all over the place, that Harry himself would never suspect. We may not be too surprised regardless what the twist. So the surprise twist is mainly what surprises Harry and any readers who mainly just follow Harry's point of view. Further, surprise twists are not new pieces of info that only serve to add a bit more color to an already revealed character or incident. Surprise twists aren't things that show us that the character Harry thought was bad really was bad, or that the character Harry thought was good and noble is, yes indeed, good and noble after all. The books thus far have been primarily seen through Harry's point of view. Through Harry, Snape is seen as really mean, nasty, and now the evil traitor. Therefore any surprise twists for Snape will only counter this picture, not support it. Otherwise, they aren't surprise twists. Of course, there won't be surprise twists for every character and incident, only a few. But the most likely areas for surprise twists are in characters and incidences where JKR is concealing a lot. For instance, if we know JKR is concealing a lot about Godrics Hollow (and we do know it), then the surprises she'll reveal almost certainly will *not* be mundane and only verify the story that Harry now knows. The concealed info about Godrics Hollow will almost definitely lead Harry into a surprising twist of perspective. That's just the way it works. Ditto for Snape as a character, his history, and probably the Shrieking Shack incident. JKR is concealing a lot. She isn't concealing it simply to confirm the picture of Snape that Harry already has -- mean, nasty and evil traitor. She's concealing it so that she can surprise Harry and thereby readers that follow Harry (which granted, many die-hard fans don't). Therefore, arguments that we're going to find out in book 7, heretofore concealed information that will only confirm to Harry and the reader that Snape is mean and bad, are highly, highly unlikely. The concealed information -- especially any info that's been concealed for the entire season -- is going to surprise Harry, not just confirm his thoughts and attitudes and suppositions. Otherwise, there was very little point in keeping the info concealed in the first place. If Snape is really evil, we probably won't find much of any new information on his youth. Because any new info that only confirms his nastiness isn't valuable to Harry who's already convinced of it anyway. wynnleaf From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 30 14:15:47 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:15:47 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Forays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168122 > Carol responds: > Oh, boy. I'm going to regret getting caught in this thread. Let me > just say that, code or no code, what the Marauders are doing is very > dangerous, and Remus seems to be the one who recognizes this danger > most clearly. He, after all, is the werewolf, the one who would do the > biting, killing or creating a new werewolf if anything goes wrong. For > the other boys, however, it's a great adventure. Note that Sirius > says, "I'm bored. Wish it was a full moon" and Remus responds > "darkly," "You might." He suggests having Sirius test him on > Transfiguration, to which Sirius responds, "I don't need to study that > rubbish. I know it all" (OoP Am. ed. 645). > > I don't know how you would react to a response like that, but I would > consider it rude and arrogant. Sirius is bored. Nothing else matters, > including Remus's feelings. It's not a full moon and studying is > beneath him, as is helping his non-Animagus friend to study for > Transfiguration. (I won't mention the antidote for boredom that arises > later since I'm focusing on Remus, not Severus, at the moment.) > > All of the interaction that we see, aside from that little remark, > between Moony and his fellow Marauders relates to his being a > werewolf. (He might as well not be a Prefect since he hides behind a > book when his friends act in a way he disapproves of.) To begin with, > there's his nickname. Then there's Sirius's and James's reaction to > the DADA exam, which focuses solely on the werewolf question. Lupin > joins in the joking, but "implores" James to keep his voice down when > James says, "How thick are you, Wormtail? You run with a werewolf once > a month?" (643). Sirius and James brag about their performance on the > exam. End of exchange. > > Now Remus may think that his friends became Animagi to keep him > company and to lessen his pain, but it seems to me more likely that > they did it to show off their talents and because it would be "cool" > to run with a werewolf. Remus is in no position to criticize them, in > case kindness to him is part of their motive, but he also no doubt > feels that if they didn't have the midnight run with him once a month, > they might treat him as the do Wormtail (not Sirius's contemptuous > remark about Wormtai wetting himself). He doesn't have Wolfsbane > potion (it has't been invented yet). Running with his friends is the > only thing that makes his transformations bearable. He knows it's > dangerous, knows he should tell his friends not to do it, but he > can't. he feels that he owes them a debt of gratitude, and he fears to > lose their friendship. As far as I can see, they don't know Remus at > all. He hasn't shared in their self-taught Animagus lessons (and > consequently doesn't share Sirius's attitude that he "knows it all"). > What does Remus, a quiet boy who fears the loss of friendship above > all else have in common with the egotistical Quidditch star who's > always showing off or the arrogant handsome Sirius, who can't be > bothered to acknowledge a female classmate's smile? Would he be their > friend if he weren't a werewolf? wynnleaf Your recent post on Lupin and the Marauders was excellent. I especially liked the way you analyzed the dynamics of the conversation in the Worst Memory scene. As I've been thinking this through the past couple of days, I was especially struck by the fact that Lupin does not really remember those nights. It really wasn't *him* that was getting a lot of fun out of those jaunts with the animagi Marauders. His main benefit from it is the sense of belonging, etc. that he gets *aside* from those nights. It's James, Sirius, and Peter that are having a great lark running with the werewolf. The more I thought about it, the more that Lupin seemed to be just used. I recall an incident when one of my daughters had almost no friends and was trying to do whatever possible to get "in" with a popular crowd. A couple of the girls started to get her to do various things for them, and after awhile I could tell that there was no true friendship, they were just using her willingness to go along with them to their own advantage. And she was going along just for the illusion of having friends. Fortunately, there was no dangerous activity, but as my daughter got a little older, she could tell she was being used and dropped the relationships, finding more real friends. Anyway, it's an interesting thought to the Marauder dynamic. < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168123 Montavilla47: > No, we don't see Lupin bullying children. We see Lupin > endangering children. Snape has his flaws. Lupin has his. Dana: We see Snape endangering these same students by not taking Lupin's potion with him to the shack and even worse, wanting to drag the werewolf to the castle on a full moon night. If you want to blame Lupin then you can blame Snape for the same mistake. Snape was endangering the lives of the children in much the same way because he knew too that Lupin forgot to take his potion. It might not have been his responsibility for Lupin to take it but the moment he choose to act out on his own instead of informing DD about it, he made it his responsibility. The problem is that Snape could not go to DD because he had been nagging about Lupin all year, actively trying to prevent him being hired for the job and now he had him, he could proof he was right and DD was wrong. He finally could get the marauders expelled like he probably had set out to do the night of the prank. When Snape went to the shack it was not because he was so concerned about Harry because he didn't even know he was there until he found his invisibility cloak and still it is not enough to go to DD and inform him Lupin hasn't taken his potion and that he believes both Harry and Lupin are in the shack, no we see him go up there take his mighty time listening on the conversation instead of immediately acting out and that he is only concerned with getting his personal revenge. If Sirius and Lupin really posing a threat to these kids then why did Snape listen in on Lupin telling his story for about 10 minutes? That is not the action of a man that hurried out of the castle to capture what he believed to be a killer out to get Harry. Sirius is actually doing nothing just sitting there making occasional comments for Lupin to hurry up. The man is petting a cat while he supposed to be a ragging murderous lunatic. Montavilla47: > I'm not going to disagree with you, Dana. But I would like to > offer an alternate reading. Snape outed Lupin after Lupin > confessed to holding back information that was truly important-- > Sirius being able to assume the form of a dog and that there > were several secret passages that led in and out of the castle > that he could use. Dana: Since when is it up to Snape to act out as judge, jury and executioner all at the same time? It was not up to Snape to punish Lupin for his actions because his actions had nothing to do with Snape. Lupin did not owe Snape an explanation for his actions not in the present and not in the past in relation to the marauders becoming animagi. Snape did not out Lupin, out of moral obligations but out of revenge because he did not get his the previous night and again they got a way with it, hanging Snape out to dry. DD made an active choice to not hand over Lupin to Fudge and this should have been enough for Snape because DD once did the same for him when he was accused of being a DE and he had been a DE, while Lupin did NOT help Sirius even if he omitted information but we see Snape omitting information about individuals throughout the books. He knew Lucius, Bellatrix and many others had been DEs but he never ratted them out after the first war. (And yes Bella did get away with it at first until she got caught after torturing the Longbottoms). We see him not inform DD on various things he has information on that could have dramatically changed the course of events but no we have to condemn Lupin because he did not wanted to reveal emotionally loaded information about Sirius. Yes, he was wrong but he made a human mistake, while Snape's actions are most often deliberate and calculated because he wants to be the hero himself. And the passages I think we pretty much can relieve Lupin from responsibility for not telling about these because it was DD's responsibility to know the castle better then any student and make sure it is a safe place. These passages were there for a long time, long before Lupin attended Hogwarts and if they could find them then so could DD. Montavilla47: > It only seems fair to have some compassion for Snape if we're > going to have it for Sirius's home life. At least Sirius had > a brother to commiserate with (and once he met James, a very > supportive friend and adoptive parents). Snape had to deal > with his parents alone, as far as we can tell. Dana: Sirius brother believed in his parent's pure blood mania, he did not have his support and had to deal with standing up to his parents alone. Sirius made an active choice to befriend James and dedicating himself to him like a brother. Snape made an active choice to deal with his problematic home life on his own; it is not because he was unable to make friends. Seeing his brother go to waste because he did not act up against his parents and him getting killed for joining up the DEs as a result of their parents indoctrination might have been harder on Sirius then for Snape having to deal with his parents during school holidays. Sirius lost everything in the first war, his brother and father were dead already, no making amends with them even if he had wanted to and he then lost his second family and he was not allowed to take Harry. He lost his other friends when the stress of war caused confusion and distrust. And then we see him lose his freedom for being set up by one of his supposed friends. What did Snape lose? Actually we see him lose nothing. His parents might still be alive for all we know. He did not have to go through the heartache of losing those he loved and being disowned by his family for having different believes. The only thing we see him lose is his dignity and he makes people pay for that dearly. Sorry but I do not have any compassion for Snape and JKR even implies Snape had been loved by someone, who I believe to be his mother as she compares this love to LV's lack of it. Montavilla47: > Again, I don't think we have to tally up score points for all > this. I suspect that Snape had some point to the detentions he > gave Harry, beyond a desire to see James's son suffer. I think > it may have had something to do with the escalation of mischief > that the Marauders did, with the escalation of mischief that > Harry committed that year. > > In the world according to Snape, the Marauders nearly killed > him for a joke. Then he sees Harry (who has been playing with > Snape's old spells for fun throughout the year) nearly kill > Draco. Perhaps Snape is hoping that Harry will make the > connection between his recklessness and the the Prank. Dana In Snape's world everybody is to blame but Snape and he has everyone repay their dues because he believes they owe it to him. It was Snape invention that Harry used, that means that he holds responsibility for Harry even being able to get his hands on it. If Snape had seen the errors of his ways then he should have burned the book while he had the chance. Snape was reckless too in the prank because according to many he was bullied by the marauders frequently but he still takes Sirius up on his advice to check out what Lupin is up to. How come Snape doesn't understand that there is a specific reason Lupin is hidden behind a murderous tree and brought there by the school nurse. Are they having a private picnic he wanted to join in on? No, Snape went there because he thought he could get the marauders out of his hair once and for all and therefore he was as much responsible for what happened that night as Sirius, or maybe even more because he made an active choice to go in, no one forced him to listen to Sirius. You can't be tricked in to doing something if you do not want to participate in it, unless you are gagged and then thrown in to the wolves den and that is not how the story was told because according to Lupin, Snape could not resist to try to get passed the tree after he had been told how too and then James came in after him to drag him out, not to drag him in. Snape's claim that he could have gotten killed because of the joke is him washing himself of any responsibility like we see him do with many other things in the books. Like for instance putting the blame back at Harry for not believing Snape was actually going to check out, Sirius was okay without Snape even coming back to let him know. DD excuses Snape again that he could not have acted any other way but how was Harry supposed to know Snape actually listen to him? That is washing your self of responsibility for playing part in the drama of that night, if they only listen to me nothing would have happened Headmaster. Seriously I can't see why he would think I would do nothing at all, have I ever given him any reason to believe I wouldn't? Or even bringing the prohpecy to LV, oh I am so sorry how could I have known which family LV was going to kill. If he had just picked another, then there would not have been anything to worry about. JKR implies that Bella and her gang were sent to the Longbottoms and I will not be surpriced if it turns out it was Snape sending them because if only LV had chosen them instead of the Potters things would have been so different for Snape. Just happily speculating of course. How ever you want to read Snape's character he was not an innocent victim just because he occasionally was hung by his feet. We see the DA transfigure Malfoy, Grab and Goyle into giant slugs but they where far from innocent victims, even if they lost out that particular time. Snape made his own choices and there might have been a very specific reason why he was so unpopular and with only Lily coming to his aid. Snape did not even hang out with people of his own house as we see in the pensieve scene and it might have been a direct result of him hanging out with the gang of Slytherin's and them being the biggest bullies in the playground when he first started Hogwarts. Sure it is speculation but so is yours to think Snape was just a helpless lone soul that could not defend him self and that Snape was hoping for Harry to learn something from his father's mistakes. He absolutely did not want Harry to learn anything, he was actively using Harry to take out his revenge on James, just because he no longer could do so with James himself. After seeing Harry had been bullied by his cousin, Snape should have lightened up but he didn't, now did he? Personally I do not see the so-called educational intentions Snape supposed to have had in mind for Harry, he actually does imply the opposite time and time again that the kid is to arrogant and inadequate to learn anything. JMHO Dana From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 30 14:55:01 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:55:01 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born Message-ID: <21451257.1177944901440.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168124 From: Kemper >> Kemper wrote earlier: >> > To refresh everyone, the prophecy in three easy to digest part: >> > >> > 1. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... >> > >> > 2a. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh >> > month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he >> > will have the power the Dark Lord knows not... >> > >> > 2b. and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live >> > while the other survives.... >> > >> > 3. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as >> > the seventh month dies... ---some cutting--- >Kemper now: >How is 3 redundant? I don't understand your question nor your >corresponding answer, please clarify. Bart 3 appears to be a restatement of the first part of 2a. Philip K. Dick wrote a fascinating story (and, like many Philip K. Dick stories, was turned into a movie that added a pointless "government conspiracy" plotline onto it) called "Minority Report". Forgetting the social details, it involved 3 people (who never appeared in person in the story) who could predict future crimes. If at least 2 out of the 3 predicted a crime would take place, police would act to prevent it; if the 3rd psychic found something different, it was called the "minority report". In any case, SPOILER ALERT!!!! . . . . . . . . SPOILER STARTING: when it was predicted that the head of the police was about to commit a murder, it turned out that there was not one minority report, but three, because the head of the police would get the reports first, and the predictions did not take place simultaneously, the first predicted that he would commit the murder, the second, knowing that he had access to the first, predicted that he would not, and the third, knowing he had access to the first and second, predicted that he would commit the murder, but in a different way, for a different reason. ---END OF SPOILER. In any case, I am looking at something similar here; that the fact of the prophecy, in and of itself, changed the future, and, furthermore, the fact that the first part of the prophecy was heard changed the future. Which meant that, halfway through the prophecy, the future had already been changed, yet in such a way that confirmed the prophecy, perhaps in a different way. FOR EXAMPLE, it may well have been Neville that was intended at first, but, since Snape's action would cause Voldemort to act in a way different than if he had not heard the prophecy, it got changed, to ANOTHER person born as the 7th month died. There are other ways of reading it, of course, depending on what part Snape DID hear, but canon (in the form of JKR interviews) states that it was VERY carefully worded, and therefore it is a reasonable assumption that the apparent redundancy is meaningful. Bart From random832 at gmail.com Mon Apr 30 15:29:12 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:29:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Sacred (Hallowed) relics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50704300829y4c9d8492gbfee7f72af0cbd17@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168125 On 4/29/07, Donna wrote: > LV is obsessed with the past and his "lineage." Of course, he has no lineage so he had to make one up. What do you mean? It has been confirmed that he really is descended from Salazar Slytherin. --Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Apr 30 16:09:40 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:09:40 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Forays / Snape v James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168126 > > Magpie: > > Maybe I'm not understanding, because it seems like you're wanting > > it both ways. You're explaining their behavior through RW ideas > > (they're a certain calibre of guy), but drawing the line at > > assuming that the consequences of their behavior are the same as in > > the RW. > > Mike: > Sorry to confuse y'all. ;) I'm not really *wanting* anything. I'm > endeavoring to explain the *psyche* of these teenage wizards, and > sorry, but I don't have anything other than the RW to base my > interpretation upon. At the same time, their *actions* are so far > removed from the RW that it is hard to draw a parallel to the RW and > still keep them in context of the WW. Does that make sense? Magpie: Sorry about that. I do think your description of their psyche is correct. We're told and we see that James and Sirius at least seem to feel pretty all-powerful and immortal and that they chase after excitement, which they find in their monthly jaunts with Remus. Nothing bad happens, which just validates the impression that nothing bad will happen. > Mike: > Yes, but at the same time the WW has obviously come up with a way to > deal with the werewolves or they would all be werewolves themselves > by now, wouldn't they? Werewolves may be terrifying to the Muggles, > but in the WW Dumbledore has invited one to attend his school. Then > for good measure, he invited one back to teach. > > All I'm suggesting is that werewolves are not as terrifying as a > group to wizards as people in the RW would naturally assume them to > be. Sure, we have a few rogue werewolves like Greyback. But I > speculate that Death Eaters scare your average wizard more than > werewolves do. Magpie: Actually, I think werewolves clearly are terrifying to wizards-- probably far more than they are to Muggles, because to Muggles they're fictional. I think they're more terrifying than Death Eaters to Wizards too. But of course when I say "werewolf" here I mean a transformed, non-Wolfsbaned werewolf. Dumbledore and other pro- werewolf compassion people are not telling anybody that a transformed werewolf in his natural state isn't just as dangerous as they think it is. They're saying their human selves ought to be treated with dignity and compassion. Everyone seems equally afraid of a werewolf in wolf form (unless he's taken Wolfsbane) to me, and that's what the Marauders are running with. They are not in dangerous of the werewolf because they're Animagi. What's unfair is that Remus would be kept from having an education as a normal boy because he also had this affliction. Not that he's not allowed to roam around in his werewolf form. > Mike: > Let me quote some of Remus from PoA: > > "Before the Wolfsbane Potion was invented, however, I became a fully > fledged monster once a month." (p.353) > > "My transformation in those days were - were terrible. It is very > painful to turn into a werewolf. I was seperated from humans to bite, > so I bit and scratched myself instead. The villagers heard the noise > and the screaming..." (p.353) > > Can you imagine Remus having to go through that month after month for > five years (not counting the time before Hogwarts), before his > friends became Animagi and changed his life? > > "Under their [Marauders] influence, I became less dangerous. My body > was still wolfish, but my mind seemed to become less so while was > with them." (p.355) > > Glorious reprieve! He doesn't have to scratch and bite himself to the > point of screaming out in so much pain that the villagers think there > are particularly nasty spirits in the Shack. Is it any wonder that he > chose this life, including the marauding, over the previous? It kind > of makes calling their marauding "bad" a little more subjective, > doesn't it? Magpie: No, I don't think it does at all. Nobody's ever said it was bad of the Marauders to offer Remus companionship. What's "bad" about the situation isn't changed with this information. Of course there's a benefit for Remus and I understand why he did it, but that doesn't make the risk for other people any less, or Remus' awareness of the danger any less. He still knows he's taking a risk of hurting someone, and taking a risk of being caught and probably proving to others that a werewolf going to school in his human form means a werewolf on the lose in his wolf form. Mike: > > And I would like to add one more quote that we seem to forget: > > "Sirius and James transformed into such large animals, they were able > to keep a werewolf in check." (p. 355) > > And it did work, didn't it? Sirius alone, in a weakened condition > after 12 years of Azkaban, stopped and drove off the Werewolf! Lupin, > didn't he? In hindsight, even Lupin admits their actions were foolish > and dangerous, but as teenagers they still had some contingencies in > place. They weren't *completely* reckless. Magpie: Not completely reckless, but reckless and old enough to know it. To the point where Remus in his thirties still doesn't want Dumbledore to know about what he did. The point, as I think you laid out, is that they're taking a level of risk that they are comfortable with. They're unfortunately then imposing it on people who probably wouldn't be comfortable with it--I can't imagine Molly Weasley, for instance, saying, "Oh yeah, I don't mind the transformed werewolf running around as long as James and Sirius are with him." Alla: I did not say anything about actively working against Dumbledore, I did not even say that Remus was actively thinking that Sirius was innocent, lol. Because if he was actively thinking that, he is rather rotten friend, if you ask me. He should have done something to try and free Sirius, if he actively believed in his innocence. I believe that Remus may have thought deep inside that Sirius is innocent, that's all. Sort of on subsconscious level. But to me it is enough to consider the possibility that Remus may have had another reason to conceal information besides what he says. Magpie: Ah--I agree, then. If Remus were motivated by thinking Sirius is innocent his actions, if he's the man we think he is, would be different. That's not his motivation. I think that his memories of the Marauders can effect him in important ways as well. But Remus wanting Sirius to escape at least fits into his behavior while thinking Sirius is innocent. I guess I feel like, if his thought that Sirius might be innocent is subconscious, it might as well not be there (and it's not there in the text). I don't quite see what it adds to the story to think that in some way Remus was not aware of, he thought Sirius was innocent--except to sort of retroactively put Remus above everyone else by saying that even though the story relies on everyone thinking Sirius is guilty, Remus unconsciously knew he was innocent all along but didn't realize it. > Magpie: > I think Dumbledore, being Dumbledore, is supposed to see Remus' motives for > what they are and so understands his personality. He doesn't think Remus was > actively working against him because he wasn't. He seems to get that Remus > was really just keeping his own personal secret, and everything's turned out > well and he can deal with that. Alla: Let's agree to disagree on whether Remus only motivation was to keep his personal secret, ok? Let's pretend that I am agreeing with it. So, here we have exactly what you described here, agreed. Magpie: I know I'm being difficult in quite agreeing to disagree :-), but whether or not we imagine a more flattering motivation that's not included in the text at all, choosing to keep his personal secret sems to be what Remus is doing any way you look at it. He knows this stuff about Remus because of their personal connection, and is not sharing it. Magpie: > But I still wouldn't say it was uncanonical for someone to say that Remus > had betrayed Dumbledore's trust if they meant that very same thing. For > instance, I don't think it's uncanonical to say that Snape let Dumbledore > down in OotP by not continuing the Occlumency lessons, even though > Dumbledore obviously doesn't consider Snape a traitor for doing it. Or that > Hagrid let him down by spilling the beans about Fluffy. I think when people > talk about Remus betraying trust--and this is just how it comes across to me > in what other people say, so I could be misinterpreting--I think they're > just saying that it's canon that Remus has this very clear limit that we're > aware of. He, Hagrid and Snape all have these limits we've seen. Alla: Let me make sure I understand. When you are talking about betraying DD trust, do you just mean these characters not doing what Dumbledore expected them to do? Or are you also including those characters willingness to endanger other people? Because if you are stopping short on my first sentence, then I can sorta agree, if I forget about my doubts of Remus and Sirius innocence, but if you are including second sentence and then we are back to Remus willingly putting hundreds of kids at risk, then I just do not see it. Magpie: I think that yes, it does have to include Remus putting people at risk because he is doing that. Concealing information that helps the person who as far as he knows is guilty of mass murder already get into and out of the castle is putting people at risk. I don't quite understand how you're saying that it isn't. Of course it doesn't turn out to be a risk, but based on the information Remus has how could it not be? He just has to hope that Sirius doesn't do what he "knows" he's already done once. Even your suggestion that he thinks Sirius is innocent is too unconscious to be an active motivation, and even if he has it it's just a niggling hunch. (Ahem. Not that Dumbledore's never risked having a murderer in the school himself--but he was okay with that because it was his murderer and his plan!) Alla: But but when we are talking about Snape being a good guy, Dumbledore's unwavering trust in him is given as iron clad reason for Snape to be such a guy, but when I am bring Dumbledore talking about piece of info what Remus concealed and not being upset and telling Fudge that Remus saved lives, isn't it supposed to mean the same thing? Magpie: I do think it means the same thing--at least to me, it does. I don't think Remus is ESE or that Dumbledore is trusting him too much. Dumbledore doesn't seem to trust Remus as much as he trusts Snape Snape--Snape seems much closer to the inner circle than Remus. But with both men Dumbledore seems aware of their intentions and limitations. He seems to assume that people who work for him are going to have their own agendas as people that sometimes conflicts with his. Even Harry, who is DDM definitely, sometimes is more interested in his own stuff than Dumbledore. Dumbledore is disappointed when Harry doesn't seem to be stepping up--Harry feels like he's let him down--but it doesn't make Harry a traitor. Not all betrayals of trust are created equal. But I also think--and this is something I like about Remus--that Remus' position curiously reflects the priorities and leave-taking he hadin PoA. Alla: That Remus really did not betray DD trust, since DD does not think so. Magpie: I don't agree that DD didn't think so. I think it's logical that DD sees Remus as betraying his trust in much the same way Remus sees it. I just don't think it's all or nothing. I don't think Remus' failing to come forth about the information about Sirius is a reason, in DD's eyes, to think he's an untrustworthy spy on the werewolves. Alla: To me Peter is the traytor, not Remus who did not tell Dumbledore about them being animagi, which did not lead to anybody's death, you know? Magpie: I agree. Peter was the traitor and not Remus. I don't consider Remus a traitor. But I do think he did something significant in concealing what he knew about Sirius, and given what I've seen of Dumbledore and the way he susses everybody out, I can't believe he doesn't have a clear mental note of Remus doing that. Alla: Where did he admit that his trust was betrayed? I thought he said nothing like that. Magpie: He said he'd now learned that for years Remus was sneaking out of the shack with the Marauders, iow, breaking the rules in place for protection. He's not angry over this, but it's not like he's unaware of how this applies to his precautions for having a werewolf student in school. If, for instance, Hermione was given the Time Turner with strict rules to only use it for classes, and she was really using it to play personal pranks, that would be betraying the trust placed in her when she was given the Time Turner. (Dumbledore gives the go-ahead for Buckbeak beforehand....err...as much as anything can be beforehand in that situation.) Alla: He is not just not **angry**. He seemed awfully pleased to me with that "extraordinary achievement". Magpie: Sirius' acheivement, I think. And it's Sirius who tells Dumbledore, is it? Sirius is far more forthcoming. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Apr 30 16:28:20 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:28:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's Sacred (Hallowed) relics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168127 Donna: > Harry's personal source of power comes from love and caring, not > lineage. His friends, mentors, his parent's friends, etc. are his > greatest assets in his quest. So his Objects of Power would be real > magical objects of the here and now. Not historical relics that > have been possessed or tampered with. Jen: I like your idea and thought of a few items, sort of a variation on the items you proposed. Like you said, Harry's power comes from his friends and the people who love him, so I've been considering some objects he's received from them. Not fancy things either but humble things, because it makes sense the items would be the reverse of the kind of items that would attract Voldemort. I've said this before but what the heck, we only have a couple of months to repeat ourselves now, right? I've been waiting for one of Dobby's presents--the Snitch socks or the portrait of Harry in OOTP-- to come back at a critical juncture and prove to have some magical power. Dobby will be shocked that Harry didn't realize one of them had magical power. :) Will a Weasley sweater ever have another purpose?!? I'm not banking on that one, just a thought. There's the motorcycle from Sirius that now belongs to Harry. I'm also wondering whether Petunia has something of Lily's she'll finally give to Harry, sort of like he got the Invisibility Cloak from James? If it's not something Petunia had in her possession from the time when the sisters were younger, perhaps it's something Hagrid found in the ruins and tucked into Harry's blanket, forgetting to mention it during the night's events. I wonder if the set of books Sirius and Remus gave him at Christmas in OOTP will prove to have some valuable information? And my last thought--Ron's watch. I could see the possibility of both Ron's and Dumbledore's watches being more than meets the eye. Jen From bionicpags at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 11:48:08 2007 From: bionicpags at yahoo.com (paul pagano) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: HELP!! Dumbledore & Fawkes healing power QUESTION In-Reply-To: <1177853198.1418.20273.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <795264.97998.qm@web36811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168128 Hi everyone! I have been reading aloud HBP to my partner on our long drives to & from New York City and upstate NY! He loved OOTP and is thrilled that I won't have to fill in the blanks for him after we see the movie this summer! Here's a question that he had that I drew a blank and could not answer him - If Fawkes and phoenixes have special healing powers, why didn't DD use Fawkes to heal his severely wounded hand?? Help?!?! Is there something I missed in HBP? We are only halfway thru the book and even tho I have read it, I have stalled his qiuestion with - YOU HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.... but honestly I do not have an answer. Please help! ANYONE?? Paul From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 13:45:24 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:45:24 -0000 Subject: Who do you think will die in the last book? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168129 I'm not really sure who is going to die, but I REALLY think that Harry just might. Which would suck but I think it's the only thing she can do to keep people from asking for more books post-Hogwarts. Plus as much as we all make fun of Trelawney, some of her predictions were true: (PoA) Hermione leaving class, Lavender having to be careful of a red-headed man, not to mention her prophecies. Yes she is a bit aloof, but she seemed accurate in roundabout ways. And she has been predicting his death from day one, the prophecy as well as when she met him in class.... I heard someone come up with the idea that Percy will turn over to the dark side (lol, that sounds all Star Warsish doesn't it?) and that he would be the Weasly that dies. I think one of them might die; I just don't know which one. They are too numerous to think that if there was a big battle one of them wouldn't die. Maybe Ginny (I don't want it to happen) but that would upset Harry (like the death of DD) to action. Snape might go, he has been playing both sides for too long. One side is going to pull the plug be it justified or not. As much as I don't want to admit it he just might be good (boo hiss). I really hope that none of the main 3 die in this book, but I do think Harry will die, in that case I think Hermione and Ron will make it. I've babbled on long enough. :-) Tandra From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 30 16:59:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:59:18 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168130 > > Nikkalmati: > > > OTH is it an indication of a close relationship in which > > DD is gently pulling SS's leg or reassuring him that wearing > > a hat with a vulture on it is no big deal and that DD is > > fine with doing it.? > > houyhnhnm: > > If Dumbledore set it up, it was hardly a *gentle* > leg-pulling it seems to me. He may have been taking > too much for granted and making an old man's mistake > in failing to realize how deeply Snape was humiliated. Pippin: I don't think it was leg-pulling. I think Dumbledore had advised Snape that it would be wise to *pretend* to take the incident lightly, and he was gently offering Snape an opportunity to do that, whether by chance or design. It was certainly JKR's design to show us how Dumbledore wants Snape to treat the incident, just as Hermione wants Harry to act like the Slytherin teasing doesn't bother him. When she tells Harry to ignore them, she doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't hurtful. Of course Snape seems immature, and a hypocrite besides, for not taking this advice...and it's not like he can't *act*, for heaven sake. However, this disregards one important fact -- Snape believes that Lupin once was part of an attempt to kill him. I think it's clear Dumbledore believes that Lupin knew nothing of the "joke" till it was over. Not that he *wouldn't* hire a former killer -- you think he wouldn't want Moses on his staff? Or Saint Paul? But Snape isn't at all sure that Lupin has changed. In fact, Lupin himself says he hasn't. Snape can't afford to take Lupin's hostility as a joke unless he's sure that Lupin didn't really mean for him to be harmed, and he's not sure of that at all. Knowing this, there's something disturbing about, "Forward, Neville, and finish him off!" and "the boggart exploded, burst into a thousand tiny wisps of smoke, and was gone." What would we say of Lupin's method if Neville's boggart was Jews? That they must have had it coming? Snape is, in some ways, just as bad as Harry thinks he is. But not, IMO, in *all* ways. And yet it's the whole Snape that gets made fun of, not just the one who's cruel to Neville, but also the one who saved Harry's life in first year and the one who agreed to make the difficult and possibly dangerous to prepare wolfsbane potion. Maybe we're just supposed to put ourselves in Neville's place and not Snape's, but I can't help putting myself in both places, and thinking that Neville paid dearly for his bit of fun, and that Lupin was using him. Is that what JKR wants us to think? Well, I believe she'd like us to think for ourselves, IMHO. Lupin's plight as a marauder seems to me like a kid who's having his friends over for wild weekend parties while his parents are out of town. He knows his college fund and his job at dad's firm might be toast if they find out, he seriously fears that someone might OD or get in a car crash going home, but worst is knowing that his folks trust him and he's taking advantage of that. His friends are pretty much insensible to the dangers -- hey, lighten up, Remus, nothing bad's gonna happen to *us*. But Remus knows that worse things can happen than you can imagine, because to him they already have, and he's lived with that reality most of his life. But his friends have this fantasy, and it's so inviting to escape into it for a little while. And somehow it never seems as wrong at 10 PM on a Saturday night when his friends are cheering him on as it did at 4AM on a Tuesday morning when he was all alone with his conscience, so he keeps on doing it. And he's lucky, and the worst things that he's imagined never happen. But twenty years later, when Remus knows that one of those wild kids became a terrorist murderer, knowing that he's breaking into the house and trying to kill someone, that he knows a secret way inside that's not guarded, and being afraid to tell Dad about it because he might find out about the parties...well, those are some seriously screwed up priorities, IMO. In fact, I have a hard time believing that Lupin's priorities are that screwed up -- I find it much more plausible that he had some darker secrets to guard. Just thinking for myself here.... Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 17:24:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:24:31 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168131 Dana wrote: > > By the way I have seen people excuse him being a former DE because he had such a bad childhood, that is giving the man excuses for his own choices too. > Carol responds: You may have seen people excusing Snape's choice to become a DE, but no one here is doing that, to my knowledge. It was a wrong choice, period. Some of us are, nevertheless, interested in exploring possible reasons why he made that wrong choice, not to excuse it but to understand it and him. It is possible, for example, that the Marauders' treatment of him played some role in pushing him toward the Dark side--an unintended consequence, naturally. Dana wrote: > He endangered the lives of the students in HBP by not actively preventing Draco working out his task. Carol responds: We don't know enough about Snape's motives in HBP or the argument in the forest to support an assertion of this sort. Snape may have been arguing against DD's decision not to thwart Draco ("You take too much for granted!") He put Draco's friends in detention (and probably used Legilimency on them). He forced Draco to talk to him in his office and he found out as much as he could (probably more than we think but not about the Vanishing Cabinet itself because of Draco's Occlumency). He apparently reported the whole conversation to DD, who implies to Harry that he knows more than Harry does about it. Beyond that, we don't know. Dana: He might have helped Kathy Carol: "Might have helped"? He *saved Katie Bell's life* (and presumably removed the curse from the necklace as well). You know, an honest concession once in awhile would show that you're looking at both sides of the argument, not just seeing what you want to see. Dana: but he actually did nothing that we see on page to prevent Draco from trying and kill DD and yes, we know why because he can't because he will die himself. Carol: On page? Of course not (except for the points I've listed). We don't know what Snape and DD did or suspected (aside from connecting Draco to the cursed necklace and discouraging him from similar tactics in future) because we're seeing from Harry's pov and JKR is keeping Snape mysterious. We don't know exactly how the vow would be triggered or how much Snape could do to thwart Draco without triggering it (and certainly, if he dies, he won't be any further use to either DD or Draco). Snape can't put Draco in detention without arousing Draco's suspicions about his loyalties, and he certainly doesn't want Draco face to face with Dumbledore. However, it was lucky for both Draco and Harry that Snape was following Draco. No one else is likely to know the countercurse to the spell that he invented. And Snape, as HoH and Draco's teacher, would have saved Draco even if the UV had never been spoken, just as he saved Harry on more than one occasion and just as he saved Katie. He certainly didn't need to save Katie to save his own life. Her death would not have triggered the Unbreakable Vow, nor would claiming not to know how to save her have lost him his job. (On a side note, we see Snape's Healing skills, unsuspected until now, over and over again in HBP, starting with the ring Horcrux. I will be very surprised if they don't play a crucial role in DH. Otherwise, why introduce them in HBP?) Dana: And many wishful thinkers might actually believe all his actions were out of the goodness of his heart and that he tried to get the DEs out as fast as he could, he did nothing to prevent them to enter the castle in the first place. Carol: We're all wishful thinkers one way or the other when it comes to Snape. :-) You wish to think the worst of him. I see too much evidence to the contrary to share your view. No one, however, is talking about "the goodness of his heart." (You might try refraining from sarcasm since you're attacking the master of that art. :-) ) We're talking about loyalty to Dumbledore and opposition to Voldemort, not sweet, kindly, misunderstood Snape. No one is denying that Snape is sarcastic and bitter and intensely dislikes Harry. That does not prevent him from repeatedly risking his life, canonically, to spy on Voldemort or save Harry and friends. "Did nothing to prevent them from entering the castle"? What could he have done other than reporting what he knew to DD? He didn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet (Draco used Occlumency to block him when he tried to find out). DD had taken every conceivable precaution, from locked gates that only a teacher (or Order member?) could open to watching all the secret passages to searching students and packages entering and leaving the castle to instituting anti-broom protection in addition to the old anti-apparition spells and having Order members stand guard when he left. How were DEs supposed to get in? And if Snape wasn't trying to get the DEs out of the castle and grounds after he killed DD, why did he keep yelling, "It's over! Let's go!"? If all he cared about was his own life, he could have just grabbed Draco and left the DEs to their own devices. Instead, he stopped them from Crucioing Harry and made sure that they left. Dana: He could have put the kid into detention the rest of the year; he was his head of house. Carol: No, he could not. He had to pretend to Draco, as to Narcissa and Bella, that he was a loyal DE. Draco has to think that Snape is a double agent loyal to Voldemort--at least until Draco's plan is revealed and Dumbledore tries to stop him. Even now it may not be safe for DDM!Snape to reveal to Draco where his loyalties truly lie. Dana: Oh yes I forgot it was all planned of course to serve the greater good. Carol: You know, your sarcasm isn't helping your argument. Needling the opposition is unlikely to persuade us to share your view. Not all DDM!Snapers believe that Dumbledore planned for Snape to kill him, though it may have been a contingency plan. Certainly, neither snape nor DD *planned* for DD to drink that terrible potion and be weakened and wandless when and if the DEs arrived. And, IMO, they really thought that they had taken every precaution. (I don't know what they thought Draco was up to in the RoR, though DD, at least, knew he was going there, but DEs entering through the RoR? How were they supposed to anticipate *that*?) > Dana: > So I'm sorry but Snape actually did put the students at risk by taking a vow that prevented him from actively acting out against Draco. And this action actually made it possible for a werewolf that feeds on children to roam free within the castle walls. Carol: *I'm* sorry, but the vow put no one at risk except Snape himself and Dumbledore. (I'm not going into his reasons for taking it here, which aren't wholly clear, except that the main point seems to have been to protect Draco.) Draco was avoiding Snape, who finally caught up with him and let him know that he was suspected of being involved with the cursed necklace and that such tactics were amateurish and dangerous. (*Of course* he had to use a DE-style argument that Draco would listen to here; he couldn't argue as Dumbledore's man that Draco was endangering the school.) Neither Snape nor DD could have anticipated the necklace incident It was too late to stop the poisoned mead, which Slughorn had already purchased (and which neither DD nor Snape could have anticipated), but Snape's point gets through and Draco stops resorting to desperation measures that endanger his schoolmates. You can't blame Snape for allowing a werewolf behind Hogwarts walls. It's Draco who let him in and Voldemort, presumably, who sent him. Snape had nothing to do with it. The UV does not make Draco's actions possible. They would have happened with or without it. And make no mistake; if Snape had not arrived, Dumbledore would have died anyway. The DEs would have tried to force Draco to do it and failing that would have killed him themselves. The only difference Snape's arrival makes is that he is forced to do the killing (a nice plot complication) and he sends DD's body off the tower as no DD would do, preventing Greyback from having DD for "afters" and allowing enough time for Snape to clear the tower so that Harry doesn't come rushing out. Imagine the scene without Snape. Would Draco and Harry have lived? Would anyone have restrained the DEs from burning and Crucioing at will? We saw a taste of what they would have done if Snape hadn't gotten them off the grounds. > Dana: > I even am of the opinion he risked the lives of 6 students in OotP to remain his cover and to not take the situation that presented itself more seriously. Carol: Your being "of the opinion" means nothing except that that's your opinion. Others have argued persuasively that not only Harry but all six kids would be dead if it weren't for Snape. He sent the Order. They would not have shown up otherwise. (And, BTW, Ron would be dead if it weren't for Snape's first lesson on Bezoars, which HBP!Snape brings to Harry's mind.) Dana: > He risked the lives of students throughout the books come to think of it, when he did not inform DD about Quirrell in book one, Carol: We don't know what he told DD about Quirrell or what suspicions DD had on his own. However, Snape tried to keep the kids away from that corridor, and it was only their false suspicion of him that led them there. The children in the school were in no danger as long as they didn't go near the corridor, and Quirrell!mort would have been thwarted by the Mirror of Erised in any case. Harry didn't have to be there. And, of course, Snape saved Harry from Quirrell's broom jinx, which even *Harry* acknowledges as Snape's saving his life. Dana: he risks the lives of the students by allowing Lockhart to take the lead in CoS and not debating this decision, Carol: I don't have a clue what you're talking about here. First, Snape did a beautiful job of controlling the chaos of the Duelling Club and teaching the kids Expelliarmus. Then he exposed Lockhart's incompetence, essentially telling him that he now had the chance to do his job and find the Chamber of Secrets. Had it not been for those words, overheard by Ron and Harry, they would not have entered the Chamber of Secrets. Ginny would have been left there to die and Diary!Tom would have joined Vapormort, somehow becoming stronger than ever (per a JKR interview). Lucky thing Snape said those words even though he didn't anticipate any larger consequence than getting a fraudulent DADA teacher out of the school. Dana: he risked the lives of the students by not bringing Lupin's potion to the shack and then wanting to drag the werewolf up to the castle while mocking Lupin about forgetting to take it. Carol: Perhaps you should reread the chapter. Unlike Lupin, Snape didn't know that any students were out there. The only name he saw on the map was Lupin's. So rather than running outside with a cup full of steaming potion, which was likely to slop all over him and the ground and be empty before he got there, he rushed out to capture the (perceived) murderer and his werewolf accomplice. It was Lupin, rushing out without his potion, *knowing* that Ron, at least, was out there, who risked students' lives. Dana: He risked the lives of the students by not going to DD instead of running after Lupin himself. Carol: Now why would he do that? It would take more time, and he was perfectly capable of taking care of both the werewolf and the murderer on his own--if it weren't for those pesky kids who wanted to hear the rest of the murderer's story. :-) Dana: He risked the lives of the students in GoF by not telling DD that polyjuice potion herbs went missing from his office while this might have been critical information that could have exposed Barty Crouch Jr earlier on. Carol: First, Polyjuice potion isn't made with herbs. More important, we don't know that he didn't tell Dumbledore. Probably he did and that was one of the crucial bits of information that helped Dumbledore figure out the puzzle. Too bad Snape didn't get to keep the Marauder's Map. If he had seen the name Bartemius Crouch on that map, the mystery would have been solved much earlier. (And even if he didn't mention the missing potion ingredients, which he didn't know were a clue to Fake!Moody's identity, that pales in comparision with knowingly concealing that a supposed murderer is an Animagus who knows secret passageways into the school. The fact that Black's intended victim was Pettigrew, not Harry, doesn't change his intent to commit murder or Lupin's responsibility to tell DD all he knew about it.) > Dana: > So sorry I do see Snape's actions put many people at risk and he even claims to be responsible for the death of two and we also see that his previous actions of wanting to serve his master have put the lives of many more in danger. Carol: May I suggest that instead of listing unsupported assertions you try developing and supporting one or two assertions? Your seeing something is just your opinion. If you want others to share that opinion, you need to support it, preferably with canon. Snape does not claim to be "responsible" for any deaths. He claims to have provided information that led to certain deaths. We can show persuasively that most of the information relating to Sirius Black (whose death was not part of the Prophecy plot but an unintended consequence of his choosing to go with the rest of the Order to save Harry) was provided by either Wormtail or Kreacher. Nothing Snape could have said would endanger Black as long as Black remained at 12 GP as ordered. Probably something similar is true for Emmeline Vance. Snape is claiming to have provided information on her, but Bellatrix has no way to prove or disprove that claim. For all we know, Snape may have faked Emmeline's death. And no one, including Snape himself, is disputing that reporting the Prophecy to Voldemort put the Potters in danger. That's what Snape's remorse, and the whole Snape plot, is about. Dana: > Maybe he [Sirius Black] was right maybe Snape did deserve it because we actually do not know what Snape contribution was in it. Carol: A sixteen-year-old boy deserved to be bitten by a werewolf? No matter what his "contribution," he didn't deserve that. Carol, snipping the rest of the post because her response is already too long From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 17:31:55 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:31:55 -0000 Subject: Theme of HP (was Notes on Literary uses of magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > So, Harry and everyone else side with Dumbledore because > Dumbledore, while a flawed human being, still has the > luxury and the will to choose the moral high ground. > Fudge and other members of government are in much more > self-serving positions, therefore they are more likely > to give the public impression of moral high ground, > but less likely to have taken it when their actions are > examined at depth. > > Now, the various offices of the government have the legal > authority, as we see from Fudge's many changes in the > laws and his Educational Decrees, his word, becomes law > by virtue of the fact that he is the Minister of Magic. > > Dumbledore's word is not law, to a more general extent, > but he does choose what is right over what is easy and > over what is immensely self-serving. So, in choosing > Dumbledore, Harry and friends are choosing what they > know and see in their hearts as the morally right > choice, even though that morally right choice goes > against the government and against documented laws. > > I just want to point out a couple of things. Dumbledore, as you note, is not infallible. He sent Harry to live with the Dursleys and left him there without intervening for most of Harry's life. Was not intervening the right thing to do? There are various thoughts on this, and undoubtedly putting Harry with the Dursleys saved his life, but if you left a child with someone, don't you think you might check on that child's welfare, especially if the child is the probable savior of the wizarding world? In HBP, we are shown instances of people questioning Dumbledore's wisdom. There is the whole issue of trusting Snape, for one. At the end, the various members of the Order confess they wondered about Dumbledore's judgment, but because it was Dumbledore, they didn't question. Harry blows up at Dumbledore when he finds out that Snape was the eavesdropper. All Dumbledore has to say, again, is that he trusts Snape and, essentially, Harry has to trust him. What can Harry do? He is shut down immediately so that they can go on their great adventure. Harry realizes that he has a choice: shut up and go with Dumbledore, or be shut out. We are subsequently shown the price of loyalty to Dumbledore. Is it taking the moral high ground to ask a legal child to force-feed you a potion that is, at the very least, not a health drink and which may even be deadly, even when so doing causes the child great anguish? When Harry objects, he gets the equivalent of Dumbledore's rebuke to Snape in the forest, that he agreed and that's all there is to it. Dumbledore will not be challenged, period. He shows this also when he cuts off Snape's objections time and time again. Dumbledore does not use force to accomplish his ends, like Voldemort, but he uses something far more insidious -- withholding his approval. He gave Harry the cold shoulder in OOTP. Was that taking the higher moral ground? He turned his back on Sirius Black for years, letting him languish in Azkaban instead of seeking at least some semblance of justice that any prisoner would deserve. Was it just easier to let Black rot in prison? (At least Harry addresses the imprisonment of Stan Shunpike.) Black doesn't seem to need Dumbledore's approval, however, unlike Lupin and Snape and Harry, who have some ongoing insecurities. Yet on Dumbledore's orders alone, Black festered in Grimmauld Place. I wonder if anyone ever challenged Dumbledore on that? Harry certainly resented what it was doing to Black. Meanwhile, Black was callous towards Kreacher. Was the higher good served by leaving that situation as it was? Dumbledore is Plato's philosopher king, a benevolent tyrant. He is laissez faire towards all, and lets them make their own choices. But if they choose him, they must follow him without question. Does he really have the moral force you claim? Percy doesn't think so, but by your accounting, Percy is trying to make his way as a politician and so makes unconscionable compromises. What if Percy is sincere in his questioning of Dumbledore or sincere in his belief in the Ministry? He is disowned by most of his Dumbledore-following family! And what about Voldemort's loyal followers, no less emphatic than Dumbledore's: Barty Crouch Jr. and Bellatrix Lestrange? They are both written as deranged to follow the philosophies they do, yet I bet they both think they are following a higher good. We don't agree, obviously, but we are on the outside looking in. I have read that Dumbledore is supposed to stand in for some kind of deity in the HP books, an all-knowing and loving god, who still lets bad things happen to good people. To me, however, he is ultimately an authoritarian god. He offers people choice, but the cost to them if they do not follow him is ostracism. Harry follows this pattern, too. He is reluctant to lead, but when people decide to follow, it's all or nothing. And only the chosen get to participate in the first place. Government, by contrast, is imperfect, but can include the possibilities of participation by many and something hopeful: debate and compromise. That these don't always occur is not the fault of government, per se. There are all sorts of bad governments, depending on whose interests are being served and how much control is ceded by those who would be governed. Harry indentifies himself as "Dumbledore's Man," but why make that choice at all? Why can't Harry identify himself as his own man? lealess From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Apr 30 17:38:34 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:38:34 -0000 Subject: HELP!! Dumbledore & Fawkes healing power QUESTION In-Reply-To: <795264.97998.qm@web36811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, paul pagano wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > I have been reading aloud HBP to my partner on our > long drives to & from New York City and upstate NY! > He loved OOTP and is thrilled that I won't have to > fill in the blanks for him after we see the movie this > summer! > > Here's a question that he had that I drew a blank and > could not answer him - If Fawkes and phoenixes have > special healing powers, why didn't DD use Fawkes to > heal his severely wounded hand?? > > Help?!?! Is there something I missed in HBP? We are > only halfway thru the book and even tho I have read it, > I have stalled his qiuestion with - YOU HAVE TO WAIT > AND SEE.... but honestly I do not have an answer. > > Please help! ANYONE?? > > Paul Leah: I think the hand is beyond even Fawkes' healing powers. I think it is dead. It is described as 'blackened and shrivelled', which sounds to me like something which has been consumed in flames. There is some speculation that Snape was able to stopper death, to prevent this necrosis from spreading to the rest of DD's body. Leah From caaf at hotmail.com Mon Apr 30 18:08:14 2007 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:08:14 -0000 Subject: Apparition & Secrets (was Re: Dumbledore's Past & Harry finding Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50704232039t12b61479v5fcb33d3613f65f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168134 > > Random832 > > I think the consensus is that it makes all who already knew forget it, > and the secret keeper must tell them for them to know. Presumably, > Dumbledore has told Snape, and all the other order members, where it > is. > > --Random832 > Cyril here, Been lurking for some time, and have a number of messages to catch up on. However, just my thoughts on this (if someone has already brought this point of view forward, sorry for the repeat) My understanding of the Fidelius Charm is different in that it does not make one *forget* the object of the charm - it just makes the object unplottable. Do not have the books on hand, but I kind of remember Prof Flitwick mentioning that the charm concels the object in the soul of te SK or something along those lines. Hence, it is not that Bellatrix forgot where 12 GP was (if it was a place she know as the Black family residence) - however, once the SK was in place, she would not be able to locate it anymore, until the SK revealed the secret to her. Similarly, it is not that DD and Lupin forgot where GH is, but they would not be able to locate it unless they were told by the SK. Just my thoughts, Cyril. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 18:34:53 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:34:53 -0000 Subject: Did Peter used Harry's wand to transform into a rat in the book? WAS: Movie Confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz S." wrote: > In the book, didn't Petter steal Harry's wand to turn back into a rat? > If not, then sorry, I'm mistaken. But I was just thinking that even > though he was tied up, he could have turned into a rat at anytime to > get away. So if that's true, then maybe if you force someone to come > out, then they need a wand to turn back. zanooda: No, Liz, PP didn't steal Harry's wand. He didn't use any wand to transform. I didn't have time to give the quote in my previous post, and it's long, but here goes. After Lupin transformed, "Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang, a burst of light - and Ron lay motionless on the ground". Next, PP curses Crookshanks as well (he was probably dying to do it all that year :-)) . After this: "Expelliarmus!" Harry yelled, pointing his own wand at Pettigrew; Lupin's wand flew high into the air and out of sight. "Stay where you are!" Harry shouted, running forward. Too late. Pettigrew had transformed" (PoA, p.381 US hardback or p.279 UK hardback). It seems obvious to me that PP didn't need any wand to transform. He used Lupin's wand to curse Ron and Crookshanks, then Harry disarmed him and ran to him, but PP had enought time to turn into a rat and escape. I can't be as sure about the movie, because I don't know the movies well (and we are not supposed to discuss them here), but I watched this scene twice, and I still can't see PP using a wand. He picks up Lupin's wand, then Harry disarms him, then he transforms, waving his empty hand. All right, I may be wrong about the movie, but I'm pretty sure about the book :-). You are right that PP could have transformed at any time, that's why Lupin was poiting his wand at him. When Lupin transformed, PP used this opportunity to escape. It would be so much easier to stun him and bring him to the castle unconscious, IMO. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Apr 30 19:03:18 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HELP!! Dumbledore & Fawkes healing power QUESTION Message-ID: <25114018.1177959798621.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 168136 leah: >I think the hand is beyond even Fawkes' healing powers. I think it >is dead. It is described as 'blackened and shrivelled', which >sounds to me like something which has been consumed in flames. >There is some speculation that Snape was able to stopper death, to >prevent this necrosis from spreading to the rest of DD's body. Bart: That's an essential part of the version of the DDM!Snape that many of us believe; that Dumbledore was on the verge of death at the end of HPB, and that Snape was under orders to kill him if it helped in the long run against Voldemort. The, "Severus, please..." request was signifying that the time had come. Given this, the canon supports the idea that Prof. Snape was the one responsible for Dumbledore's being currently alive, albeit temprarily. We don't know what continuing measures there were, but consider the following real world example: A hospital patient is dying, and kept alive and conscious through CPR. It is known that, once the CPR is stopped, death will come rather quickly. But the patient wants an opportunity to say goodbye to his or her loved ones, so the doctors keep the patient alive until this is done, and then withdraw support. If the death is going to be painful, they may even provide a lethal injection of painkillers. In this scenario, Snape's killing of Dumbledore was for the purpose of making his death meaningful. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 19:28:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:28:33 -0000 Subject: The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168137 Brothergib wrote: > I think it is most interesting when you put all this together. > > The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have the power the Dark Lord knows not and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies. > > If you consider the middle sentence, it really doesn't flow i.e. it doesn't sound like one whole sentence. If you compare this prophecy to the prophecy that we have actually heard first hand i.e. Trelawney to Harry, you will find that there are no long pauses (....) between sentences. It is a perfectly constructed paragraph. Carol: Possibly the British version reads differently, but in the American edition, the PoA prophecy (the one that Harry hears firsthand) does contain ellipses: "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before midnight . . . the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was. Tonight . . . before midnight . . . the servant . . . will set out . . . to rejoin . . . his master" (PoA Am. ed. 324, ellipses in original). The construction is very similar to that of the first prophecy except that it's not the first line but the third, "Tonight, before midnight . . . the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master," that's repeated in slightly different form in the final sentence: "Tonight . . . before midnight . . . the servant . . . will set out . . . to rejoin . . . his master." Although the last sentence omits the words "break free," the ellipses indicate pauses, not omissions. Harry, as you've stated, heard the whole thing. We need to look at the OoP prophecy complete with ellipses (which you've omitted) to see whether the same technique is being used there. Let's put them back in: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . . Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . . . The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies . . . ." (OoP Am. ed. 841) The American edition sets the text in italic caps and small caps, which I've represented here with roman c/lc (caps and lowercase). It's possible that the typesetter or copyeditor capitalized the "b" in "born" and that it was uncapitalized in the manuscript, in which case, there's no fragment at all: the "born" phrases would modify the first clause of the opening sentence. If so, he or she would also have supplied the fourth period, the one indicating the end of a sentence, in this set of ellipses. (Four periods after "survives" and after "dies" is surely correct as those sentences are complete as written.) I'd be interested in a careful transcription of the British version, with capitalization and ellipses exactly rendered, for comparison (though what I really need is JKR's unedited manuscript!) to determine whether the fragment is JKR's and therefore (probably) intentional. I think that JKR is attempting to make the prophecies, particularly the main Prophecy in OoP, ambiguous and enigmatic, subject to disastrous misinterpretation like those of the Oracle of Delphi but longer and more complex, rather like a biblical prophecy. (Compare this bit from the Book of Daniel: "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." Needless to say, JKR's prophecies are not quite as obscure as Daniel's, but I think she was after a similar, if muted, effect. Repeated "ands" like those in the OoP Prophecy are also a common biblical stylistic device, FWIW.) My point is that, to me, both prophecies appear to be complete but deliberately ambiguous (although the ambiguity of the PoA prophecy is quickly resolved when we find out that "the servant" is not Black but Pettigrew), and the uppercase "b" making "Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies" appear to be a fragment could be either a stylistic device designed to make the prophecy sound, erm, sybillic (or apocalyptic), or it could be a typo introduced in the typemarking or copyediting stages. I don't think it indicates an omission in the Prophecy itself. (What could have been omitted, in any case?) Brothergib: Therefore, maybe you should be asking yourself exactly which parts of the prophecy DD 'allowed' Harry to hear. And therefore which parts of the prophecy has Snape heard and how does this compare with what Harry has heard. Carol: The question as to which parts *Snape* has heard can only be answered if we (and Harry) have heard/read the whole thing (as DD tells him he has). I agree with those who view DD's and Trelawney's versions of the story as conflicting, but I don't think DD is lying to Harry about the two of them being the only people who know the complete Prophecy. Certainly, DD has deprived Harry of an opportunity to see and hear the Prophecy *in context* because he doesn't want Harry to know at that point (or perhaps ever) that Snape was the eavesdropper. (And despite any arguments I've heard so far to the contrary, it's hard to reconcile DD's version of the story with Trelawney's, which does not permit an interruption. Why she thinks young Snape was looking for a teaching job at that time of year--late fall or possibly spring--is also unclear; sherry-flavored hindsight, maybe.) But I don't think we can conclude from the ellipses or the missing context or the contradictory stories that anything is omitted from the Prophecy itself. DD can make Trelawney rise from the Pensieve and speak the Prophecy out of context, but I don't see how he could cause her to omit words or sentences, nor do I think he would lie to Harry by telling him that he knows the complete Prophecy if that were untrue. Carol, choosing to blame the gods or daemons (not demons!) of inspiration for any lapses in inspired!Trelawney's sentence structure if it isn't the result of typecoding or copyediting :-) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Apr 30 19:35:07 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:35:07 -0000 Subject: Merope (wasLily the popular girl) In-Reply-To: <011c01c78a99$74ce3950$41ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168138 Magpie: > Isn't Dumbledore saying to Harry that he can't expect from Merope > what he could expect from his own courageous mother, comparing the > two? Merope's ultimate despair still seems like something he's > saying would not afflict someone with courage. At least I think > that's what people react negatively to in the line when they do. > It's just hard to hear it for me and not have it sound > condescending or judgmental. Being a courageous person doesn't make > one immune to depression... Jen: I definitely think he's comparing the two and does consider Lily to have more courage, although I didn't quite take his assessment to mean a courageous person could be immune to despair or depression. Dumbledore doesn't say Merope is without courage, just that he believed Lily to be the more courageous of the two. And DD doesn't definitively say what led to Merope not using magic to save herself: maybe she stopped using her powers because she no longer wanted to be a witch after Tom Sr. walked out, maybe it was despair that sapped her powers. The end result is Dumbledore doesn't know the full story (which begs the question how he knew she chose to die other than the story calling for it?!?). I'm guessing part of the problem with DD's explanation is the same thing that bothered people when JKR said in an interview that Lily's bravery was of a 'higher caliber' than James' bravery. By hanging her story on Lily's tremendous courage and ranking everyone else below her, it's hard for a reader, for me, to assess whether I personally agree Lily is more couragous because I've hardly seen the woman!! Magpie: > Although ironically for me that line of Dumbledore's actually > seemed to validate it in a strange way. Because it was sort of > saying that Merope had chosen to die despite magic offering life. Jen: Yeah, I agree. I believe it must be one of those fine distinctions Dumbledore is so good at making because JKR wouldn't want that to be the implication for her story. I'm reminded of the Force and how a Jedi can be healed by the Force, but they can't be brought back from death or dying. And on another thread just now the point was made that Fawkes couldn't heal Dumbledore's hand because it was dead and not capable of returning to health. Those types of ideas are behind my thinking that Merope was dying from starvation and exposure when she reached the orphanage, things she possibly could have remedied with magic, and not that she could have brought herself back from death or near-death with magic as Riddle, Jr., believes is possible. Jen From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 19:41:27 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:41:27 -0000 Subject: DH info on the Marauders and Snape was Nitwit Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168139 > wynnleaf: > > 1. JKR is not writing, nor going to write, "The Exhaustive History > of the Marauders and Snape" which covers their day-to-day activities > throughout school. So whatever she actually puts down on the page, > that's all we'll have to go by. No amount of suppositions ("Snape > could have been hexing people constantly. Just because we're not > told doesn't mean he wasn't," is no argument at all once the 7th > book is published. It's hardly any argument now. Because all we > have to go on is what we're told. And if we're given no evidence or > hint of a thing, we can't just suppose it to be true. Neri: I suspect we need to take into consideration some plot constraints here. >From the ending of GoF, throughout OotP and up to the ending of HBP, JKR had invested a lot of effort in selling us Snape as the "good guy if not a nice guy" type, all ingeniously planned so the tower scene would come as a greater shock. She certainly managed to convince most of us (myself included) with this view of Snape. In fact she did such a great job at it that many fans still remain convinced even after the end of HBP. One of her most brilliant and effective methods was planting suggestions that poor Severus was an abused child and teenager, especially bullied by the Marauders. This was clearly one of her main objectives in the Worst Memory scene. Therefore anything we see or conclude from this scene is under suspicion, and should be taken with a big grain of salt. Several key details in this scene that initially looked very bad for the Marauders and good for Severus have already underwent unexpected reversals since then: the jinx that James had used for humiliating Severus turned out to be a very common practical joke at the time, used by everyone on everyone, and in fact started by Severus himself. OTOH the jinx that Severus used on James, which JKR deliberately downplayed in the original scene (both James, Sirius and Lily completely ignore the blood on James's face, as if it doesn't exist!) later turns out to be a potentially lethal Dark curse ? which Severus had invented himself and marked "for enemies". The Worst Memory pensieve scene is demonstratively the creation of a master manipulator at work. Believe it at your own risk. Just ask yourself: when Harry investigates Lupin and Sirius about the incident in OotP, why doesn't either of them answer him: "look Harry, I know what you saw looks bad, but you have to take it in context. What you don't know is that at that time everyone was dangling everyone else by their feet". Why does Lupin only tell Harry this interesting fact a year later??? The obvious (in retrospect) answer is that in OotP it was very important for JKR to create the impression that Severus was bullied by the Marauders and that this was one-sided. Only in HBP she's starting to plant counter clues that this wasn't necessarily like that, so that after the tower we can't blame her of cheating. However, plot constraints are not easy to handle. The big shock of the tower scene must take place only in the end of HBP. Before that scene JKR can't reverse the view of good-if-not-nice Snape completely because it will spoil the big surprise, and after that she isn't left with enough page time to tidy all the details. So we might still be stuck with some leftovers from the Poor Bullied Severus story that weren't taken care of. But this doesn't mean they won't be in DH, when Lupin has enough time and is finally free to tell us the whole story the way it really was without JKR limiting him because of plot considerations. We might find out that when Lily asks "what's he ever done to you?" she's just being argumentative because she wouldn't admit her crush on James, and the reason everybody laughs when James answers "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean" is because everybody knows he's answering ironically instead of stating the obvious: that our little Dark Arts expert here has been trying to get us expelled ever since we arrived at this school. Of course, I don't expect the Marauders to emerge out of DH as little saints. They were far from that, and one of them has canonically gone very bad since. However, I think it is significant that the one who went bad wasn't the one actively taking place in the Worst Memory incident. It was the coward, not the bullies. Which suggests to me that there were some good reasons to be afraid of poor Severus even then. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 19:59:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:59:00 -0000 Subject: Did Peter used Harry's wand to transform into a rat in the book? WAS: Movie In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39EAB@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168140 Liz wrote: > > In the book, didn't Petter steal Harry's wand to turn back into a rat? If not, then sorry, I'm mistaken. But I was just thinking that even though he was tied up, he could have turned into a rat at anytime to get away. So if that's true, then maybe if you force someone to come out, then they need a wand to turn back. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. James replied: > That seems like a plausible explanation. The spell cast against peter was some kind of Animagus ability blocker. He used the wand to remove it, not to transform. He was just able to transform naturally afterwards. Carol responds to both: Maybe it's time to look at the canon itself. The spell cast on Pettigrew turns him aback into a man (see my posts arguing that this is the Homorphus Charm), but nothing is said about the spell blocking Wormtail's ability to turn back into a rat. In fact, Black specifically threatens him, saying, "But if you transform, Peter, we *will* kill you" (PoA Am. ed. 376). Lupin later reinforces this threat with, "One wrong move, Peter" (380). They have wands; he doesn't. They've already shown that they're willing to kill him. So Peter has no choice but to go along with them while they're in human form. But when Lupin transforms into a werewolf, he wrenches free of the manacle attaching him to Wormtail, who is now half-free. Black transforms into a dog to protect the kids from the werewolf, and Pettigrew seizes the opportunity to grab Lupin's wand, not to transform himself into a rat, but to attack the others, starting with Ron (to whom he's still shackled) and Crookshanks (who'll chase after him--and no doubt eat him--if he transforms): "Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang--a burst of light--and Ron lay motionless on the ground. Another bang--Crookshanks flew into the air and back to the earth in a heap" (381). Harry shouts "Expelliarmus!" and disarms him but Wormtail transforms and escapes. He acquires Voldemort's wand at some point between this scene and the murder of Bertha Jorkins, but he is still wandless at this point. Carol, noting that transformation into an Animagus form, like Tonks's Metamorphmagus abilities, is wandless magic From squeaker19450 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 19:40:05 2007 From: squeaker19450 at yahoo.com (barb burke) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Maraurders/he exists Message-ID: <958956.87952.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168141 Some of the posters to this group forget that when asked by Lily, I believe, why Severus was tormented by the Mararuders, the reply was in essence "just because he exists," not because he did anything which I'm sure they would have been more than happy to enumerate. Barb From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Mon Apr 30 21:22:55 2007 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:22:55 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168142 So, if magic in Rowling serves to put into kids hands the tools kids in the real world don't have, tools to change things in their world, to influence society at large, especially when the grown-ups are powerless to do so themselves, when their Order of the Phoenix has fallen behind the times, and cannot influence the powers that be, from within or from without - at least, to our eyes, and in spite of how vigilant the theOrder is - this particular development in the narrative coincides, when Rowling was writing the book, with large, newsworthy anti-globalization protests in the real world, then 9/11 and so forth. The Canadian Naomi Klein writes closest to the idea I identify in Rowling - it is leftism at its least scary and most attractive to the mainstream. The DA begins as an educational organization - practicing arts forbidden them, all with the purpose of teaching students how to defend themselves from dangers they know are real, and many of their families know are real, but which the state denies - just as the state denied for decades global warming and so forth. In Harry Potter, the evil of segragation, nationalist chauvanism, racism and extremism, as signified by the DE, sharing as it does elements of all these, all elements practiced in the rest of the witchwizard world to a lesser extent - as demonstrated in the history of creature rights, for example, in OotP - are tackled head on by the students. Their story is the story, again I say, of the raw emotional integrity of youth, which stumbles in its unpracticed way toward verity. Magic in Rowling provides the potential for the author to talk in an exceedingly partisan manner about the banality of denial, the inadequacy of normal, static institutions to deal with abuse of the system itself, and the need for more than just vigilance, the need for direct, uncompromising action. dan From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 30 21:54:25 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:54:25 -0000 Subject: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168143 Dan: > Magic in Rowling provides the potential for the author to talk in an > exceedingly partisan manner about the banality of denial, the > inadequacy of normal, static institutions to deal with abuse of the > system itself, and the need for more than just vigilance, the need for > direct, uncompromising action. > Pippin: However, when the DA attempts to move beyond defense and take direct action, it fails spectacularly, and we are told that the mission was not only a failure but should never have been undertaken at all. "you should never have believed for an instant that there was any need for you to go to the Department of Mysteries tonight." If you want a clue to Rowling's politics, I suggest looking at the names of the Order members, many of which are associated with the Fabian Society. The Fabians were indeed leftist, promoting radical social change, but believed that meaningful change could come about only gradually and by peaceful means. Pippin From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Apr 30 21:54:21 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:54:21 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168144 Carol responds: > It is possible, for example, that the > Marauders' treatment of him played some role in pushing him toward > the Dark side--an unintended consequence, naturally. Dana: And his fascination for the Dark Arts had nothing to do with it? I rest my case Carol, and it is making excuses for someone's personal choices by trying to reason that he might have made these choices because he was pushed towards it due someone treating him unfairly when he was young. Now we only have to wait for Neville or Harry to put on a mask because Snape treated them unfairly too. Carol responds: > We don't know enough about Snape's motives in HBP or the argument in > the forest to support an assertion of this sort. Snape may have been > arguing against DD's decision not to thwart Draco ("You take too > much for granted!") He put Draco's friends in detention (and > probably used Legilimency on them). He forced Draco to talk to him > in his office and he found out as much as he could (probably more > than we think but not about the Vanishing Cabinet itself because of > Draco's Occlumency). He apparently reported the whole conversation > to DD, who implies to Harry that he knows more than Harry does > about it. Beyond that, we don't know. Dana: It doesn't matter what his motives where, he couldn't do anything to actively prevent Draco trying to kill DD, because the moment he would do that the vow would kick in because Draco would fail his task. That is what canon tells us and because Snape could not control Draco because of the vow, his action put the entire school at risk if Draco somehow succeeded to bring in the DEs. And as canon stands now Snape omitted telling DD about the vow because DD is still telling Draco that he doesn't believe Snape actually took one but just would tell Draco this to win his trust. So DD was counting on Snape to deal with the situation while Snape actually couldn't do anything. Carol: > "Might have helped"? He *saved Katie Bell's life* (and presumably > removed the curse from the necklace as well). You know, an honest > concession once in awhile would show that you're looking at both > sides of the argument, not just seeing what you want to see. Dana: I couldn't be more honest about my concessions if I wanted to because you know, I looked at it both ways and came to the conclusion the man should have been on top of things from the beginning of the school year so incidents like these would not have happened but he can't do anything because he made a vow not to interfere. He was just lucky it wasn't too late for Kathy and he had no choice but to help Kathy because if she had died then Draco was guilty of murder and he was just cleaning up his mess, just as much as it was his duty to help, it is not some admirable choice he made to help Kathy, he couldn't just stand around and let the girl die. He knew about Draco's task before the school year began so he knew that Draco would be going to try to murder someone and because he doesn't know how Draco is going to attempt it, this would increase the risk of an innocent person inadvertently coming in harms way. And unless DH proofs Snape was lying that he knew the task Draco was asked to do, there is no reason to assume he did not, because canon says he did know. And as we see him appear within seconds of Harry's attack on Draco, there is also nothing to support Snape wasn't actually aware of Draco's activities and to me it suggest he was willingly risking the lives of many people because he could not do anything because of the vow. His intentions of taking the vow do absolutely not matter because it does not make it okay to risk the lives of many to safe just one (either his own or Draco) Carol: > On page? Of course not (except for the points I've listed). We don't > know what Snape and DD did or suspected (aside from connecting Draco > to the cursed necklace and discouraging him from similar tactics in > future) because we're seeing from Harry's pov and JKR is keeping > Snape mysterious. Dana: Yes, there we have it the Harry filter excuse to explain the man's actions. We do not see Spinner's End through the Harry Filter now do we? No, we actually see him mock DD and his stupid trust, claim to be responsible for two Order Member's death and claiming to know all about Draco's task. You might not want to believe it and assume he was lying but canon never came up with proof that he was actually lying. On the contrary, him AKing DD of the astronomy tower pretty much supports his claim about DD being an old fool for trusting him. You can bend it anyway you like by questioning everything the book actually says but for now that is canon and unless JKR turns it around in DH, this is what we have. Carol: > would claiming not to know how to save her have lost him his job. > (On a side note, we see Snape's Healing skills, unsuspected until > now,over and over again in HBP, starting with the ring Horcrux. I > will be very surprised if they don't play a crucial role in DH > Otherwise, why introduce them in HBP?) Dana: We do not see Snape's healing skills we see him use his skills of the Dark Arts and his knowledge of Dark Curses. You might think it is an admirable trait but I think it proves Snape DID have a fascination for the Dark Arts as has been suggested. (And in my opinion why it was added not because he will put on a white coat and play doctor in DH) So it is actually your opinion that Snape has potential as a healer but there is no proof in canon that he can mend bones or heal the sick. He just can neutralize Dark Curses, one by his own invention I might add. Carol: > That does not prevent him > from repeatedly risking his life, canonically, to spy on Voldemort > or save Harry and friends. Dana: As I said in previous posts we do not see Snape repeatedly risking his live because he never puts his cover at risk and even a fellow DE accuses him of this. Him going to LV in GoF was not putting himself in more risk then not going and he actually had more chances facing LV then by defying him. Otherwise we do not have any canon support that any of his actions put himself at risk. Yes, he took the vow but we see him running as fast as he can to not drop dead. Canon does not support any alternative reading it is merely opinion to not want to take canon at face value and as you said opinion means nothing if you can't support it by canon ;) Carol: > And if Snape wasn't trying to get the DEs out of the castle and > grounds after he killed DD, why did he keep yelling, "It's over! > Let's go!"? If all he cared about was his own life, he could have > just grabbed Draco and left the DEs to their own devices. Instead, > he stopped them from Crucioing Harry and made sure that they left. Dana: It is your opinion that he said it to get the DEs out of the castle as fast as he could, it could very well be for their own protection because like he says later we have to hurry before the MoM shows up. Him taking control could also have just made him feel more important; make him feel like a leader with no hidden motif of shaving Harry. Snape gives an explanation himself on why he is not harming Harry or let him be harmed, "have you forgotten the Dark Lords orders, Potter belongs to the Dark Lord." I am not going into this discussion again as we have been through this multiple times there is no canon to support your claim that Snape did it because he wanted to keep everyone including Harry safe and therefore it falls in the category of opinion and wishful thinking that canon might be disputed in the next book but for now canon is not very supportive of a DDM!Snape, Harry filter or not. Carol: > You know, your sarcasm isn't helping your argument. Needling the > opposition is unlikely to persuade us to share your view. Dana: No, it might not but it is actually fun to write and I am not trying to persuade anyone because my opinion can be given regardless if someone agrees with it, because I can interpret canon any way I like just like you. Everyone is entitled to skip my posts if they don't like the sarcasm. Carol: > How were they supposed to anticipate *that*? Dana: Because it would be Snape's task to be on top of things, if Harry can find out Draco is up to something in the RoR then so could Snape. He knew Draco's task and Snape implies he knows the DEs orders too with reminding the DEs of it. How can he tell the DEs, it is over, if he doesn't know the Orders they have, maybe the Dark Lord ordered them to kill as many students and teachers as they could but we actually see the DEs reacting to Snape and not dispute his claims. So at this moment it is suggested that Snape knew it was Draco's task to bring DEs in to the castle, Snape just did not know how he would manage it. He immediately knows without being told the action can be found on the tower, how does he know that? No Order Member knew DD and Harry were up there, yet Snape knows exactly where to find them. And still we have to believe he was taken totally by surprise and was not able to find out what Draco was up to while again as stated above he is there within a second after Harry attacks Draco. Carol: > *I'm* sorry, but the vow put no one at risk except Snape himself and > Dumbledore. Dana: We don't see Snape risking his life because of the vow because he finishes the task to prevent himself from dying and again canon does not support the claim he killed DD for any other reason. What we do see is Snape not doing anything to prevent Draco from performing his task and we see that Draco's attempts has already put two students at risk. The moment Snape took the vow he made himself incapable of keeping anyone safe besides Draco and himself. That is willingly putting other students at risk by making yourself incapable to act. You might want to believe that saving Draco is worth more then the lives of other people (including DD) but I do not and him taking the vow does precisely that. Carol: > You can't blame Snape for allowing a werewolf behind Hogwarts walls. > It's Draco who let him in and Voldemort, presumably, who sent him. > Snape had nothing to do with it. Dana: Snape should have made it his business to know these things because he is foremost a spy for the Order but him taking the vow prevents him from acting out because he can't make Draco fail his task and he promised Naricissa to keep her son from harm so Draco not being able to succeed bringing DEs in to the castle would be a sure death for Draco but Snape would not be able to let LV harm Draco, so it would mean Snape dies if he prevents Draco from succeeding that too, not just taking over killing DD. Snape had everything to do with Draco performing his task because he had to know to keep himself alive. To me Snape was responsible because he knew Draco's task from the start and as Draco implies himself bringing DEs in to the castle was part of this task from the beginning too and thus him taking the vow prevented Snape from keeping Draco from doing so and this makes him equally responsible just as people are claiming Lupin was responsible for not telling DD about Sirius being an animagus and him being able to enter the castle while Lupin did not open the door for him to enter it either. Snape willingly chose to take the vow and therefore he willingly let things happen as they happened and that makes him just as responsible for the attack taking place that night. And as it stands now, canon does NOT support some mysterious motif on Snape's part that will serve the greater good. It is just reader interpretation and thus opinion that there must be something more to it and sure it can be we'll have to wait and see but it surely isn't at this very moment. Dana: > The only difference Snape's arrival makes is that he is > forced to do the killing (a nice plot complication) and he sends > DD's body off the tower as no DD would do, preventing Greyback from > having DD for "afters" and allowing enough time for Snape to clear > the tower so that Harry doesn't come rushing out. Imagine the scene > without Snape. Dana: Imagine the scene without a vow hanging over Snape's head and it would look totally different too. You are implying Snape blasted DD of the tower because Greyback would feed on his death body while there is no canon to support that Greyback ever fed on death old man. He has a taste for little children as we see him try taking a bite out of Harry. And it is just opinion that it was Snape preventing this. The problem is Carol, you accuse me of not taking an honest concession but you are guilty of that too by just adding things to canon that aren't actually there but must be there because you believe Snape to be DDM. Snape takes precisely less then have half a page to enter the scene and blast DD of the tower that is it. There is no proof he knew Harry was there or that he knew were DD has been or what he would be doing that night and that Snape knew he took Harry with him. We see in the shrieking shack that with just one spell you can disarm everyone and we see him throw robes out of his wand in a blink of an eye. He could have secured the tower scene but he doesn't because he would have died. And it is still also not canon that DD would actually have died from the potion, he drank in the cave. He actually suggests himself it doesn't kill you. It was still Snape taking the vow that forced the events on the tower to occur as they did. It is just your interpretation that Snape did everything to safe Harry that night but Snape actually leaves before the other DEs do and it makes it possible for Greyback to attempt to attack Harry. The blond DE is still able to kill Harry if Harry hadn't evaded the AK thrown at him. Well I'll stop here and want to make the suggestion you take your own advice to heart and re-read the chapters your self with an honest concession of both sides of the argument. Carol: > A sixteen-year-old boy deserved to be bitten by a werewolf? No > matter what his "contribution," he didn't deserve that. Dana: That is not what I said I said that I would understand that if Snape indeed had gotten bitten then he brought it on to himself. And maybe he indeed would have deserved the consequences of his own actions because he went there to take revenge on fellow students (who did not deserve to get expelled either just because Snape hated them). To me Snape had every reason to know that there was something very dangerous about Lupin and why he was being hidden away from the rest of the school, behind a murderous tree no less and if Snape still found it more important to get these students expelled then to accept the reasons for these precautions, then there is no reason for Sirius to feel responsible for it. Every action has its consequences and James prevented Snape meeting his. If you get in a car while you have been drinking and you drive yourself into a tree and lose the use of your legs because of it then it was your own responsibility even if someone had lent you that car to make it possible for you to drive one while you were drunk, it is still your own choice to do so. Most people know it is dangerous and when someone does then most people will just say he deserved what he got for getting behind the wheel while drunk. It is the same with Snape going after Lupin while he could have known it would be dangerous but he went anyway and I think the reason for it has been implied by Sirius that he did it to get the marauders expelled. JMHO Dana From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Apr 30 22:11:40 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:11:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The one... to vanquish... approaches.... The one... to vanquish will be born In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1482511057.20070430151140@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168145 Carol: j> DD can make Trelawney rise from the Pensieve and speak the j> Prophecy out of context, but I don't see how he could cause her to j> omit words or sentences, nor do I think he would lie to Harry by j> telling him that he knows the complete Prophecy if that were untrue. Dave: I agree. The narrative indicates that DD pulled the memory directly from his head and into the Pensieve, in front of Harry. So he had no opportunity to censor the memory a la Slughorn; and therefore I think we can assume we've heard the Prophecy "uncut and commercial-free". Dave From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Mon Apr 30 21:08:37 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:08:37 -0000 Subject: The size of the Wizarding World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168147 This is my first post to the group so please forgive me if this subject has been discussed at length already. I can never work out how big the wizarding world is meant to be. It is said that Professor Lupin has been unable to find employment because he is a werewolf yet no-one in Hogwarts seems to know that he is a werewolf apart from the teachers. When Snape lets it slip at the end of term that Lupin is a werewolf he tells Harry that he must leave because a lot of parents will be sending owls saying that they don't want someone like him teaching their children. One would think that one of the parents might already know that Lupin is a werewolf. sylviampj From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 30 23:10:28 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:10:28 -0000 Subject: Excusing Snape of any responsibility ( was Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168148 > >>Dana: > > And as canon stands now Snape omitted telling DD about the vow > because DD is still telling Draco that he doesn't believe Snape > actually took one but just would tell Draco this to win his trust. Betsy Hp: Not canon actually, Dana. As she's done many time before, JKR leaves things rather murky when it comes to our Professor Snape. Which is why he's still so much fun to talk about. > >>Dana: > So DD was counting on Snape to deal with the situation while Snape > actually couldn't do anything. Betsy Hp: This statement confuses me. Are you saying Snape was the main player in HBP, and Dumbledore was sort of stumbling along in his wake? That Dumbledore knew something big was going down and just assumed Snape would take care of it all? That doesn't really jell with the charater of Dumbledore up until now. IMO, anyway. > >>Dana: > > You can bend it anyway you like by questioning everything the book > actually says but for now that is canon and unless JKR turns it > around in DH, this is what we have. Betsy Hp: One of the reasons I'm "smugly sure" (tm) that Snape is DDM is because JKR *loves* to turn things around in the end. Honestly, if Snape was supposed to be evil in the end, I'd have expected HBP to end with Snape saving the day and everyone singing his praises. > >>Dana: > We do not see Snape's healing skills we see him use his skills of > the Dark Arts and his knowledge of Dark Curses. > Betsy Hp: I'm going to differ with you on this one. For one, I think healing magical maladies *requires* a certain knowledge of the dark arts and dark curses (a well known healer from St. Mungo's is famous for inventing a disemboweling spell, IIRC). Sort of like a good surgeon is an expert at tearing up the human body. For another, Snape does *heal* Draco's ripped open body, and he does so by singing the healing spell. Which, given the presence of a phoenix with his own song of healing, sounds fairly good to me. > >>Dana: > You might want to believe that saving Draco is worth more then the > lives of other people (including DD) but I do not and him taking > the vow does precisely that. Betsy Hp: What I find interesting is that *Dumbledore* sees Draco's life as worth more than his own. (And possibly Katie's and Ron's, which is a problem, I agree, but more with Dumbledore than Snape, since Dumbledore is purportedly running this particular show.) > >>Dana: > > I said that I would understand that if Snape indeed had gotten > bitten then he brought it on to himself. And maybe he indeed would > have deserved the consequences of his own actions because he went > there to take revenge on fellow students (who did not deserve to > get expelled either just because Snape hated them). Betsy Hp: While I do wonder what the Marauders did to cause Snape to hate them (and vice verse, for that matter) I do agree that canon is fairly quiet about the origins of the enmity. JKR drops plenty of delicious hints that we're free to run with. But she's never giving a crystal clear "and so it began" kind of reason. I'm not sure that she ever will, quite frankly. I don't know that we need one. However, Snape trying to catch the Marauders in wrong doing doesn't seem equal to him deserving death, IMO. Nor does it seem equal to Lupin becoming both a murderer and a cannibal. Which is what bothers me most about the "Snape would have gotten what was coming to him" argument. I mean, even if one agrees that Snape deserved to be attacked and ravaged by a werewolf for sneaking about after the Marauders (as Harry sneaks about after Draco in a few different books), Lupin is still going to get hurt. Best case scenario he's a bit hungry and eats enough of Snape that the remains are easy to hide the morning after. (And wouldn't *that* make a wonderful wake up call for Lupin.) Worst case, Lupin is "put down" (read executed) for killing a wizard, Dumbledore is thrown into Azkaban for putting his students into so much danger, and anti-werewolf laws are made even more stringent. > >>Dana: > To me Snape had every reason to know that there was something very > dangerous about Lupin and why he was being hidden away from the > rest of the school, behind a murderous tree no less and if Snape > still found it more important to get these students expelled then > to accept the reasons for these precautions, then there is no > reason for Sirius to feel responsible for it. Every action has its > consequences and James prevented Snape meeting his. > Betsy Hp: The problem I have with this sort of argument (and it's a very popular one for the Prank, unfortunately) is that it suggests that the only person with any sort of personal responsibility in this scenario is Snape. Now, I'm a Snape fan, but even I have trouble giving him a stronger moral or ethical sense and a greater intelligence than Sirius. Because honestly, I doubt James was motivated totally by the urge to protect Snape (though I do suspect James realized that Snape's actual *life* was in danger, while that never seemed to occur to Sirius). I suspect James was also motivated to protect Sirius from the consequences of Sirius's actions. Actions that would have probably landed Sirius in Azkaban. (Oh, and Lupin too, of course.) I do think Snape was responsible for his own lack of caution. But shouldn't Sirius have some responsibility here too? And if the feeling is that Snape dying would have been just desserts (sneaking around to find out what fellow students are up to is something only *Gryffindors* are allowed to do ), then a sixteen year old Sirius spending the rest of his life in Azkaban for a crime he was actually guilty for is also Sirius's just desserts. Personally, I think both boys were in over their heads, and more than one innocent life was saved that night. Yay Prongs! Um, again! Only earlier! Betsy Hp (loves Snape, and loves the amount of emotion Snape can raise in people) From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Apr 30 23:22:36 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:22:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40704301622x478fff17k9fdaa3fcff664e67@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 168149 On 4/30/07, tbernhard2000 wrote: > > So, if magic in Rowling serves to put into kids hands the tools kids > in the real world don't have, tools to change things in their world, > to influence society at large, especially when the grown-ups are > powerless to do so themselves, when their Order of the Phoenix has > fallen behind the times, and cannot influence the powers that be, from > within or from without - at least, to our eyes, and in spite of how > vigilant the theOrder is - this particular development in the > narrative coincides, when Rowling was writing the book, with large, > newsworthy anti-globalization protests in the real world, then 9/11 > and so forth. The Canadian Naomi Klein writes closest to the idea I > identify in Rowling - it is leftism at its least scary and most > attractive to the mainstream. montims: I don't think that events like 9/11, or late 20th century/early 21st century events had much, if any, impact on the books at all. JKR had already conceived the backstory, and mapped out all 7 books, when PS was published. If anything, the books look back, via Enid Blyton, Elinor Brent-Dyer and the rest, to the likes of WW2 and the developments leading up to that. IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Apr 30 23:46:37 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:46:37 -0000 Subject: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 168150 Alla: > And of course that famous quote. > "sirius told me all about how they became Animagi > last night," said Dumbledore, smiling. "An extraordinary > achievement - not least keeping that quiet from me" - p.312, PoA. > Dumbledore does not sound too upset to me here either > after learning this information. If his trust had been > betrayed, shouldn't he had been more upset? houyhnhnm: Dumbledore is a master of understatement. He doesn't sound too upset here either: "Very good," murmured Dumbledore. "So the Death Eaters were able to pass from Borgin and Burkes into the school to help you . . . A clever plan, a very clever plan . . . and, as you say, right under my nose." I can almost hear the tone of voice, the one that would make my gluteus muscles contract if he were my boss.