World Building And The Potterverse/Who was responsible for Sirius' death

[sistermagpie]

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